Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 2566-2571
Household Hazardous Waste Data for the UK by Direct Sampling REBECCA J. SLACK,† MICHAEL BONIN,† J A N R . G R O N O W , ‡,| ANTON VAN SANTEN,§ AND N I K O L A O S V O U L V O U L I S * ,† Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College, Prince Consort Road, London, SW7 2BP, UK, Environment Agency, Block 1, Government Buildings, Burghill Road, Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol, BS10 6BF, UK, and Waste Strategy Review, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6DE, UK
The amount of household hazardous waste (HHW) disposed of in the United Kingdom (UK) requires assessment. This paper describes a direct analysis study carried out in three areas in southeast England involving over 500 households. Each participating householder was provided with a special bin in which to place items corresponding to a list of HHW. The amount of waste collected was split into nine broad categories: batteries, home maintenance (DIY), vehicle upkeep, pesticides, pet care, pharmaceuticals, photographic chemicals, household cleaners, and printer cartridges. Over 1 T of waste was collected from the sample households over a 32-week period, which would correspond to an estimated 51,000 T if extrapolated to the UK population for the same period or over 7,000 T per month. Details of likely disposal routes adopted by householders were also sought, demonstrating the different pathways selected for different waste categories. Co-disposal with residual household waste dominated for waste batteries and veterinary medicines, hence avoiding classification as hazardous waste under new UK waste regulations. The information can be used to set a baseline for the management of HHW and provides information for an environmental risk assessment of the disposal of such wastes to landfill.
cluded from such critical assessments that the waste categories that comprise HHW vary from definition to definition, each with different legal standing. In the European Union (EU), the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) (3) established a baseline for waste management across all Member States. A daughter directive, the Hazardous Waste Directive (HWD) (4), describes the broad categories of waste that can be considered to be hazardous. According to the HWD (Annex IB, section 39), only separately collected MSW portions that fulfill the criteria for a classification as hazardous waste in Annex III are classified as hazardous waste. The European Waste Catalogue (EWC) (5) lists all waste categories described in the WFD and notifies hazardous wastes falling within the remit of the HWD with an asterisk. Chapter 20 of the EWC describes MSW and lists several waste categories as hazardous. It is this list of HHW groups that forms the central tenet of HHW definition in the EU. The list does, however, exclude a number of waste substances from consideration as hazardous materials while certain included wastes are hazardous only if they contain “dangerous substances”. For instance, human and veterinary pharmaceuticals are exempted from classification as hazardous wastes while paints and similar products are considered to be hazardous only under certain circumstances. Hence, there can be considered to be two definitions of “hazardous”sa real/factual meaning founded on scientific evidence, and a legal interpretation based upon a compromise between science, political lobbying, and practicalities of implementation. It is the latter definition that that is more widely applied to waste management. Few studies have adequately described the amounts of hazardous waste generated by households. Estimates of the proportion of HHW in MSW vary but are frequently accepted to be e1% (6-14). WEEE contributes significantly more mass to such estimates and WEEE-inclusive HHW estimates may represent 5% of MSW. While the generic HHW stream is often estimated, the proportions of the individual, chemically distinct waste categories are frequently overlooked. Hence, a unique project was established to assess the amounts of key HHW categories produced by households. Information was also sought relating to disposal routes and underlying factors that may affect the disposal of potentially hazardous products.
