household hazardous waste quantification, characterization ... · the aim of this research is to...

Household Hazardous WasteQuantification, Characterization,and Management in Developing Countries’Cities: A Case Study

Waseem M. W. Al-Tamimi, Issam A. Al-Khatib, andStamatia Kontogianni

ContentsIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Description of the Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Households’ Sample Size Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Data Collection Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5HHW Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Sample Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Solid Waste Management in Hebron City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Risk Assessment of Household Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Demographic Factors’ Effect on HHW Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Hazardous Components of Hebron City Household Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12HHW Recorded Management Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Conclusion and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Cross-Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

W. M. W. Al-TamimiFaculty of Graduate Studies, Birzeit University, Birzeit, West Bank, Palestine

Faculty of Graduate Studies, Birzeit University, Hebron, Palestinee-mail: [email protected]

I. A. Al-Khatib (*)Institute of Environmental and Water Studies, Birzeit University, Birzeit, West Bank, Palestinee-mail: [email protected]

S. KontogianniLaboratory of Heat Transfer and Environmental Engineering, Department of MechanicalEngineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greecee-mail: [email protected]

# Springer International Publishing AG 2018C. M. Hussain (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Materials Management,https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58538-3_15-1

1

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/978-3-319-58538-3_15-1&domain=pdf

mailto:[email protected]



https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58538-3_15-1

AbstractThe aim of this research is to assess household hazardous waste (HHW)management in Hebron city, Palestine, investigating the HHW types and pro-portions. In parallel the level of awareness of household heads in regard toknowledge of risks and hazards associated with HHW items is investigatedthrough a comprehensive survey. Also, analysis of the total generated solidwaste was carried out during a 14-working-day period to detect different HHWcomponents and their proportions.

Home products constitute the largest percentage of HHW (42.3%), followedby automotive products (17.2%) and personal care products (15.4%) andhealthcare products (12.3%). Personal care products are the most category ofHHW that is thrown randomly (78.7%).

Socioeconomic factors were related to attitudes and practices of citizens inregard to HHW. Overall results show the great risk associated with HHW giventhat under aged are transferring SW from home to container (40.2%) with highinvolved risk of accident; containers in some cases are more than 150 m awayfrom home (19%) increasing the aforementioned potential risk. In 18.5% ofhouses, there was an accident related to HHW risks which are, namely, injuries(42%), poisoning (36%), burns (22%), etc.

KeywordsHazardous waste · Household · Management · Separate collection · Survey

Introduction

HHW is the unused, discarded, component of household wastes that containchemicals of toxic nature or labeled poisonous, flammable, reactive, explosive, orcorrosive ones. There are different products normally used in households which havethese characteristics, such as pesticides, unused medicines, antifreeze, oil-basedpaints, and battery solvents (Bound et al. 2006; Weidenhame et al. 2010;Kontogianni et al. 2013; Inglezakis and Moustakas 2015; Delgado et al. 2007;Elston 2010; Court et al. 2015; Couto et al. 2013).

This waste category includes automotive products such as motor oil (whichbears numerous heavy metals, e.g., lead, arsenic, zinc, hydrocarbons, cadmium,and chromium), fluorescent tubes, electrical equipment, batteries containing heavymetals (Terazono et al. 2015), waste electronic, wood that had been treated withhazardous materials, discarded CFC-containing equipment (Slack et al. 2005; Guet al. 2014), cleaning products, paint, and pesticides (Kontogianni et al. 2013).

The HHW stream components due to their hazardous toxic characteristics mayadversely affect environment when handling, transferring, or disposing, so theyshould be disposed in a special procedure (Hassanvand et al. 2011; USEPA 2005;Agricultural Research and Cooperative Extension 2014) as well as pollute bothsurface water and groundwater and in turn wildlife biodiversity. So they should be

2 W. M. W. Al-Tamimi et al.

collected separately to other domestic waste. The disposal of HHW is and will be ahot issue for solid waste managers and concerned parties (Wagner et al. 2013). Thisway the less we can achieve is to decrease the management difficulties associatedwith this type of waste when landfilled, that is, reduce chemical emissions and leaksto the environment (Fjelsted and Christensen 2007; Kies Strategies et al. 2008;Rosenfeld and Feng 2011). It is confirmed that most of the HHW (80%) will remaintoxic for centuries causing threatening effect and risk of contamination and landpollution of soil and ground at any time. So proper disposal of HHW is a necessityfor present generation and for future generations (Ortego et al. 1995). HHW man-agement requires a protocol of actions which include reducing, storing, collecting,transporting, utilizing, processing, and disposing of toxic and hazardous waste(Aprilia et al. 2013).

Every household contributes to hazardous waste by some mean or another. Thereis still a many of arguments regarding this issue worldwide; how hazardous waste isproduced, how it is collected, and what is its destiny are still a hot issue, and it isunder the spot (Burnley et al. 2007; Duan et al. 2008).

According to EU legislation, certain HHW items belong to this category asthey are “materials resulting from selective waste collections from households andwhich exhibit any of the characteristics listed in Annex III” of the Council Directiveon HaW (91/689) bearing properties such as explosive, oxidizing, flammable,irritant, harmful, toxic, carcinogenic, corrosive, infectious, teratogenic, ecotoxic,etc. (Kontogianni et al. 2013). There is a wide range of HHW which are not takeninto account when sustainable management programs are implemented (Slack et al.2004). The latter reveals regulation shortage, so the HHW sustainable managementis still covered by more generic legislation related to hazardous waste. This leads intoHHW following the disposal route of MSW rather than this of hazardous wastecreating, this way, future potential environmental risks and health impacts(Kontogianni et al. 2013).

Even though HHW is a small fraction compared to the total domestic waste, theimpacts and risks to public health and environmental conditions are severe. Thepercentage of HHW varies from country to country, and it also varies in the samecountry depending on many factors. But, as a rule of thumb, the percentage will bebetween 1% and 4% of the domestic waste. In most countries co-disposal of MSWwith HHW is taking place with all the risks encountered in the long as well as in theshort run. Another source of hazard of the HHW in addition to its properties is itscapability to react with MSW and change it in turn into HHW and thus duplicatingthe problem and increasing the threat to the environment (Slack and Letcher 2011).

