Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 1912-1919
Assessing Quantities and Disposal Routes for Household Hazardous Products in the United Kingdom REBECCA J. SLACK,† PANAGOULA ZERVA,† JAN R. GRONOW,‡ AND N I K O L A O S V O U L V O U L I S * ,† Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Imperial College, Prince Consort Road, London, SW7 2BP, U.K., and Environment Agency, Block 1, Government Buildings, Burghill Road, Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol, BS10 6BF, U.K.
The disposal of household products containing hazardous substances (household hazardous wastes; HHW) is of concern due to possible health and environmental effects as a consequence of environmental pollution. The potential risks of disposal are proportional to the amounts of products used and waste generated, but much of the data relating to quantities are old, inconsistent, or nonexistent. Hence, full-scale risk assessment is not yet feasible. This pilot study was aimed at an initial assessment of the amounts of hazardous products used or stored within the household and potential disposal routes. Representatives of 400 households from southeast England were interviewed about socio-demographic factors, perception of the risks associated with the use and disposal of hazardous waste generated in households, quantities of particular products currently in use or stored within the household, and times and methods of disposal of such products. The estimates of quantities obtained were compared with sales figures and waste estimates to improve understanding of product flow through to the HHW stream. The disposal routes investigated demonstrated that most householders claim to use the entire product prior to disposal in the general refuse bin. The relationship with socio-demographic factors demonstrated a difference between neighborhood size and length of residence in a household with regard to product quantities possessed and the disposal habits adopted.
Introduction Apprehension relating to chemicals used widely within the home has led to concern that the disposal of such hazardous substances into the municipal waste stream (MSW) may pose risks to the environment and human health (1, 2). Discarding the substances via the few available disposal routes might lead to concentration of effects. As 64% of MSW produced in OECD countries is sent to landfill, it is here that disposal risks will center (3). Analyses of emissions from landfills that accept only MSW have revealed the presence of compounds with hazardous properties (4-8). However, other disposal routes used by householders, especially disposal to sewer and uncontrolled waste dumping (“fly tipping”), offer * Corresponding author telephone: +44 (0)207 594 7459; fax: +44 (0)207 594 6016; e-mail:
[email protected]. † Imperial College London. ‡ Environment Agency. 1912
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 39, NO. 6, 2005
potentially more significant opportunities for environmental contamination and impacts on health. Concern about these issues is contributing to increasing levels of legislation relating to the final disposal of certain, specified hazardous wastes produced from households, so-called household hazardous wastes (HHW) (9). Nevertheless, while hazardous wastes arising from industrial, commercial, and even some nonhousehold municipal activities are largely regulated (storage, handling, processing, and final disposal), a legal definition of HHW is lacking. This results in the exclusion of HHW from current implementation of hazardous waste legislation and uncertainty about what constitutes HHW (10). A result of the legislative uncertainty is the absence of individual product-based HHW generation data that are necessary to examine whether disposal risk exists, particularly risks associated with landfill disposal. Various attempts have been made to estimate the amounts of hazardous waste produced within the MSW stream (11). Both Reinhart (12) and Pendle and Poll (13) described techniques of direct analysis, where hazardous elements are segregated from general municipal waste loads. Such work reveals that the hazardous proportion is generally between 0 and 5% of total MSW (14). Although the studies concur on the proportions of hazardous waste, the individual amounts can vary considerably due in part to the segregation system employed, representativeness of the sample, and definition of what constitutes a hazardous waste (1, 12). Crucially, modeling of household hazardous waste production is restricted due to absence of individual producer information, making wider application of these studies to the population at large difficult. Studies into other, more well-defined MSW streams have combined direct analysis techniques with socio-economic questionnaires, but this has not been applied to HHW before (15, 16). Quantification is necessary for the provision of adequate collection procedures and is useful in examination of public attitudes and awareness. It can also be used to assess the effectiveness of measures aimed at driving changes in public perception and associated disposal behavior. Although health risks associated with the use of hazardous products within the home environment are significant, they have been evaluated in a variety of research (17-20). The environmental risks from HHW disposal, however, are unspecified due in part to the deficiency in quantitative data.