Methodology Introduction Household hazardous waste (HHW) is a heterogeneous waste stream. Products as variable as pesticides, waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), and photographic chemicals all fall within HHW designation. In part, it is the irregular disposal patterns of HHW combined with poor source term definition and the relative proportions of HHW to other municipal solid waste (MSW) components that has rendered HHW research difficult. In order to rectify the apparent lack of information relating to HHW, a project was initiated in the United Kingdom (UK) to determine the types and quantities of HHW directly disposed of by householders. Previous work (1, 2) has sought to examine existing data concerning HHW generation and disposal. It can be con* Corresponding author phone: +44 (0)207 594 7459; fax: +44 (0)207 594 6016; e-mail:
[email protected]. † Imperial College. ‡ Environment Agency. § Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. | Present address: Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London. 2566
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 41, NO. 7, 2007
Most waste studies, particularly those relating to HHW, have analyzed waste from MSW collections delivered to waste disposal depots. This procedure provides a mechanism to determine the ratio of HHW to MSW but fails to adequately describe the disposal pathway of individual waste categories. High cost and the need for a large work force plus assistance from waste collecting/disposing authorities are also factors of traditional direct analysis studies. It has been hypothesized that waste production is influenced by the socioeconomic status of households (15-19). However, once waste has been collected through a MSW collection, it is difficult to interpolate back to the originating households. To maintain a link to the waste generator, a low-cost methodology was developed enabling separate HHW collections from households. The study examines the amounts of waste collected, the socioeconomic parameters underlying HHW production, and the likely disposal routes adopted by a sample of UK householders. Three areas of southeast England, Reading, Oxfordshire, and London, were identified as sampling targets using a variety of parameters including socioeconomic representa10.1021/es061775w CCC: $37.00
2007 American Chemical Society Published on Web 02/22/2007
TABLE 1. Key HHW Categories Collected in the Study, with Hazard Classification as Defined by Annex III of the Hazardous Waste Directive (HWD) (91/689/EEC; 4) (Note That Pharmaceuticals Disposed from Households (except Cytotoxic/Cytostatic Medicines) are Not Considered Hazardous Waste in EU and UK Legislation) HHW category
project coding
hazard classification
primary cell batteries
A1.1 nonhazardous A1.2 hazardous
H3A; H6; H14
secondary cell batteries
A2.1 nonhazardous A2.2 hazardous
H5; H6; H7; H10; H11; H14
water-based paint
B1.1 nonhazardous B1.2 hazardous
H4; H5; H8; H14
solvent-based paint
B2 hazardousa
H3A/B; H4; H5; H6; H7; H14
other DIY preparations
B3.1 nonhazardous B3.2 hazardous
H3A/B; H4; H5; H6; H7; H8; H14
wood biocides and preservatives
B4 hazardous
H4; H5; H7; H14
engine oil
C1 engine oil
H5; H7; H14
greases/lubricants
C2 greases/lubricants
H5; H7
antifreeze/coolant
C3 antifreeze/coolant
H3A/B; H4; H5; H6; H7; H14
brake fluid and similar
C4 brake fluid and similar
H3A/B; H4; H5; H6; H7; H14
degreasants and other cleaners
C5 degreasants C6.1 nonhazardous otherb C6.2 hazardous otherb
H4; H5; H7; H14
pesticides (incl. herbicides, insecticides)
D1 rodenticide, D2 molluscide, D3 insecticides & similar, D4 herbicides & similar, D5 fungicide, and D6 pesticide combinations
H4; H5; H6; H7; H14
pet care (incl. flea powder)
F1.1 nonhazardous F1.2 hazardous
H5; H6; H14
veterinary medicines
F2 e.g., worming tablets
N/A
human pharmaceuticals
G1-11c
N/A
photochemical - developers & fixers
H1 developing fluid and H2 fixer
H3B; H4; H5; H6; H7; H8; H11; H12; H14
household cleaners/polish (oven/stove/metal/wood/ leather)
J1 oven/stove/ceramic, J2 metal/wood, and J3 leather/suede (shoe)
H3A/B; H4; H5; H7; H8; H14
ink jet cartridges/toner
K1 ink jet and K2 toner
H5
a
All solvent-based waste can be considered hazardous under 20 01 13 and, for solvent-based paint, 20 01 27. b Vehicle body care products, e.g., vehicle wash, screen-wash, wax, adhesives, etc. c G1 ) analgesics; G2 ) antibiotics; G3 ) β-blockers; G4 ) anti-epileptics; G5 ) lipid regulators; G6 ) antidepressants; G7 ) hormone treatments; G8 ) antihistamines; G9 ) cancer treatment; G10 ) antifungal creams/lotions; G11 ) asthma (inhalers).