As solid and hazardous waste generation increases with population growth andindustrialization, solid waste management (SWM), which broadly encompasses bothurban solid and hazardous waste streams, must deal with problems of waste allevi-ation, collection, composting, recycling, combustion, and/or final disposal (Kelleyet al. 1989). One or more of these activities may be used in order that best protectionof our environment and society is achieved implementing integrated solid wastemanagement (ISWM) activities (Fikri et al. 2015). Nevertheless, multidisciplinaryand complex nature of integrated solid waste management challenges makes it

Household Hazardous Waste Quantification, Characterization, and Management. . . 3

difficult to generate a systematic solution that can cover all aspects of cost, risk, andfuture challenge in all times that can be applied in all locations (Wei Lu et al. 2012).

Generation of HHW has grown up more in urban areas which is recognizedby high population growth. This increases the difficulties encountered in handling,collecting, and final disposal because of the shortage in financial resources,administrative capacities, infrastructure, as well as necessary equipment. Alarmingincrease in MSW with its HHW component associated with the ineffectiveness inSWM accompanied by change in purchasing habits will make a serious problem andrisk (Otoniel et al. 2008; Ojeda-Benitez et al. 2013; Banerjee et al. 2013).

The citizens are not fully aware of the presence of hazardous and toxic materialsin the domestic waste as well as the involved threat for their health and for theenvironment.

One should start solving the issue of HHW through awareness among all citizens.To this direction campaigns are an appropriate tool toward increasing the publicawareness; society, families, and individuals should know the risks and the threatsassociated with such waste on the long and short run. Trends and attitudes should bedriven to change the habits in order to lower consumption of goods containing theseHHW. Factories and industry should adopt this attitude by choosing materials thathave lower HHW and substances that have lower effects on environment. Thischange is necessary, although it will not be instantaneous, but it has to begin(Ojeda-Benitez et al. 2013).

Additionally the future introduction of a sustainable solid waste managementsystem (SWMS) implementation should take into consideration the hazardous andtoxic components of SW (Aprilia et al. 2013) to make use of the aforementionedcampaign directions presented to citizens.

This study is assessing the current HHW management practices in Hebron city;through a field study, the generated quantity and quality of the HHW streamas determined and the knowledge, attitudes, and perception of household headsconcerning the handling of HHW is identified and commented. The latter constitutesthe base for the introduction of sustainable waste management system in the area.

Methodology

Description of the Study Area

Hebron is an old Palestinian city and is located in a governorate carrying its nameHebron. It lies in the southern region of the West Bank, where Bani Na’im borderedit from the east, Halhoul bordered it from the north, Taffuh bordered it from the west,and Yatta to the south (Applied Research Institute 2009). It is located 36 km south ofJerusalem, and its population was projected to be 195,733 in 2013 (PCBS 2013).The total area of the city is 45 km2; the number of households was 32,622 in 2013(Hebron Municipality 2013).


Households’ Sample Size Identification

The sample size was calculated by the equation proposed by Thompson (2012):

n ¼ N p 1� pð Þ½ �N � d2=z2

� �� þ p 1� pð Þ� �

N: Size of the communityZ: Z-score corresponding to the level of significance equal to 0.95 and 1.96d: The error rate is equal to 0.05p: Success rate, taken as 0.50

The size of community equals 195,733, and after substituting in this equation, thenumber of household questioners required is 383; the questionnaire was distributedto 450 households, and 385 respondents finally participated in the research. Thisoffered a resonance of 85.6% which is considered as a representative percentile forthis research. Analysis of raw data was performed with the application of StatisticalPackage for the Social Sciences (SPSS) computer program – version 18. Appropriatetests of significance using Chi-square test were also performed to find out therelationship among socioeconomic variables and other dependent variables in addi-tion to other statistical parameters.

Data Collection Method

Questionnaires were sent to some citizens, and also face-to-face interviews wereconducted to better understand the characteristics of HHW and get reliable answersfrom them. The questionnaire consisted of three basic parts: first part was aboutdemographic and socioeconomic (dependent) variables and diagnostic questions,second part was about general conditions of SW and HHW collection systemincluding also practices and trends of citizens in this particular area, and the thirdpart dealt with individual types of HHW (items) generated and questions regardingthe description of their disposal method followed.

The first part, which is demographic and socioeconomic questions, resembles theindependent variables such as the type of house (separated or apartment), maritalstatus of respondent, age of housewife, educational level of household owners,employment, the number of family members, monthly/annual income, and numberand age of children.

The second part of questions focuses on general SW issues as condition of nearbycontainer, sufficiency of container size, possibility that the house contains hazardousmaterials related to the employment of parents, location of storing hazardousmaterials, responsibility of SW disposal, frequency of waste disposal, distance ofthe nearest SW container from home, behavior of children near the SW container,and indication of accidents that occurred due to hazardous wastes including bothnature and effect of those accidents.


Third part deals specifically with HHW items; the respondents had to identify thecategory and specific items belonging to HHW category that are generated at theirhouses and also indicate the followed disposal method, e.g., disposal along withdomestic waste, stored for HHW separate disposal, recycling when possible, illegaldisposal.

HHW Classification

Following the field research, an additional 2-month research was conducted todetermine the HHW constituents and proportions within domestic waste. A solidwaste component analysis was carried out during 14-working-day period at Hebronsolid waste transfer station that serves Hebron city during November andDecember 2013.

Random representative samples of the disposed household waste at the transferstation were analyzed. Each day 6–10 samples of 0.5 m3 household wastes wereemptied in a shallow tray band where the solid waste components were categorizedmanually by placing them in a pre-weighted and appropriately labeled trays (onceeach part has been categorized, it was weighted to record its percentage from thetotal household solid waste). The aforementioned was conducted consecutively for14 days resulting into the formation of 115 samples. Then the samples were analyzedin terms of manually sorting individual components following the classificationproposed by Delgado et al. (2007). HHW was classified according to eight catego-ries, as shown in Table 1.

Results and Discussion

Sample Distribution

Table 2 shows the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the surveyedsample based on the type of the house, house ownership status, marital status ofrespondent, educational level, gender, age of house owners, employment, the num-ber of family members, number and age of children, and total income. About 69.1%of respondents were living in independent house, and 30.9% were living in apart-ment. In terms of the house ownership, the highest percentage of respondents ownedtheir house (86.5%), while the rest were living in a rented house (13.5%).