Methodology The predominant aims of the project were the generation of information concerning the quantities of HHW held in households, an understanding of the disposal routes adopted for these products, and the waste streams more likely to receive HHW. A questionnaire format was selected as a costeffective and quick method of linking disposal with details of the waste producer, providing an insight into behavioral differences across communities. The questionnaire was designed to cover the quantities of products within households with the potential to become HHW, the disposal of such products, and the public perception of the hazardousness of the products when discarded. Socio-demographic questions were incorporated to investigate the feasibility of model extension across the wider populace. The main body of the questionnaire was divided into nine sections as shown in Table 1. Section one investigates the perceptions of the interviewees with respect to their waste disposal behavior using a five-grade Likert scale. Included in section one were two waste types that are not considered under EU legislation to be hazardous: paper and (biodegradable) kitchen leftovers. These additions to 10.1021/es0404062 CCC: $30.25
2005 American Chemical Society Published on Web 02/03/2005
TABLE 1. Structure of Questionnaire section
aspect
component
question categories
garden chemicals, motoring products, paint and related products, fluorescent lamps, batteries, photochemicals, pharmaceuticals, paper, kitchen leftovers
Likert five-grade scale from “hazardous” to “nonhazardous”
1
perception
2 3
garden chemicals herbicides, insecticides, biocides, animal deterrents, petcare motoring products oil, oil filters, brake fluid, engine additives, antifreeze, other motoring products paint and related emulsion paint, gloss paint, water-based wood treatment, products solvent-based wood treatment, tar oils, paint related products, inks, resins and adhesives fluorescent lamps fluorescent (energy-saving) bulbs, fluorescent tubes batteries general disposable, rechargeable, button (silver oxide) photochemicals selection from developer, fixer, etc. pharmaceuticals over the counter, prescription, both
4 5 6 7 8 9
socio-economic factors
age, gender, family type, period of household residence, settlement, education, occupation, postal code
the seven hazardous groups of products described in Table 1 were used to examine for “automatic” responses to ratings of hazardousness. The next sections focus on the seven individual groups of potentially hazardous products. Each product group is divided into individual items that are frequently used in and around the home. All the categories included in this study contain products that appear within the European Waste Catalogue (EWC) as absolute or mirror hazardous entries (10, 21) or, for pharmaceuticals, have been the subject of concern relating to possible contaminant properties (22). Car batteries were excluded from the study as comprehensive collection procedures are already offered by local authorities and link to established mechanisms for recycling (11, 23, 24). The final section of the questionnaire concerned data on the socio-demographic status of the interviewee (Table 1). A sample size of 400 households was adopted, derived from a formula for estimating sample proportions from large populations (25). A 95% confidence level and standard error of 0.05, as recommended by McCall (25), assumes a statistically significant sample size of 384 questionnaires for a population of 24.5 million households. Rural and urban areas were sampled within the south of England in proportion to their population size (26). Four zones were identified: large city, city/large town, mid-town, and small town/village. These were sampled using a quota system weighted according to the percentage of the population of England found in each zone. The largest quota was assigned to the environs of London. The cities of Brighton, on the south coast of England, and Bath, in the county of Somerset, were selected for the city/large town category. Billericay, in the county of Essex, represents the mid-sized towns, and a number of villages along the M4 and M5 motorways to the west of London represented the final category. Householders were interviewed at random without prior identification during summer 2003. Both ACORN (A Classification Of Residential Neighbourhoods) and NS-SEC (National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification) were used to compare the sample to the wider UK population (27-29). ACORN, a geodemographic cluster system developed by CACI Marketing Systems Ltd., has been used in waste management studies to characterize household waste generation (15, 16, 30, 31). As with all geo-demographic cluster systems, ACORN groups neighborhoods by postal code and similarities in income, household type, education, attitudes, and product preferences. NS-SEC, developed for the UK Office of National Statistics, is used in all aspects of national statistics (32), differentiating between employment on the basis of, among other factors, income source, level
product quantities, if any: items, L, kg time disposal takes place method of disposal adopted
as applicable
FIGURE 1. Household hazardous products flow from purchase to disposal, demonstrating how storage estimates provide a “worstcase” scenario for disposal quantities. of authority, and economic security (33). As ACORN is a geodemographic instrument, and NS-SEC is a socio-economic tool, the term “socio-demographic” will be used to refer to both and other social, economic, or demographic data. All data were analyzed using Excel and SPSS version 11.5. Extrapolation of the sample results to the wider UK population was explored using formula 1, following the comparison of ACORN/NS-SEC sample data to population data:
P ) p/400 × 24.5E6
(formula 1)
where P is the product quantity per UK population head, p is the total product quantity within the sample, 400 is the sample size, and 24.5E6 is the number of UK households. Asking householders to provide data concerning their HHW arisings proved to be difficult. However, they found it easier to answer questions about the products they were using/had in store. The methodology adopted accounted for this discrepancy by estimating the amounts of products in use/store with the potential to become HHW. This provides a worst-case scenario, over-estimating HHW levels through the supposition that products do not undergo further use and providing the basis for a comparison with sales and waste information (Figure 1). Information on disposal routes was also collected to provide details necessary for the effective collection of HHW.