tiveness and logistical accessibility. Individual neighborhoods were identified using “A Classification of Residential Neighborhoods” (ACORN), a geodemographic tool that clusters households into five social categories (subdivided into 57 social types) using postal codes (20). A neighborhood distribution reflecting the social composition of the UK was sought across all sampling points. Householders within each location were recruited using a “door-step” approach by four qualified personnel. A total of 535 households were recruited, exceeding the minimum sample size for a population of numerous millions recommended by McCall (21, 22). Each household was provided with the apparatus necessary to participate in the household hazardous waste (HHW) study. A 35-liter capacity, pre-coded, plastic, lockable bin was supplied along with a list of acceptable wastes, health and safety advice, bin bags, and collection dates. Due to the potentially reactive nature of the wastes involved, it was deemed necessary that each item or similar group of items be first placed in a thick, sealable polythene bag before disposal in the HHW bin. Two questionnaires were distributed to householders, the first at project initiation and the second at the final collection, which aimed to gather specific sociodemographic data while also assessing HHW and MSW
disposal attitudes and behavior. Householders were asked to dispose of the categories listed in the bin, regardless of usual disposal methods: the questionnaires determined how each household would usually discard of their waste. A request was also made that their regular disposal behavior be continued to provide a snapshot of hazardous waste disposal. As the aim of the study was to quantify potentially hazardous waste, waste emptied of hazardous content was excluded from the study. The data described therefore excludes disposal of empty containers and hence will not reflect quantities purchased, used, or stored. The items sampled generally conformed to the hazardous entries in Chapter 20 of the European Waste Catalogue (EWC). However, the size of the bins, the potential risks to waste handlers, and the classification ambiguity prevented a number of waste types from being collected. Examples of HHW not collected included unspecified acids, alkalis and solvents, WEEE, and lead acid batteries. Other items were included despite apparent absence from legislative definition, such as household cleaners, pet care products, and pharmaceuticals. Key components of these products have been found to exhibit endocrine disruption and aquatic pollutant capabilities (1, 23-27). The items collected fall into nine broad VOL. 41, NO. 7, 2007 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
9
2567
product-based groups: batteries, paint and DIY, vehicle maintenance, pesticides, pet care, human pharmaceuticals, photochemicals, household cleaners, and printer cartridges (Table 1). A number of these wastes can be considered hazardous regardless of composition, including photographic chemicals and pesticides. Their content always includes one or more hazardous substances. Other waste groups do not necessarily possess dangerous properties and can be split into hazardous and nonhazardous subcategories depending on content. Paint and batteries are two such wastes: the former is considered hazardous if content includes volatile organic compounds or pesticides, while the latter may contain heavy metals. Otherwise, the wastes can be categorized as nonhazardous. The chemical composition of the waste groups has been discussed elsewhere and will not be dealt with further here (1). However, the two subcategories are considered separately in the results. Four collections, carried out by two workers, were scheduled across a 32-week sampling period. A short interval of two weeks between bin delivery and initial collection permitted the identification of “teething problems”. Inspection of the waste demonstrated the necessity of distributing further information reiterating disposal requirements. The novelty factor of the bin during the first few weeks was also a concern. While householders were asked to maintain normal disposal habits, the newness of the bin may have acted as a prompt to dispose of hoarded products. As a result, the initial collection can be considered as a pilot with data considered separately from the remaining collections. Three further collections occurred at 10-week intervals, encompassing a degree of temporal variation covering late summer, autumn/winter, through to early spring. The latter collections were assumed to reflect the typical disposal of HHW likely to have occurred without the provision of a specific bin. Three people were responsible for the waste sorting. Information relating to product type and brand/manufacturer, age of product, active or other ingredient rendering the waste hazardous, original volume/mass, volume/mass of substance remaining (net weight), and gross weight (inclusive of packaging), were collected and recorded in Excel spreadsheets. Data analysis was carried out using Excel and SPSS version 11.5. The sociodemographic and behavioral responses obtained from the questionnaires, particularly the initial questionnaire, were entered alongside the waste quantity data. The various sociodemographic factors sought included house type, tenure, residence period, number of people in the household and their relationship to each other (with age and gender), and occupation of main salary-earner. Occupation was used to derive National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC) and the household’s postal code was used to determine ACORN verification. Vehicle, garden and/or pet ownership, as well as an enthusiasm/need for DIY were also queried. MSW production levels in each household were questioned as were number of visits made every year to civic amenity (CA) sites (also called the “tip”, “dump”, or household waste recycling center). The questionnaires sought to determine the likely disposal pathways for each of the nine waste categories collected by the study. Discarding in the general household bin (MSW co-disposal), separate disposal at CA sites, special collection services and retailer take-back, including combinations of factors, were some of the methods of disposal offered to householders in the questionnaire. To maintain a link between the waste collected and the questionnaire responses, householders were requested to use the bin for the disposal of their waste only and not HHW from friends and neighbors. 2568
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 41, NO. 7, 2007
TABLE 2. Gross Amounts of Waste (Inclusive of Packaging) Collected from Each Category Across the Initial (Two Weeks after Bin Delivery) and Combined Final Three Collections (over a Period of 30 Weeks) in the Sample Populationa
waste category
first collection only (kg over 2-week period)
collections 2-4 combined (kg over 30-week period)
batteries (A) paint & DIY (B) vehicle (C) pesticides (D) petcare (F) pharmaceuticals (G) photochemicals (H) household cleaners (J) printer cartridges/inks (K)
23.1 236.3 26.6 16.7 1.9 0.4 3.0 10.7 1.1
149.5 698.6 58.0 34.4 2.3 1.7 1.5 12.5 15.7
aMedicine mass is based upon active ingredient content only, exclusive of packaging; sample size (n) ) 465 households.