In terms of marital status, the largest slice of respondents were singles (62.3%),while divorced constituted the lowest percentage (1%). About 56.1% of respondentswere males and 43.9% were females.

The age distribution was 40.2% in the group 36–45 years old, 26.0% in the26–35-year-old group, 21.0% in the group older than 45 years old, and 12.9% inthe group less than 25 years old. In general Hebron citizens are relatively young. Theaforementioned is considered to be a privilege for educating and awareness sincethey are usually willing to contribute in changing to sustainable conditions.


The highest percentages of respondents (57.0%) in terms of level of educationwere those who have a Secondary Certificate, while illiteracy is very low (0.8%).This is a good indicator about the level of education of the society; education andawareness campaigns are easily and efficiently conducted, and their results are ofhigh quality since the issued leaflets and bulletin can be read by almost all addressedcitizens.

The highest percentage of respondents (59.0%) was parents and their childrenbetween 8 months and 10 years. This introduces a high-risk indicator associated withchildren injuries occurring from HHW. Palestine in general has a high percentage ofchildren compared to other developed countries. Shortage of awareness regardingthe HHW and its involved risks combined with shortage of playgrounds and kids’clubs increases hazard risk; the children play in unprotected areas, e.g., householdsurrounding areas possibly near containers where injuries from HHW presence arefrequent.

Regarding the level of income, the largest percentage (32.4%) consisted of thosewhose family has a monthly income of 400–600 JD, and the lowest percentage(31.6%) was of those whose monthly family income exceeds 600 JD. As the figuresshow, only one-third of the sample has an income more than 600 JD (i.e.,1 JD = 1.41 USD). Almost two-thirds of the population is low incomed, and thisusually results into high vulnerability to risks due to less information disseminationand insufficient follow-up procedures proposed in organized campaigns.

Table 1 Household hazardous waste categories (Delgado et al. 2007)

1 Automotive products (brake fluid, transmission fluid, auto battery, antifreeze, windshieldwasher, lotion, motor oil, oil filters, metal polish with solvent, fuel oil, diesel, degreasers,kerosene, carburetor, cleaner (fuel injectors), and car wax with solvent)

2 Home products (batteries’ button, rechargeable, shoe polish, bleach, aerosol products,thermometers and thermostats, air fresheners, upholstery, cleaners, fluorescent lights,ammonia-based cleaners, spot removers/carpet, bleach-based cleaners, disinfectants,window/glass cleaner, drain cleaner, floor care materials, metallic polish, cleaners forfurniture, furniture polish with solvents, toilet bowl cleaner, smoke detector with solvents(wax/stripper), cleaners of the oven, pet products, abrasive cleaners or scouring powder)

3 Personal care products isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol), nail polish, hair spray, hairpermanent lotion, hydrogen peroxide, nail polish remover

4 Home improvements latex paint and primer, adhesives and glues (solvent-based), stain andvarnish, furniture stripper, paint and primer, thinner for paint, cleaner from paint on brush,wood preservative, remover of the paint

5 Healthcare waste medical home products

6 Indoor pesticides rodent poisons and bait, ant/cockroach spray and bait

7 Garden and lawn insecticide, fertilizers including weed killer, fungicides, herbicides, usedpesticide containers

8 Miscellaneous pool chemicals, photographic chemicals (diluted/undiluted), art supplies, andammunition


Solid Waste Management in Hebron City

The results of Fig. 1 show that the responsibility of SW disposal is 36.3% by thehead of the house, compared with 40.2% responsibility by the children and 9.5% bythe housewife. Hazard risk is introduced in this action since if children are not awareof how to deal with the SW in case of sack tearing or any other scenario, then theymay be injured and/or exposed to diseases affecting their health. The aforementionedconcerns injuries by needles, exposure to chemicals, hauling toxic materials, etc.Directions and guidance of children are crucial parameters which must be taken intoconsideration.

Figure 2 shows that 61.4% of the households in Hebron city are disposing SWevery day, and 24.9% of the households are disposing them every 2 days. RegularSW disposal decreases the possibility of home storage and decreases the risksassociated with HHW injuries. The introduced risk of SW home storage stands for14% of the population.

Table 2 Surveyed sample distribution analysis

Independent group Percentages

Type of the house Independenthouse

Apartment

69.1% 30.9%

Ownership of the house Rented Owned

13.5% 86.5%

Marital status Single Married Divorced

62.3% 36.6% 1.0%

Educational level ofrespondent

Illiteracy Preliminary Preparatorycertificate

Secondarycertificate

0.8% 13.0% 32.4% 57.0%

Gender Male Female

56.1% 43.9%

Age of housewife Less than 25 26–35 36–45 More than45

12.9% 26.0% 40.2% 21.0%

Type of work housewife Housewifeonly

Working in thegovernmentsector

Working inthe privatesector

77.0% 7.4% 15.6%

The number of individualsresiding in the home

Less than 5 5–7 More than 7

23.0% 49.5% 27.5%

Presence of children of ageranges between 8 months and10 years

Yes No

59.0% 41.0%

Monthly income for the family Less than200 JD

200–400 JD 400–600 JD More than600 JD

9.8% 26.1% 32.4% 31.6%


Figure 3 shows that 53% of the households in Hebron city are at a distance of lessthan 75 m from the nearest solid waste container, compared with 28% of the homesat a distance from 76 to 150 m and 8% having no container nearest to the household.It is a fact that 8% have no container nearby and thus are carrying their garbage to a

Householder36.3%

Housewife9.5%

Children40.2%

Building guard1.4%

All12.6%

Fig. 1 Responsible personfor transferring garbage fromhome to container

Every day62%

Every two days25%

Every three days8%

Every week4%

When there is a need1%

Fig. 2 The disposal of solidwaste from home to container

Less than 75meters

53%76-150 meters28%

More than 150 meters

11%

There is no container

8%

Fig. 3 The distance of thenearest solid container fromthe house


very far site away from their home, or they are disposing them illegally (burningthem in their yards or throwing it randomly on the street). This introduces high risksto those family members as well as their neighbors associated with both SW andHHW hazard.