Results The composition of the survey sample was compared to the wider population using ACORN and NS-SEC, as displayed in Figure 2. While over-representation of the higher and midsocial groups in both classification systems is evident, the distribution patterns of sample and population are sufficiently similar to examine the feasibility of extrapolation of product quantities and disposal behavior from the sample to the wider population. Correlation analysis revealed a lack of association VOL. 39, NO. 6, 2005 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
9
1913
FIGURE 2. Comparison of ACORN and NS-SEC categories (combined on x-axis) in the sample populations and wider UK population.
FIGURE 3. Mean product quantities per household across the sample population. between the two factors (p > 0.05), indicative of the different origins of geo-demographic ACORN and socio-economic NSSEC. The most commonly held items are oil, paint, wood preservatives, computer printer inks, fluorescent light tubes, energy-saving bulbs, and various types of batteries as shown in Figure 3. Expansion of individual household estimates across the survey population yields 0.5 L of engine oil, over 3 L of emulsion, 1 L of solvent-based paint (if anomalous amounts are discounted), over 0.5 L of paint related products (paint thinner, white spirit, primer etc.), at least one ink cartridge, 3 energy-saving light bulbs, 1 fluorescent strip light, 8 disposable batteries, 4 rechargeable batteries, and 3 button batteries per household. Garden products, photographic chemicals, chemicals used for vehicle maintenance (with the exception of oil and antifreeze), and wood preservation substances are less commonly used and stored in and around the home. To estimate the amounts of such hazardous substances stored in households throughout the UK, the mean amount of each product per sample household was projected across the UK population of 24.5 million households (34) using formula 1, as shown in Table 2. Such an extrapolation must be treated with caution but does provide an indication of the magnitude of the quantities that might exist across UK 1914
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 39, NO. 6, 2005
households. For instance, this estimates 30 million L of gloss (solvent-based) paint, 13 million L of engine oil, 75 million fluorescent bulbs, and 100 million rechargeable batteries as being in use in UK householdssa considerable reserve from which waste is generated. The survey demonstrated that products across the seven groups are generally discarded when empty or when they reach the end of their useful life (for batteries, fluorescent lamps, and medicines), as seen in Figure 4. Few respondents disposed of the product immediately after use (“treatment finished”), with pharmaceuticals (11% of respondents) and garden chemicals (7%) proving to have the highest levels of such disposal. Disposal in general clear-outs is also uncommon, with paint and related products (20%) and garden chemicals (17%) having the highest levels. Photochemicals are used by very few people, with only seven of the sample population possessing at least one type of photographic chemical, but are generally used to completion (80%) or discarded when no longer effective (20%). Further breakdown of product groups into individual products and a more comprehensive division of when householders dispose of these items reveals that, generally, the disposal period within product groups is fairly consistent (Table 4 in Supporting Information).
TABLE 2. Quantities of Products Possessing the Potential To Become Household Hazardous Wastea product type herbicides insecticides/general biocides pet deterrents petcare products motor oil motor oil (no outlier) oil filters antifreeze antifreeze (no outlier) brake fluid engine additives other motor products emulsion paint emulsion paint (no outlier) solvent-based paint solvent-based paint (no outlier) wood preservative (water) wood preservative (solvent) tar oils related products inks resins/adhesives fluorescent bulbs (energy-savers) fluorescent tubes general disposal batteries rechargeable batteries button batteries photochemicals (grouped) a
expansion to UK (no. of items)
expansion to UK (kg)
9 065 000 15 925 000 1 470 000 5 880 000 11 760 000 11 515 000 1 470 000 8 575 000 8 330 000 2 205 000 735 000 2 940 000
2 205 000 3 920 000 245 000 735 000
34 300 000 19 845 000 75 215 000 29 400 000 202 370 000 107 310 000 75 705 000 1470 000
expansion to UK (L)
25 235 000 12 985 000 9 800 000 8 330 000 2 205 000 735 000 6 125 000 88 445 000 79 380 000 54 635 000 30 135 000 9 065 000 8 820 000 2 940 000 18 130 000 735 000 245 000
1 225 000
Estimates (see Figure 3) expanded to the U.K. population (24.5 million households).