Results High levels of participation were recorded across the study period, with 87% of householders approached taking part in the project. Participation levels as evidenced through the questionnaire responses were lower, with 76% of householders returning the initial survey and 61% returning the final questionnaire. The ACORN distributions of the sample and UK populations did not demonstrate a significant association. Nevertheless, sample households were distributed across the ACORN categories ensuring a cross-section of society. Comparison of the socioeconomic factors obtained from sample households with parameters available for the UK population demonstrated significant levels of similarity (described below). Across the four collections, 1.3 T of waste were collected and analyzed corresponding to the nine waste categories (Table 2). Across the latter three collections, 974 kg was collected from 463 households. As discrete units, dry cell batteries represented the most frequently collected, and hence generated, waste category. Primary (non-rechargeable) cells (A1) greatlyexceededsecondary(rechargeable)battery(A2)production in terms of both gross weight and discrete units (Table S1, Supporting Information). In total, 91% of the 4885 cells collected in the final three collections were recently manufactured primary batteries and can generally be considered nonhazardous under the auspices of HWD. However, 7% of the batteries collected were hazardous due to mercury and/or nickel-cadmium content. By weight, paint and related DIY products represented the largest waste category, with approximately half falling within the hazardous subcategories for paints and similar products. Other categories were generated in smaller amounts, with mass of pharmaceuticals recorded by weight of active ingredient rather than gross weight. Distinction between the legislatively hazardous and nonhazardous wastes is more ambiguous in the smaller waste streams such as household cleaners and printer inks, while all pharmaceuticals are considered nonhazardous by legislation. Pesticides and photochemicals represent “absolute” hazards. Mean rates of generation per household for each of the nine waste categories were determined from the sample population (Table 3). A sample household can be estimated to produce approximately 11 ( 0.72 (mean ( standard error; n ) 465) battery cells during the 30-week observation period. An average of 1.5 ( 0.11 (mean ( standard error; n ) 465) kg of paint and DIY products, inclusive of packaging materials (gross weight), can also be supposed per household across the sample period. Vehicle, pesticide, pet care, pharmaceutical, household cleaner, and printer ink categories were produced in much lower amounts (Table 3).
TABLE 3. Mean Quantities of Batteries (A), Paint and DIY (B), Vehicle Product Waste (C), Pesticides (D), Veterinary Waste (F), Pharmaceuticals (G), Photochemicals (H), Household Cleaners (J), and Printer Inks/Cartridges (K) Per Household Based upon Sample Households over the 30-Week Sampling Period
waste code
original mass (kg)a
SEb
mass remaining at disposal (kg)a
A B C D F G H J K
n/a 2.285 0.240 0.116 0.007 0.021 0.004 0.034 n/a
n/a 0.166 0.073 0.010 0.003 0.005 0.002 0.007 n/a
n/a 0.906 0.089 0.056 0.002 0.004 0.002 0.016 n/a
SEb
gross weight at disposal (kg)c
n/a 0.161 0.004 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.007 n/a
0.322 1.502 0.125 0.074 0.005 n/a 0.003 0.027 0.034
a Product content only, excluding packaging. mean. c Weight of product with packaging.