Risk Assessment of Household Hazardous Waste

To investigate the risks of HHW, the anticipated health and environmental problem,and the relationship between HHWand citizens’ practices in this field, residents wererequested to reply to a set of questions shown in Table 3.

In Hebron city nearly 8.8% of the houses contain hazardous materials which arerelated to the employment of the parents. This is a non-negligible percentage since ifthe house always contains such materials, at any time there is high probability ofan accident occurrence. Awareness rising will activate parents into keepingthese materials away from children, handling them with caution even when theydispose them, and also teaching their children about the hazard introduced fromthose materials. Another risk is introduced if children are playing near the SWcontainer and is calculated to be 27.2% since they may bear infectious, explosive,etc. elements threatening their health. 18.5% of the investigated families included amember who suffered from a HHW accident. This percentage could be less if thecitizens were aware of the hazardous effects and were encouraged to follow safetymeasures during those item handling. Most of the families have at least one child in afamily (59.0%) which constitutes a motivation factor for paying the required atten-tion in this field. In 35.6% of the cases where one member of the family had beeninjured or disposed to HHW, negative psychological effects were noticed for a longperiod of time. The cost of applying preventive measures to prohibit HHWaccidentsis less than cost of treating the effects of the anticipated accidents on the long andshort run.

In case that a HHW accident had occurred, Fig. 4 shows that 57% of thehouseholds started to keep hazardous materials in a safe place after the accidentoccurrence, compared to a percentage of 26% who are no longer storing hazardousmaterial in their homes. But there is a remarkable percentage of 17% who did not take

Table 3 Diagnostic results for risk assessment

Risk factorPercentage(%)

The house contains hazardous materials related to the work of the parents 8.8

Children play with solid waste in nearby containers 27.2

One of the family members had suffered from accident because of hazardoushousehold waste

18.5

Presence of children of age ranges between 8 months and 10 years in the house 59.0

There is negative psychological effect on infected person from HHW 35.6


any action after the accident. This is the category of citizens who should be awakenedto be aware of the potential hazard that they and their children are exposed to.

The adverse effects of HHW may not be immediately spotted, but many types ofHHW can cause injuries, burns, and poisoning. The types of accidents associatedwith hazardous waste in Hebron city as recorded in the frame of this survey are 42%injuries, 36% poisoning, and 22% burns. The highest percentage occurred due tosharp items. The introduced risk is doubled when infectious items exist since theymay contaminate all household members with diseases such as HIV, etc.

Demographic Factors’ Effect on HHW Management

In order to see the effect of different demographic factors on the trend, behavior, andattitude of citizens toward HHW, cross tabulation was carried out between dependent(practice and behavior) and independent (demographic) parameters. If the p-value ofthe test is less than 0.05, then there is a statistically significant relationship betweenthe parameters.

As shown in Table 4, there is a statistically significant relationship regardingwillingness to separate HHW into different components and placed into coloredsacks between single and married citizens. The overall percentage of citizens willingto separate is 64%; singles constitute 60% and married 73%. Perhaps marriedindividuals are committed in those activities more than singles due to the existenceof children in the household or the potential of having one in the future. This is aclear indicator of the required efforts in raising the awareness of singles compared tomarried ones.

It is interesting to note the strong statistical relationship between the number offamily members and the possibility of HHW accident as shown in Table 5. Theoverall percentage of occurrence of HHW accident is 18% and only 10% for five-member families and 26% for five- to seven-member families. Dramatically, thispercentage increases to 34% for family of more than seven members. Larger families

No change17%

Kept in a safe place57%

Not-stored in the house26%

Fig. 4 Keeping and storageof hazardous waste materials


usually create higher-level responsibility for parents, and since time is limited, littleattention is given to measure taking or teaching children regarding the adverseeffects of HHW. To overturn this, great attention must be given to all familymembers, and they must raise their awareness for HHW through informationalcampaigns.

Hazardous Components of Hebron City Household Waste

Total quantity of analyzed SW in this study was 14,562.1 kg out of which140.669 kg was HHW; the average percentage is 0.97%. Table 6 shows the amountof household solid waste in the years 2011 and 2014. The estimated values in 2014are based on the population (estimated by the PCBS for the West Bank and Gaza in2011 and 2014). The HHW quantities in the Palestinian territories in the year 2014were estimated as 0.97% of the household solid waste, reaching 22.78 t/day.

Table 7 presents a list of HHW generation research results. The HHW generationrate (g/person/day) in Palestine was significantly higher than other regions in termsof generation amount with the exception of Hong Kong and Suzhou, China. In termsof the proportion of HSW, Hebron city is in the intermediate among other cities/countries. Some differences were very large. For instance, orders of magnitudedifferences in the generation amount were found among Palestine; Suzhou, China;Hong Kong; and the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. The differences in HHW yieldamong various regions and countries can be explained in numerous ways. Forexample, in China and according to Gu et al. (2014), the high rate of HHWgeneration may stem from Chinese consumers’ behavior in generating waste (Wei2012). Many unused products were in the Chinese domestic waste contributing

Table 4 Cross tabulation between marital status and willing to separate HHW into specificfractions

Marital status Yes for free (%) Yes for a small payment (%) No (%)

Single 60 16 24

Married 73 9 19

Divorced 0 25 75

Total 64 13 23

Chi-square = 14.552, df = 4, p-value = 0.006

Table 5 Cross tabulation between the number of family members and occurrence of HHWaccident

Number of family members

Occurrence of HHW accident

Yes (%) No (%)

Less than 5 10 90

5–7 14 86

More than 7 34 66

Total 18 82

Chi-square = 22.483, df = 2, p-value = 0.000


approximately 10% to PC, far more than the assumption of less than 5% made byDelgado et al. (2007). In addition, most “Made in China” consumed products werecontributed higher than expected levels of hazardous substances to PC (Zhao et al.2009). Furthermore, HHW has undergone significant changes corresponding tourbanization and fast economic growth (Duan et al. 2008; Otoniel et al. 2008).