FIGURE 4. Disposal period for the seven groups of products, according to respondents preferred time of disposal. The most common disposal regime utilizes the general household refuse bin, with up to 80% of householders using this method (Figure 5). Disposal at waste centers, called civic amenity (CA) sites in the UK, also proved popular, particularly for paint products (26%), motoring products (24%), garden products (15.5%), and fluorescent lamps (15%). Photochemicals are habitually discarded down the drain (47% of respondents), as per manufacturers’ advice for small quantities. Pharmaceuticals demonstrate the greatest level of retailer return (for clinical waste incineration) with 19% of householders using this method, reflecting the
availability of the service provided by pharmacies. However, it can be assumed that retailer return and giving items away (for reuse) will lead to the generation of waste for landfilling. As the majority of householders claim to discard empty product containers (Figure 4), removing the “empty” responses from the analysis permits the examination of disposal behavior involving full or partially filled products, highlighted in Figure 5. The dynamics for all product groups shift toward CA site disposal, with concurrent increases in disposal down the drain and retailer return. The general patterns between product groups are upheld when divided VOL. 39, NO. 6, 2005 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
9
1915
FIGURE 5. Method of disposal for seven product groups, according to usual disposal regime, including exemption of empty packaging.
FIGURE 6. Public perception regarding the hazardous/nonhazardous nature of the product groups. into individual items (Table 4 in Supporting Information). The awareness of the respondents of the potential hazardousness of the products was evaluated through section one of the questionnaire, and the results are summarized in Figure 6. The interviewees generally rated the two nonhazardous inclusions as less hazardous than the product groups defined as hazardous in Chapter 20 of the EWC (Figure 6), with 77% of people prescribing nonhazardous properties to kitchen leftovers and 88% of those surveyed confirming the nonhazardous properties of paper, demonstrating that responses were thought-out and not automatic. Batteries and motoring products were considered the most hazardous by the sample population, 93% and 92% of householders respectively. Only 64% of interviewees considered fluorescent lamps to be hazardous. 1916
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 39, NO. 6, 2005
Further Analysis Initial correlation analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between quantities of products held and their corresponding disposal mode using SPSS. Disposal period, method of disposal, and product quantities all demonstrated significant correlation at the 99% significance level for all but very few of the products (see Tables 5-7 in Supporting Information). Possession of larger product quantities therefore leads to a greater likelihood of disposal at a variety of disposal times, including clear-outs, and using methods such as retailer return and CA site disposal. Conversely, low quantities of products are more likely to be used until empty and deposited in the general refuse bin.
FIGURE 7. Mean product quantities across the five ACORN profile groups.
TABLE 3. Quantities of Products Forming HHW Obtained from Waste Inventories and Sales Reports Demonstrating Sales-Stored-Disposed Values (Figure 1)a product
UK sales estimates per year (ref)
results of this project, stored
UK waste estimates (ref)
pesticides and similar herbicides insecticides oil
4,893 t (35) 4 293 000 L (36) 193 000 L (36) 131 000 000 L (38)
6,125 t
3,029 tb (1, 24)
12 985 000 L (∼13 000 tc)
paint
300-500 million Ld (40)
wood preservatives
15 000 td (41)
fluorescent lamps single-use batteries
11 million units (1) 7 million units (42) 564.2 million units (44) 450 million units (45) 22.8 million units (44) 71 million units (45) 14.2 million units (46) 42 million units (44)
109 515 000 L (∼110 000 tc) 20 825 000 L with tar oils (∼20 000 tc); 17 885 000 L without tar oils (∼18 000 tc) 104 615 000 units
37 925 t (24) 30 000 t (13) 50 000 t (37) 37.5 million L (1, 39) 40 000 tb (24)
rechargeable batteries button batteries photochemicals
80 million unitsd (43)
202 370 000 units 107 310 000 units 75 705 000 units 272 t (24)
1 275 t
a
Data was not available for all products, such as pharmaceuticals and petcare (47, 48). t = metric ton. England and Wales only. c Based on 1000 L of distilled water ) 1 t. Paint and oil are denser, with fewer liters per ton. d Includes commercial and industrial waste streams.