b
SEb
no. of items (units)
SEb
0.026 0.112 0.016 0.007 0.002 n/a 0.002 0.010 0.020
10.51 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.252
0.721 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.098
TABLE 4. UK Waste Estimates Based upon Extrapolations from Sample Data for the 30-Week Period original product gross weight waste product remaining (T, incl. category quantities (T) at disposal (T) packaging) n/a
n/a
B
56,000 (97,000) 5,880 (10,200) 2,840 (4,910) 180 (310) 515 (890) 95 (160) 830 (1,440) n/a
22,200 (38,500) 2,200 (3,800) 1,350 (2,340) 54 (93) 100 (170) 70 (115) 390 (675) n/a
C D F G H J
Standard error of the
Mean values have also been determined for original product at time of purchase and the quantity disposed, excluding packaging (net weight) where appropriate. Based upon these figures, it would appear that approximately 60% of depletable products (excluding batteries and, to a lesser extent, ink cartridges) were used prior to disposal. However, purchase/usage quantities should be used with caution, as figures will not represent total product consumption: the study did not collect empty containers. Comparisons of net and gross quantities indicate that up to 50% of the waste mass may be accounted for by packaging materials. This figure varies considerably between waste streams and should be treated as a generalization based upon the values shown in Table 3. A breakdown for each waste subcategory is provided in Table S2 of the Supporting Information. The mean values per household for selected categories of HHW over a 30-week period can be extrapolated to the UK population to provide an estimate of the amounts disposed nationally over that same period. The sociodemographic factors obtained from the questionnaire demonstrate the sample population to be statistically similar to the UK population, particularly with regard to household composition and property tenure (correlation, p ) 0.05). A number of sociodemographic parameters, including period of residence and number of people per household, demonstrated significant relationships with quantities of certain of the waste streams (Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis, p ) 0.001 to >0.05) but served only to ascertain that waste generation cannot be predicted from one social index alone. Use of any one sociodemographic parameter may provide an estimate of likely amounts arising from particular types of households, which would be of use to waste collectors, but such estimates would vary according to parameter used. However, for the provision of adequate collection and disposal facilities, it is necessary to provide an estimate of the amounts of the various waste categories that may be disposed regionally and nationally. Using the mean gross weights per household (as reflects national waste statistics) and the number of households in the UK, approximate figures for each waste stream across the UK can be generated (Table 4). A further step requires the extrapolation of the 30-week estimate to an annual approximation, based upon the premise that the study provided a random sampling of the population and that no discernible seasonal effects were observed (Table 4, italics in parentheses). The estimates must be used with caution and serve only to indicate the potential magnitude of the waste stream in the UK.
A
K
no. of items (or units)
7,890 (13,700) 36,800 (63,800) 3,100 (5,300) 1,810 (3,140) 120 (208) n/a
257 million (446 million) n/a
80 (140) 660 (1,140) 830 (1,430)
n/a
n/a n/a n/a n/a
n/a 6 million (11 million)
a Estimates given to three significant figures. Values in Italics represent annual waste stream approximations. See Tables 2 and 3 for key to waste codes.
TABLE 5. Likely Disposal Routes Adopted for Nine Hazardous Waste Categories Based upon Initial Questionnaire Findings from Sample Householders proportion of sample adopting disposal behavior (%) HHW category batteries paint DIY vehicle pesticides pet care medicines photochem cleaners printer inks a
civic MSW amenity give LA retailer co-disposal site drain away collection return other 79.7 37.9 45.2 40.8 49.6 83.1 55.8 43.5 77.2 nda
6.9 53.2 37.4 44.0 36.2 6.5 1.8 21.7 10.6 nd
0.3 1.7 5.2 3.2 3.6 2.6 9.9 13.0 3.3 nd
0.5 2.3 3.5 2.4 1.8 1.3 1.0 8.7 1.6 nd
11.1 3.5 6.1 6.4 6.3 3.9 2.1 4.3 6.5 nd
0.8 0.3 2.2 2.4 1.3 2.6 28.3 8.7 0.8 nd
0.8 1.2 0.4 0.8 1.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 nd
nd ) no data available.