The statistical parameters of the different components of HHW are shown inTable 8. The larger coefficient of variation (standard deviation divided by mean) isfor lawn and garden as expected with a value of 7.7. The lower one is for homeproducts (0.6) as there is stability and similarity in this percentage among different

Table 6 Average daily quantity of household solid waste produced in the Palestinian territory in2011 and 2014 and HHW in 2014

RegionPopulation2011

Population2014

Daily SWgeneratedin 2011a

(ton)

Daily SWgeneratedin 2014b

(ton)

DailyHHWgeneratedin 2014(ton)

HHWgenerationrate(g/person/day)

Palestineterritory

4,168,860 4,550,368 2151.9 2348.8 22.78 5.0

The WestBank

2,580,168 2,790,331 1505.4 1628.0 15.79 5.7

GazaStrip

1,588,692 1,760,037 646.5 716.34 6.948 3.9

aPCBS: Household Environmental Survey 2011bEstimated based on the population growth rate

Table 7 HHW concentration reports

Country and/or cityHHW generation,g/person/day

Share of HHW to householdsolid waste (%) References

Austria 3.84 – Yasuda andTanaka (2006)

Cuitzeo Basin,Mexico

1.01 1.03 Delgado et al.(2007)

Palestine 3.9–5.7 0.97 Present study

Hong Kong 6.03 0.70 Edwin (1997)

Germany 0.92 6.03 Gu et al. (2014)

Japan 5.48 0.25–0.40 Yasuda andTanaka (2006)

Mekong Delta,Vietnam

0.53 0.20 Thanh et al.(2010)

Suzhou, China 6.16 2.23 Gu et al. (2014)

Tulsipur, Nepal 3.30 1.00 Dangia et al.(2013)

Vienna, Austria 2.66 n/a Gu et al. (2014)

Municipality ofKalamaria, Greece

1.038 Kontogianniet al. (2013)


households. The same applies for the personal care products whose percentage is(0.9) and to some extent to healthcare waste (1.1).

Results in Fig. 5 show that the home products are the largest component of HHWwith a percentage of 42.3%. Most of the HHW are usually home products likebatteries, cleaners, and others not classified under any specific category. Automotiveproducts come in the second rank with a percentage of 17.2% since most of thehouseholds have one car or more. The personal care products come in the third rankwith a percentage of 15.4%. The lowest percentage is the products for lawn andgardens with a percentage of only 0.2%. The high percentage of healthcare waste(12.3%) is alarming since their components are potentially toxic on soil, water, andair since extra or expire date drugs are often disposed with domestic waste.

In a study carried out in Mexicali city, the cleaning product waste was the largestcomponent of HHW with a percentage of 43.89% (Benitez et al. 2013). In our studycleaning products were only one part of the home products, which have a percentageof 41.1% which is close to that of Mexicali, assuming that the major part of HHWhome products is cleaning materials. In Mexicali city, the study of the secondcomponent in rank was about personal grooming aids and beauty products with apercentage of 23.30%, while this component was the third one in rank in our studywith a percentage of 15.4%. Again, the type and percentage of waste componentsreflects the culture, attitudes, practices, and ideology of a community. It may bepossible to some extent to analyze the culture and development of a community byanalyzing their solid waste.

In Malaysia, the higher-income group had the larger generation rate of municipalsolid waste. This is a result of the higher affordability of purchasing and thusconsuming more ready-made goods. Alternatively, the lower-income group alsohad larger amount of generated municipal solid waste; this is because this grouptends to produce their own needs, causing production of by-products and wastes.The average hazardous household waste was 1.76%, which is more than the case of

Table 8 Percentage distribution of household hazardous and nonhazardous waste components inHebron city

Waste component

Statistical parameter

Min%

Max%

Mean% SD

Coefficient ofvariation

Automotive products 0.0 3.228 0.191 0.428 2.2

Home products 0.0 1.196 0.411 0.245 0.6

Personal care 0.0 0.682 0.148 0.135 0.9

Home improvements 0.0 1.197 0.072 0.169 2.4

Healthcare waste 0.0 0.656 0.122 0.131 1.1

Indoor pesticides 0.0 0.238 0.006 0.035 5.4

Lawn and garden 0.0 0.111 0.002 0.012 7.7

Miscellaneous 0.0 0.659 0.052 0.124 2.4

Nonhazardous householdwaste

96.32 99.870 98.996 0.636 0.0


Hebron (1%). In Malaysia the generation per household ranges from 5.94 kg/day forlow-income families to 7.02 kg/day for high-income families. The correspondingpercentages of HHW in the generated MSW are 1.46% and 1.8% (Fauzia andAgamuthu 2013; Fauziah and Agamuthu 2015). The medium-income familiesgenerate 3.51 kg/day MSW (1.03% HHW).

Although medium-income category produces the lowest amount of MSW, theexistence of hazardous component was in the range of 2% which is 0.07 kg/household/day. The high- and low-income groups were generating 0.13 kg and0.09 kg/household/day, respectively. This generation rate is larger than that of themedium-income category. No significant differences in the amount of HW weredetected (Fauziah and Agamuthu 2015).

On the other hand in municipality of Kalamaria, Greece, the group of houseowners, namely, “medium income and high education,” present the greater popula-tion into the survey sample, and ultimately they generate the larger HHW quantity aswell as greater MSW quantity in general. Here it must be mentioned that this type ofhousehold items, coming from categories such as “paint and varnishes,” “containingCFC,” and “wood preservatives,” constituted also the greater fraction out of allinvestigated HHW groups (Kontogianni et al. 2013).

HHW Recorded Management Conditions

Through the questionnaire the disposal method of HHW was investigated. Forty-sixHHW items were covered by the questionnaire separated into four major categories

17.2%

42.3%

15.4%

7.0%

12.3%

0.7% 0.2%

5.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Fig. 5 Percentage of HHW components by weight from 0.97%


(automotive products, home products, home improvement products, personal careproducts). Results are presented in Table 9.