Public perception of the hazards on disposal cannot be used to predict disposal time, method, or quantities of the products (shown in Tables 5-7 in Supporting Information). Poor correlation with socio-economic data was also evident, preventing extrapolation to the wider population (see Table 8 in Supporting Information). However, there was strong positive correlation between all of the hazardous products (p ) 0.01), showing that the public consider all seven products to be hazardous, with paper and kitchen leftovers as nonhazards (Table 9 in Supporting Information). Correlation analyses of socio-demographic data with quantity estimates were carried out to investigate possible underlying relationships (see Table 5 in Supporting Information). However, the socio-demographic tools ACORN and NS-SEC demonstrated nonsignificant correlations with product quantities and therefore do not appear to be related to possession of products with the potential to become hazardous waste (e.g., Figure 7). Other factors must therefore be considered (Table 1). Of these, length of residence, age and gender of interviewee, family type, and possession of higher
b
education qualifications all demonstrated high numbers of positive correlations with product quantities. However, the greatest association with product quantity was shown by the type of conurbation in which the households occur, the quantities of products possessed increasing as settlement size decreases. Disposal time and method reflect this socio-demographic pattern (see Tables 6 and 7 in Supporting Information). Thus, residence length in a particular household and conurbation type provide the closest degree of association. While the bin remains the prevalent means of disposal for city-dwellers and residents who have lived in their households for up to 2 year, villagers and more static householders favor retailer return, donations (to charity, friends, neighbors), and disposal at CA sites at more varied disposal periods.
Discussion Comparison of the amounts of products used/stored within households with the results of direct analysis studies of HHW VOL. 39, NO. 6, 2005 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
9
1917
and sales assessments can contribute to the evaluation of the product to waste pathway. Table 3 compares the results of this project with other studies and reports of HHW disposal and sales. It can be hypothesized that, for most of the product groups listed in Table 3, volume/weight will decline along each step of the pathway sales g store (use) > waste; the exception being the nondepletable items (batteries, fluorescent lamps, etc.). Once purchased and used initially, items might then enter prolonged storage periods before further use or disposal. If this is the case, then the storage estimates obtained from this study, assuming no further use, will be disposed of several years after purchase. So the survey results can be seen to provide a worst-case scenario for the disposal of household hazardous products (i.e., that disposal occurs at one time). Consideration of this “worst-case” scenario will be useful for waste management authorities as it represents the maximum amount of HHW that can be discarded. Assessment of risks from disposal will also utilize this information, particularly as most un-used products will eventually, directly or indirectly, be disposed of to landfill. The sales and waste figures in Table 3 are fairly consistent, with sales greater than waste estimates. It must be noted that the waste figures quoted should be treated with caution, as discussed by Slack et al. (10). Similarly, the waste estimates are lower than the stored amounts. The anomaly lies in the comparison between sales and stored quantities. As the sales figures quoted are per annum, this is consistent with storage over long periods and accumulation of numerous purchases over time, as explained above. Thus, while paint effectively represents the sales > store (use) > waste pathway, pesticides and oil reveal the anomaly of greater storage quantities. All other product groups listed lack the data necessary to complete this pathway. In addition, storage time prior to disposal is a crucial factor in determining likely annual disposal rates. The stored amounts calculated here could be disposed of in 1 yr or over the course of several years, which will have an effect on the potential environmental and health risk of HHW. Various models could be developed to predict the link between purchase, use/storage, and disposal, forming in part a life-cycle analysis (LCA). However, there are limitations in the availability of data, particularly with regard to waste generation. Most householders claimed to dispose of products only when empty, although previous HHW studies (Table 3) and the continued operation of local authority HHW collection services, both in the UK and elsewhere, reveal this not to be the case. Even though all products containing hazardous substances are required to display advice on safe use and storage as well as disposal, it is possible that consumers overlook or even