To appreciate the potential environmental and health risks that may arise from the generation and disposal of HHW, it is necessary to understand the disposal pathways for HHW as fully as possible. Also, the Hazardous Waste Directive defines only separately collected HHW as hazardous waste (4). Hence, HHW co-disposed with residual MSW remains classified as nonhazardous. Both initial and final questionnaires contained an identical question regarding the disposal methods adopted by householders. There was a notable shift between the initial and final responses toward the separate disposal of HHW items, with increased use of civic amenity sites in particular. Assuming the responses to the initial questionnaire to represent typical disposal behavior, each waste category was divided according to the preferred disposal pathway of householders in the sample population (Table 5). It was found that co-disposal in the residual waste stream was the dominant means of disposal. Batteries, pet care, and household cleaners were more commonly disposed of in the household bin than by other means. However, disposal to civic amenity (CA) sites proved to be the preferred disposal route for paint and vehicle-related waste. As the sample demonstrates sociodemographic parameters similar VOL. 41, NO. 7, 2007 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
9
2569
to those of the population, it is possible for the patterns of disposal shown in Table 5 to reflect UK-wide disposal behavior.
Discussion The methodology provides a cost-effective procedure enabling the quantification of individual waste streams comprising a larger, diffuse waste category. Combined with a series of questionnaires, waste generation was linked to a range of sociodemographic factors specific to households. While no single social or demographic parameter could be used to determine patterns of generation for all of the nine potentially hazardous waste groups, property type, household size, residence length, and family composition demonstrated the greatest association with waste quantities. The use of the sociodemographic factors also allows a comparison of the sample to be made to the population. The level of association between the two permits an extrapolation from the results of the sample to provide estimates of waste generation at the population level. Across the nine waste groups collected, an estimated 51,000 T (based on gross weight sum, Table 4) could have potentially been generated by the UK population over the same time period of 30 weeks. This is approximately 7,000 T per month. The nine waste groups can be considered to contribute a large proportion of the total HHW stream. This work is essential for applied waste management practices and can be considered an important step toward a comprehensive risk assessment for the disposal of HHW to landfill. With new regulations likely to affect HHW disposal in the European Union and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) liability in the United States, the study establishes a baseline for future forecasts and assessments of the risks incurred from diverting such waste from landfill. With increasing emphasis on the source separation of HHW, quantitative data inform provision of collection/disposal facilities and revenue. Thus, the amounts estimated and the disposal pathways adopted indicate the need for far greater collection/disposal facilities for source-separated waste and the possibility of contaminating mechanical-biological treatment (MBT) processes through the continued co-disposal of hazardous with nonhazardous wastes. Disposal behavior indicates the potential level of use of collection facilities and/or the level of publicity required for optimal collection of categories of HHW: given the response to the questionnaires, it would appear that disposal facilities have varied usage and that greater public awareness is needed. Further assessment is required to establish the costs of the disposal of HHW, likely processes to be employed in the disposal of separately collected waste, and the consequences and risks of alternative disposal routes. More accurate quantification of all HHW groups, including WEEE, is also required in the UK and elsewhere in the EU. Ongoing work examining the impact of emerging contaminants and synergistic chemical effects will also contribute to assessing the future “hazardousness” of household waste. The results of the study have the potential to be used for a wider assessment of household hazardous products. The estimated amounts of potentially hazardous materials purchased by UK householders (original mass, Table 3) exceed some of the estimates of annual product sales (1, 22), indicative of periods of storage. Other workers have considered the risks to human health and the local home environment through use and storage of selected hazardous products but a wholesale evaluation is incomplete. Such data could be used in future studies to evaluate hazards prior to disposal. It is also relevant to life cycle assessments used to determine the environmental impact of particular product groups or substances. Comparison of the waste data collected through the direct sampling technique described herein to sales and storage estimates obtained from previous work 2570
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 41, NO. 7, 2007
would enable a partial substance flow model to be constructed. While such a model would contribute to the development of a life cycle analysis, it has limited application to the determination of HHW disposal. Further work is required to examine the findings described in this paper and elucidate the pathway to disposal of household hazardous products. One suggestion for future work includes a monitoring program which tracks the sale of potentially hazardous products through to the generation of waste, contributing not only to the further determination of HHW quantities discarded but also providing data for substance flow models and eventually a life cycle assessment of household hazardous products.
Acknowledgments We thank the Environment Agency for funding this project. The help and advice of Roy Watkinson (EA), Jonathan Bound (Imperial College), Julian Parfitt (WRAP), Haydn Jones (AEAT), and Joseph Eliahoo (Imperial College) have been greatly appreciated.