Disposal method of HHW included disposal with other domestic waste, storagein household for separate collection, recycling, and illegal disposal. Analysis ofmethods of management of HHW was carried out in relation to the category ofthe HHW (home, automotive, personal care, and home improvement) as shown inTable 10. Automotive products on average are disposed with 40.9% domestic waste,30.9% of them are stored for separate collection, 12.1% are recycled, and 16.1% areillegally disposed. The replies prove the existent bad practices followed. In Table 11it is evident that the home products are 73.0% disposed with domestic wastes, 12.4%stored for separate collection, 6.1% recycled, and 8.5% illegally disposed. Table 12shows that personal care products are mostly (78.7%) disposed with domestic wasteswhich are similar at some point to that of home products, 7.0% stored for separate

Table 9 Disposal of HHW items as recorded through questionnaire responses

Category of HHW product No. of questionable items

Automotive products 13

Home products 20

Home improvement products 6

Personal care products 7

Total 46

Table 10 Percentage distribution of methods of management of HHW automotive products

HHW item

Management method

Disposed with thedomestic wastes

Stored forseparatecollection Recycle

Illegaldisposal

Antifreeze 50.0 24.1 6.5 19.4

Auto battery 21.5 39.8 17.2 21.5

Automatic transmissionfluid and motor oil

33.7 35.9 12.0 18.5

Brake fluid 50.0 29.5 8.9 11.6

Carburetor cleaner (fuelinjectors)

27.9 36.1 16.4 19.7

Car wax with solvent 50.0 29.5 8.9 11.6

Degreasers 22.4 43.3 9.0 25.4

Diesel 34.5 32.2 12.6 20.7

Fuel oil 45.5 30.7 10.2 13.6

Kerosene 51.6 17.3 22.7 8.4

Metal polish with solvent 56.7 22.8 10.2 10.2

Oil filters 31.3 42.2 10.9 15.6

Windshield washersolution

57.1 18.5 11.9 12.5

Average 40.9 30.9 12.1 16.1


collection, 5.4% are recycled, and 8.9% are illegally disposed. The results are raisingquestions regarding the source separation program effectiveness in the area.Table 13 shows that for HHW items related to home improvement products, thedisposing method is 65.0% disposal with domestic wastes, 17.6% storage forseparate HHW collection, 7.1% for recycling, and 10.3% illegal dumping.

Table 14 summarizes the management methods of HHW in relation to theircategory. It was expected by researchers that personal care product is the categorythat is mostly disposed with domestic wastes (78.7%). Automotive products have thehighest percentage (as expected) of recycling (12.1%), although this is not a satis-fying result, but they also have the highest percentage of storage for HHW collection(30.9%) and also unfortunately the highest percentage being thrown randomly.

Table 11 Percentage distribution of methods of management of HHW home products

HHW home product item

Management method



Illegaldisposal

Air freshener 75.7 9.0 5.1 10.2

Batteries – button,rechargeable

75.7 10.0 3.4 10.9

Bleach 80.7 7.7 6.2 5.3

Cleaner – all purpose 77.8 10.8 6.1 5.4

House cleaner – ammonia-based

66.9 16.2 6.6 10.3

Cleaner – bleach-based 81.5 9.1 3.5 5.9

Disinfectant 75.8 11.8 5.5 7.0

Drain cleaner 68.9 18.1 5.2 7.8

Floor care products(wax/stripper)

75.9 12.6 5.8 5.8

Fluorescent lights 76.7 9.4 2.8 11.1

Furniture polish with solventsand furniture cleaner

74.7 9.7 7.3 8.3

Oven cleaner (lye based) 78.6 11.8 2.6 7.0

Pet supplies/flea and tickcontrol

43.5 27.2 12.0 17.4

Scouring powder or abrasivecleaners

80.2 7.0 7.6 5.2

Shoe polish 80.3 7.2 3.9 8.6

Smoke detector 42.4 30.3 9.1 18.2

Spot removers/carpet andupholstery and rug cleaner

67.6 16.6 7.6 8.3

Thermometers andthermostats

74.3 9.9 9.6 6.2

Toilet bowl cleaner 83.1 7.8 3.9 5.3

Window/glass cleaner 78.7 6.7 7.8 6.7

Average 73.0 12.4 6.1 8.5


Table 12 Percentage distribution of methods of management of HHW personal care products

HHW personal careproducts item

Management method



Illegaldisposal

Hair spray 77.3 7.0 5.6 10.1

Hair permanent lotion 76.4 7.2 5.3 11.0

Hydrogen peroxide 77.0 9.7 6.1 7.3

Isopropyl alcohol(rubbing alcohol)

77.6 6.2 8.1 8.1

Nail polish 81.7 6.7 3.2 8.3

Nail polish remover 82.4 4.9 4.3 8.3

Average 78.7 7.0 5.4 8.9

Table 13 Percentage distribution of methods of management of HHW home improvementproducts

HHW homeimprovement productitems

Management method



Illegaldisposal

Adhesives and glues(solvent-based)

79.3 9.3 2.6 8.9

Oil-based paint andprimer

69.3 16.8 5.1 8.8

Paint brush cleaner 64.0 17.6 8.8 9.6

Paint remover andstripper

60.9 21.7 7.8 9.6

Paint thinner 61.8 17.4 9.0 11.8

Wood preservative 54.8 22.6 9.5 13.1

Average 65.0 17.6 7.1 10.3

Table 14 Percentage distribution of methods of management of HHW in relation to their category

HHW categories

Management method


Stored for separatecollection Recycle

Illegaldisposal

Automotiveproducts

40.9% 30.9% 12.1% 16.1%

Home products 73.0% 12.4% 6.1% 8.5%

Personal careproducts

78.7% 7.0% 5.4% 8.9%

Home improvementproducts

65.0% 17.6% 7.1% 10.3%


Conclusion and Recommendations

To meet the challenges of the introduced risk associated with HHW, organizedawareness strategy should be adopted and implemented. Intervention and innovationsolutions should be adopted; among these may be separation of HHW at source andcooperation with private sector for economical reuse or recycle of HHW. Furtherstudies on the issue of HHW should be carried out to focus on this subject that isneglected most of the time and in most places. Studies should cover the HHWaccidents, detailed effect of citizens’ habits, and demographic conditions on theirpractice and behavior toward HHW and to detect differences due to geographic andurbanization variations.

The study contributed largely to the identification of the HHW fraction throughthe field research performed. The research consisted of two parts: the first in regard tocomponents of HHW in Hebron and it was carried out by analyzing the waste in thetransfer station. The second part concerned the trends, practices, and attitudes ofcitizens in regard to HHWmanagement and the effect of demographic parameters onthese issues. This was carried out using a questionnaire that was analyzed for385 respondents.