misinterpret this advice (20). The perception element of the questionnaire revealed that householders did recognize household hazardous products as distinct from nonhazardous items, but awareness of the specific hazards was lacking. For instance, fluorescent lamps were considered “hazardous” due to the flickering light that is often produced or through broken glass: mercury content was not cited by any interviewees. Awareness issues are therefore important at all stages of the product pathway, with particular emphasis on use, storage, and disposal. Unlike previous studies, this appraisal of HHW attempted to model possession as an intermediate step in the sales to waste pathway (Figure 7) using various socio-economic variables (see Tables 5-10 in Supporting Information). Quantities, disposal time, and disposal method demonstrate a high degree of correlation, suggesting that quantity determines the final disposal route adopted. Considering the significance of this correlation, it is not surprising that settlement size, length of residence, family type, and age of respondent appear to be the more likely social, economic, and demographic predictors for all three factors of product 1918
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 39, NO. 6, 2005
quantity, disposal time, and method of disposal. The smaller the size of the settlement, the longer the householder lives in a dwelling, the larger the family unit/the more people per household or the older the interviewee, the greater the quantity of products owned, and the more varied the disposal times and methods employed. The inhabitants of villages are probably less mobile than city-dwellers, living in larger houses for longer periods and hence accumulating a larger spectrum of products. Access to shops is more restricted in rural communities and, hence, may lead to the storage of more goods than in urban areas. Villagers are more likely to have a garden and possess the space to work on their vehicles. More family members per household increases the likely need for certain items. Age suggests accretion of products over a longer time scale or different age-related attitudes to the use of certain products. It can be assumed that younger people possess a higher number of batteries through interest in mobile accessories such as CD/MP3 players etc., while older generations acquire other interests such as gardening. Older householders, larger family groups, longer periods of residence, and smaller conurbations result in greater disposal to CA sites, retailer return, and alternative disposal methods such as recycling/reuse at a greater variety of times (clear-outs, etc.). It is possible that older and/or more established families have a greater awareness of waste disposal alternatives or simply a greater concern for household waste disposal. The significance of settlement size indicates that householders in smaller communities are more aware of alternative disposal methods or such means are more accessible to them. Generally, however, rural settlements have fewer CA sites to choose from, and they are usually more widely distributed than for urban communities. Therefore, important factors to be considered in the collection of HHW are proximity to civic amenity sites, better publicity by the local authority, or simply greater awareness of waste issues. Settlement size is interesting due to its significance with regard to the shear number of products with which it correlates. Studies into other aspects of household waste generation have highlighted the lack of impact of social indices such as ACORN in predicting waste composition and quantities, with the adjunct that indirect social assessment, for example, through home ownership, has considerable predictive powers (15, 16, 49, 50). Household size, while not implicitly included in this study other than by inference through family type, has also been found to have considerable influence on waste generation and hence presumably product consumption (11, 16). Further examination is necessary to assess the validity of the associations and determine the underlying factors for such correlations. Nevertheless, the results of this study provide an estimate of the potential for products to give rise to HHW which, when combined with the socio-demographic data collected, have been broadly extrapolated to the wider population and provide the basis for environmental risk assessment.
Supporting Information Available Detailed results of disposal behavior and the correlation analyses undertaken are provided. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
Literature Cited (1) Gendebien, A.; Leavens, A.; Blackmore, K.; Godley, A.; Lewin, K.; Franke, B.; Franke, A. Study on Hazardous Household Waste (HHW) with a Main Emphasis on Hazardous Household Chemicals (HHC); European Commission-General Environment Directorate: WRc, Brussels, 2002; 150 pp. (2) Blundell, T., Chairman. Chemicals in Products: Safeguarding the Environment and Human Health; 24th Report; Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution: London, UK, 2003; 291 pp.