Supporting Information Available Further information regarding the results of the study in Tables S1 and S2, as referenced in the text. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
Literature Cited (1) Slack, R. J.; Gronow, J. R.; Voulvoulis, N. Hazardous components of household waste. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 34, 419-445. (2) Slack, R. J.; Gronow, J. R.; Voulvoulis, N. Household hazardous waste: establishing sources and disposal routes. In Waste 2004 Conference - Integrated Waste Management and Pollution Control: Policy and Practice, Research and Solutions; The Waste Conference Limited: Stratford-Upon-Avon, 2004. (3) European Parliament and Council. Directive 2006/12/EC on waste. Off. J. Eur. Commun. 2006, L 114, 09-21. (4) European Council. Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste. Off. J. Eur. Commun. 1991, L 377, 20-27; (Amended by Council Directive 94/31/EC. Off. J. Eur. Commun. 1994, L 168, 28). (5) 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, L 226, 3-24; (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)). (6) Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Municipal Waste Management Survey 2003/04; DEFRA: London, 2005. (7) 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, 1993; 55 pp. (8) Freeman, H. M. Standard Handbook of Hazardous Waste: Treatment and Disposal; McGraw-Hill Book, Co.: New York, 1989; 1097 pp. (9) 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. (10) 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. (11) Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Waste Strategy 2000: England & Wales (Part 2); HMSO: London, 2000. (12) Stanek, E. J.; Tuthill, R. W.; Willis, C.; Moore, G. S. Household hazardous waste in Massachusetts. Arch. Environ. Health 1987, 42, 83-86. (13) Stevens, P. Priority Waste Stream Project-Household Hazardous Waste: Stage 1; Save Waste & Prosper Ltd (SWAP) and Recycling Advisory Group Scotland (RAGS): Leeds, 2003; 62 pp.
(14) Poll, J. The Composition of Municipal Solid Waste in Wales; Welsh Assembly Government and AEA Technology: Cardiff, 2003; 84 pp. (15) Bach, H.; Mild, A.; Natter, M.; Weber, A. Combining sociodemographic and logistic factors to explain the generation and collection of waste paper. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2004, 41, 65-73. (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) 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. (18) Flowerdew, R.; Parfitt, J. P. Choice of Variables for Modelling Household Waste-Final Report; Department of the Environment: London, 1994. (19) van der Wijst, M. A. J. E.; Groot-Marcus, J. P. Consumption and domestic waste water demographic factors and developments in society. Water Sci. Technol. 1999, 39, 41-47. (20) Crichton, L. The development and application of GIS in waste collection and disposal. In Waste Location; Clark, M. J., Ed.; Routledge: London, 1992. (21) McCall, C. H. Sampling and Statistics:Handbook for Research; Iowa State University Press: Ames, IA, 1982; 340 pp.
(22) Slack, R. J.; Zerva, P.; Gronow, J. R.; Voulvoulis, N. Assessing quantities and disposal routes for household hazardous products in the United Kingdom. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 1912-1919. (23) Slack, R. J.; Gronow, J. R.; Voulvoulis, N. Household hazardous waste in municipal landfills: contaminants in leachate. Sci. Total Environ. 2005, 337, 119-137. (24) Wilson, B. A.; Smith, V. H.; Denoyelles, F.; Larive, C. K. Effects of three pharmaceutical and personal care products on natural freshwater algal assemblages. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 1713-1719. (25) Rudel, R. A.; Camann, D. E.; Spengler, J. D.; Korn, L. R.; Brody, J.G.Phthalates,alkylphenols,pesticides,polybrominateddiphenyl ethers, and other endocrine-disrupting compounds in indoor air and dust. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 4543-4553. (26) Fromme, H.; Otto, T.; Pilz, K. Polycyclic musk fragrances in different environmental compartments in Berlin (Germany). Water Res. 2001, 35, 121-128. (27) Daughton, C. G.; Ternes, T. A. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment: agents of subtle change? Environ. Health Perspect. 1999, 107, 907-938.
Received for review July 26, 2006. Revised manuscript received January 22, 2007. Accepted January 24, 2007. ES061775W
VOL. 41, NO. 7, 2007 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
9
2571