The study showed there were some negative practices that may affect health ofcitizens especially children since they are partly responsible for transferring SWfrom home to container in 40.2% of the cases. In most cases the container is less than150 m from home with 81%, but for 19% either it is far or there is no container at all.This is an alarming fact that should be pursued by local SW collection service.

Risks associated with HHWwere examined in order to diagnose any hazard source.In 8.8% of households, there is a hazardous substance stored, which relates to parents’employment. In 27.2% of houses, the children are playing close to the nearby container,a fact that the responsible authorities should work on and provide sites and activities forchildren to invest their time properly. In 18.5% of houses, an accident occurred due toHHW. This is considered as a high percentage in the field of health and safety, andresponsible individuals, institutes, and local and governmental authorities must takeimmediate steps and disseminate information and best practices for HHWmanagementbefore any severe accident occurrence. The study revealed that individuals exposed toHHWaccident suffer psychologically for a long time from accident in 35.6% of cases.The accidents usually include injuries (42%), poisoning (36%), and burns (22%).

The hazard risk is high compared to the percentage of HHW in domestic wastewhich is approximately 1%: home products constitute the largest percentage ofHHW (42.3%), followed by automotive products (17.2%), personal care products(15.4%), and healthcare waste (12.3%). The least contribution was by the lawn andgarden product category (0.2%) followed by indoor pesticides (0.7%), whichindicates the low attention paid to home gardens and home agriculture by thecitizens. This is partly owned to the fact that they are mostly low-income citizenswho are mainly focused on making a living for them and their children instead ofoutdoor hobbies (preferred mainly in developed countries).

The study diagnosed the current practices of citizens in regard to HHWmanagement. Personal care products are the most categories which are disposed with


domestic waste (78.7%), while automotive products are the least (40.9%). Automotiveproducts are the most that are saved for HHW collection (30.9%) and also for recycle(12.1%) and also have the highest percentage of being thrown randomly (16.1%).

Awareness and education in the field of SW and particularly HHW should begiven a priority. Awareness should be based on a parent-children strategy anddesigned by responsible personnel who not only take into account the propertiesof this waste fraction but also have background knowledge of the different behaviorsand attitudes of people as formatted by their socioeconomic status. Each citizencategory should be targeted with a separate suitable approach. At the same time, thecampaign participants may include higher institutional level personnel, e.g., localcouncils, NGOs, and concerned governmental authorities.

Awareness should be implemented through the use of various means likebulletins, leaflets, brochures, internet, radio, TV, etc., and focus primarily onlow-consumption concept, promoting the concept of waste minimization.

SW collection service efficiency should be improved horizontally to achieve forthe maximum collection coverage and ultimately sustainable waste management.The aforementioned includes efficiency in collection frequency, setting of wastecontainers in all neighborhoods, availability of the necessary number of collectionvehicles, etc. Those actions will certainly back up the recommended alternativessuch as the sustainable organization of HHW separate collection system and stabilizethe sorting range recorded in this field research (i.e., 7–30.9%) for all households.Communication of the importance and introduced risk out of this waste fraction isalso another backup parameter. There should be also promoted the idea of recyclingor reusing of certain HHW. This challenge can be achieved through close coopera-tion with private sector: implementation of investments to make use of HHWcreating also job opportunities and promoting circular economy concept.

Further studies should be carried out to affirm the HHW fraction percentagein Palestine. The main parameters of those studies besides the actual quantity andquality of this fraction are still the number of accidents due to HHW, the long-termand short-term effects, and the indicated variations due to the specific geographicand socioeconomic factors.

Cross-Reference

▶ Investigation of the Chemical Content of Two Specific Streams in MunicipalWaste: The Case of Hazardous Household Waste and Dental Waste

References

Agricultural Research and Cooperative Extension (2014) Household hazardous products andhazardous waste: a summary for consumers. College of Agricultural Sciences, Penn State.Retrieved on 25 May 2014 from: http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/FreePubs/PDFs/xi0014.pdf

Applied Research Institute – Jerusalem (ARIJ) (2009) Hebron city profile. Bethlehem


http://link.springer.com/Removal of total organic carbon using commercial activated carbon as adsorbent

http://link.springer.com/Removal of total organic carbon using commercial activated carbon as adsorbent

http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/FreePubs/PDFs/xi0014.pdf

Aprilia A, Tezuka T, Spaargaren G (2013) Inorganic and hazardous solid waste management:current status and challenges for Indonesia. Procedia Environ Sci 17:640–647

Banerjee S, Aditya G, Saha KG (2013) Household disposables as breeding habitats of denguevectors: linking wastes and public health. Waste Manag 33(1):233–239

Benitez SO, Zorrilla HA, Olvera GL (2013) Quantification and characterization of householdhazardous wastes in a Mexican family: a case study. Retrieved on 28 Oct 2013 from http://promepca.sep.gob.mx/archivospdf/produccion/Producto475784.PDF

Bound PJ, Kitsou K, Voulvoulis N (2006) Household disposal of pharmaceuticals and perception ofrisk to the environment. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 21(3):301–307

Burnley SJ, Ellis JC, Flowerdew R, Poll AJ, Prosser H (2007) Assessing the composition ofmunicipal solid waste in Wales. Resour Conserv Recycl 49:264–283

Court CD, Munday M, Roberts A, Turner K (2015) Can hazardous waste supply chain ‘hotspots’ beidentified using an input–output framework? Eur J Oper Res 241(1):177–187

Couto N, Silva V, Monteiro E, Rouboa A (2013) Hazardous waste management in Portugal: anoverview. Energy Procedia 36:607–611

Dangia MB, Urynowicz MA, Belbase S (2013) Characterization, generation, and management ofhousehold solid waste in Tulsipur. Nepal Habitat Int 40:65–72

Delgado OB, Ojeda-Ben S, Marquez-Benavides L (2007) Comparative analysis of hazardoushousehold waste in two Mexican regions. Waste Manag 27:792–801