(3) Zacarias-Farah, A.; Geyer-Allely, E. Household consumption patterns in OECD countries: trends and figures. J. Cleaner Prod. 2003, 11, 819-827. (4) Christensen, T. H.; Kjeldsen, P.; Bjerg, P. L.; Jensen, D. L.; Christensen, J. B.; Baun, A.; Albrechtsen, H.-J.; Heron, G. Biogeochemistry of landfill leachate plumes. Appl. Geochem. 2001, 16, 659-718. (5) Ejlertsson, J.; Karlsson, A.; Lagerkvist, A.; Hjertberg, T.; Svensson, B. H. Effects of co-disposal of wastes containing organic pollutants with municipal solid wastesa landfill simulation reactor study. Adv. Environ. Res. 2003, 7, 949-960. (6) Isidori, M.; Lavorgna, M.; Nardelli, A.; Parrella, A. Toxicity identification evaluation of leachates from municipal solid waste landfills: a multispecies approach. Chemosphere 2003, 52, 8594. (7) Kjeldsen, P.; Barlaz, M. A.; Rooker, A. P.; Baun, A.; Ledin, A.; Christensen, T. H. Present and long-term composition of MSW landfill leachate: a review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 32, 297-336. (8) Paxeus, N., Organic compounds in municipal landfill leachates. Water Sci. Technol. 2000, 42, 323-333. (9) European Parliament and Council. Council Directive 2002/96/ EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Off. J. Eur. Commun. 2002, L37, 0024-0038. (10) Slack, R. J.; Gronow, J. R.; Voulvoulis, N. Hazardous components of household waste: a review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 34, 419-445. (11) Stevens, P. Priority Waste Stream Project-Household Hazardous Waste: Stage 1; Save Waste & Prosper Ltd (SWAP) and Recycling Advisory Group Scotland (RAGS); Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA): Scotland, 2003; 62 pp. (12) Reinhart, D. R. A review of recent studies on the sources of hazardous compounds emitted from solid waste landfills: A U.S. experience. Waste Manage. Res. 1993, 11, 257-268. (13) Pendle, W.; Poll, A. J., Common Household Products: A Review of Their Potential Environmental Impacts and Waste Management Options; Department of Enterprise Report LR927 (RAU); Warren Spring Laboratory: London, UK, 1993; 55 pp. (14) Stanek, E. J.; Tuthill, R. W.; Willis, C.; Moore, G. S., Household hazardous waste in Massachusetts. Arch. Environ. Health 1987, 42, 83-86. (15) Parfitt, J. P.; Flowerdew, R. Methodological problems in the generation of household waste statistics: an analysis of the United Kingdom’s National Household Waste Analysis Programme. Appl. Geochem. 1997, 17, 231-244. (16) Dennison, G. J.; Dodd, V. A.; Whelan, B. A socio-economic based survey of household waste characteristics in the city of Dublin, Ireland. I. Waste composition. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 1996, 17, 227-244. (17) Ma, X.; Buffler, P. A.; Gunier, R. B.; Dahl, G.; Smith, M. T.; Reinier, K.; Reynolds, P. Critical windows of exposure to household pesticides and risk of childhood leukemia. Environ. Health Perspect. 2002, 110, 955-960. (18) Muller, S.; Schmid, P.; Schlatter, C. Occurrence of nitro and non-nitro benzenoid musk compounds in human adipose tissue. Chemosphere 1996, 33, 17-28. (19) Pogoda, J. M.; Preston-Martin, S., Household pesticides and risk of pediatric brain tumors. Environ. Health Perspect. 1997, 105, 1214-1220. (20) Riley, D. M.; Fischhoff, B.; Small, M. J.; Fischbeck, P., Evaluating the effectiveness of risk-reduction strategies for consumer chemical products. Risk Anal. 2001, 21, 357-369. (21) European Commission. Commission Decision 2000/532/EC replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste. Off. J. Eur. Commun. 2000, L226, 00030024 (as amended by Commission Decisions 2001/118/EC (OJ L 47, 1-31), 2001/119/EC (OJ L 47, 32) and 2001/573/EC (OJ L 203, 18-19)). (22) Jones, O. A. H.; Voulvoulis, N.; Lester, J. N. Human pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environmentsA review. Environ. Technol. 2001, 22, 1383-1394. (23) Department of Trade and Industry. Batteries and Accumulators containing Certain Dangerous SubstancessDirective 91/157/ EEC: Options for Spent Battery Collection Consultation Paper; DTI: London, 1993; 8 pp. (24) Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions. Cost Implications of Amendments to the Hazardous Waste Directive to Include Household Waste; Report 5737; DETR: London, 1999; 158 pp.