Duan H, Huang Q, Wang Q, Zhou B, Li J (2008) Hazardous waste generation and management inChina. Hazard Mater 158(2–3):221–227

Edwin KHL (1997) A preliminary study of the management of toxic, hazardous and difficulthousehold wastes in Hong-Kong. In: ISWA’ 97 world conference proceedings of the interna-tional solid waste management association conference. James & James (Science Publ.) Int’lSolid Waste Asso. (ISWA),Wellington, pp 63–70

Elston HJ (2010) When household hazardous waste is too hazardous: a case study. J Chem HealthSaf 17(4):12–15

Fauziah SH, Agamuthu P (2013) Household hazardous waste components in malaysian msw -thecurrent scenario, Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya,50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. From http://www.srcosmos.gr/srcosmos/showpub.aspx?aa=13030

Fauziah SH, Agamuthu P (2015) Household hazardous waste components in Malaysian MSW thecurrent scenario. Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya,Kuala Lumpur. Retrieved on 13 Dec 2015 from: http://www.srcosmos.gr/srcosmos/showpub.aspx?aa=13030

Fikri E, Purwanto P, Sunoko HR (2015) Modeling of household hazardous waste (HHW) manage-ment in Semarang city (Indonesia) by using life cycle assessment (LCA) approach to reducegreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Procedia Environ Sci 23:123–129

Fjelsted L, Christensen TH (2007) Household hazardous waste: composition of paint waste. WasteManag Res 25(6):502–509

Gu B, Zhu W, Wang H, Zhang R, Liu M, Chen Y, Wu Y, Yang X, He S, Cheng R, Yang J, Bi J(2014) Household hazardous waste quantification, characterization and management in China’scities: a case study of Suzhou. Waste Manag 34(11):2414–2423

Hassanvand MS, Naddafi K, Nabizadeh R, Momeniha F, Mesdaghinia A, Yaghmaeian K (2011)Hazardous waste management in educational and research centers: a case study. ToxicolEnviron Chem 93(8):1636–1642

Hebron Municipality (2013) GIS unit. West Bank, PalestineInglezakis VJ, Moustakas K (2015) Household hazardous waste management: a review. J Environ

Manag 150(1):310–321Kelley BG, Goldwater CS, Brown MS (1989) Evaluation of a statewide matching grant program for

the collection of household hazardous waste. J Air Pollut Control Assoc 39(4):427–430Kies Strategies, Tabor Consulting Group, and Bell & Associates, Coos and Curry Counties (2008)

Final household hazardous waste management plan, Coos County and Curry County, Oregon


http://promepca.sep.gob.mx/archivospdf/produccion/Producto475784.PDF

http://promepca.sep.gob.mx/archivospdf/produccion/Producto475784.PDF

http://www.srcosmos.gr/srcosmos/showpub.aspx?aa=13030




Kontogianni S, Karagiannidis A, Logothetis D, Alexiou G (2013) Investigation of the householdhazardous waste stream in a Hellenic municipality. Int J Environ Waste Manag 14(1):65–83

Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) (2013) Localities in Hebron governorate by type oflocality and population estimates, 2007–2016

Ojeda-Benitez S, Cruz-Sotelo SE, Velázquez L, Santillán-Soto N, Nuñez MQ, Cueto ORG,Markus W (2013) Electrical and electronic waste in Northwest Mexico. J Environ Prot2013(4):405–410

Ortego JD, Aminabhavi MT, Harlapur FS, Balundgi HR (1995) A review of polymericgeosynthetics used in hazardous waste facilities. J Hazard Mater 42(2):115–156

Otoniel DB, Benavides Liliana M, Francelia GP (2008) Consumption patterns and householdhazardous solid waste generation in an urban settlement in México. Waste Manag 28(1):S2–S6

Rosenfeld EP, Feng HGL (2011) The biggest generators of hazardous waste in the US. In: Risks ofhazardous wastes. William Andrew (Elsevier), Burlington, pp 11–22

Slack R, Letcher TM (2011) Chemicals in waste: household hazardous waste. In: Letcher TM,Vallero DA (eds) Waste: a handbook for management. Academic, Burlington, pp 181–195

Slack RJ, Gronow JR, Voulvoulis N (2004) Hazardous components of household waste. Crit RevEnviron Sci Technol 34:419–445

Slack RJ, Gronow JR, Voulvoulis N (2005) Household hazardous waste in municipal landfills:contaminants in leachate. Sci Total Environ 337:119–137

Terazono A, Oguchi M, Iino S, Mogi S (2015) Battery collection in municipal waste management inJapan: challenges for hazardous substance control and safety. Waste Manag 39:246–257

Thanh NP, Matsui Y, Fujiwara T (2010) Household solid waste generation and characteristic in aMekong Delta city, Vietnam. J Environ Manag 91(11):2307–2321

Thompson SK (2012) Sampling. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Third EditionU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2005) Introduction to hazardous waste identifi-

cation, (40 CFR parts 261), training module. Solid waste and emergency response, solid wasteand emergency response (5305W) EPA530-K-05-012

Wagner PT, Toews P, Bouvier R (2013) Increasing diversion of household hazardous wastes andmaterials through mandatory retail take-back. J Environ Manag 123:88–97

Wei S (2012) A thesis submitted to Huazhong University of Science and Technology for theDepartment of Sociology. Computer Software and Theory. Doctor thesis. Huazhong Universityof Science and Technology, China

Wei Lu J, Bin Chang N, Liao L (2012) Environmental informatics for solid and hazardous wastemanagement: advances, challenges, and perspectives. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 3:1557–1656.Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 2014, Hebron. Retrieved on 9 Oct 2013 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebron

Weidenhame JD, Newman BE, Clever A (2010) Assessment of leaching potential of highly leadedjewelry. J Hazard Mater 177:1150–1152

Yasuda K, Tanaka M (2006) Report on hazardous household waste generation in Japan. WasteManag Res 24(4):397–401

Zhao G, Zhou H, Wang D, Zha J, Xu Y, Rao K (2009) PBBs, PBDEs, and PCBs in foods collectedfrom e-waste disassembly sites and daily intake by local residents. Sci Total Environ407:2565–75


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebron

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebron

household hazardous waste quantification, characterization ... · the aim of this research is to...

Documents