(25) McCall, C. H. Sampling and Statistics: Handbook for Research; Iowa State University Press: Iowa, 1982; 340 pp. (26) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Review of Urban and Rural Area Definitions: Project Report; HMSO: London, 1991; 140 pp. (27) CACI Limited. ACORN: A Classification of Residential NeighbourhoodssA Geodemographic Database; CACI Limited: London, 1992. (28) CACI Limited. ACORN: A Classification of Residential NeighbourhoodssA Geodemographic Database; CACI Limited: London, 2003; www.caci.co.uk/acorn. (29) Office of National Statisitics. NS-SEC: National Statistics Socioeconomic Classification. ONS: London, 2001. (30) Flowerdew, R.; Parfitt, J. P. Choice of Variables for Modelling Household Waste; Final Report to Warren Spring Laboratory, National Household Waste Analysis Programme, Norwich, University of East Anglia, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia: Norwich, 1994. (31) Crichton, L. The development and application of GIS in waste collection and disposal. In Waste Location: Spatial Aspects of Waste Management, Hazards and Disposal; Clark, M. J., Smith, D., Blowers, A., Eds.; Routledge: London, 1992; p 228. (32) Rose, D.; Pevalin, D.; O’Reilly, K. The National Statistics Socioeconomic Classification: Genesis and Overview; ONS: London, 2001; 33 pp. (33) Erikson, R.; Goldthorpe, J. H. The Constant Flux: Study of Class Mobility in Industrial Societies; Clarendon: Oxford, 1992; 445 pp. (34) Office of National Statistics. Households by size. In Social Trends 2004, 34th ed.; ONS: London, 2004; p 252. (35) Crop Protection Association. Crop Protection Association Handbook 2002; CPA: Peterborough, U.K., 2002; 51 pp. (36) Mintel Reports. Gardening Review UK; Mintel International Group Ltd: UK, September 2003; www.mintel.co.uk. (37) Oil Care Campaign. Oil Recycling Bank Management Guidance Note; Environment Agency and SWAP: UK, 1998; 12 pp. (38) Mintel Reports. Petrol, Oil and Antifreeze UK; Mintel International Group Ltd: UK, May 2003; www.mintel.co.uk. (39) National Household Hazardous Waste Forum (NHHWF). Paint and Paint Containers Working Group: Discussion Working Group; NHHWF: Leeds, 1996; 29 pp. (40) Hunt Marketing Research. UK Paint Market: 1988 to 2000; Hunt Marketing Research: Wantage, U.K., 1999; 66 pp. (41) ENDS. Commission relents on arsenic curbs. ENDS Rep. 2003, 336, 52-53. (42) Mintel Reports. Domestic Lighting UK; Mintel International Group Ltd: UK, December 1999; www.mintel.co.uk. (43) O’Leary, J. Switching on to electrical waste. Water Environ. Manage. 2003, 8, 14-15. (44) Mintel Reports. Batteries UK; Mintel International Group Ltd: UK, August 2002; www.mintel.co.uk. (45) National Household Hazardous Waste Forum (NHHWF). Good Practice Guide: The Definitive Guide to Best Practice in Household Hazardous Waste Management; SWAP: Leeds, 1999; www.nhhwf.org.uk. (46) National Household Hazardous Waste Forum (NHHWF). An Evaluation of Silver Oxide Button Cell Recycling; NHHWF/ SWAP: Leeds, 2000; 48 pp. (47) Jones, O. A. H.; Voulvoulis, N.; Lester, J. N. Aquatic environmental assessment of the top 25 English prescription pharmaceuticals. Water Res. 2002, 36, 5013-5022. (48) National Office of Animal Health. Facts and Figures about the UK Animal Medicines Industry; NOAH: UK, 2003; www.noah. co.uk. (49) Dennison, G. J.; Dodd, V. A.; Whelan, B. A socio-economic based survey of household waste characteristics in the city of Dublin, Ireland. II. Waste quantities. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 1996, 17, 245-257. (50) Daskalopoulos, E.; Badr, O.; Probert, S. D. Municipal solid waste: a prediction methodology for the generation rate and composition in the European Union countries and the United States of America. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 1998, 24, 155-166.
Received for review April 12, 2004. Revised manuscript received December 7, 2004. Accepted December 13, 2004. ES0404062 VOL. 39, NO. 6, 2005 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
9
1919
