Waste Management Lab

Fall 2015
Sarah Adkisson, Kelsie Grover, and Colleen Hill

Introduction
Our trash and recycling cans were
picked up from a classroom in K-wing, from
right outside the gym in I-wing, and from
upper I-wing next to a couch, see Figure 1.
From the waste we collected and sorted, we
determined that everything in the trash bags
was actually recyclable, with the exception of
some compostable materials. The source of
the majority of this trash is most likely from
students, especially in the classroom. The
most common garbage that we found was
plastic bottles, coffee cups, and food
wrappers. In the bags from lower I-wing
there were a lot of water bottles and plastic
shrink wrap. This is most likely because we
picked up the bags right outside the gym and
because there is a drink vending machine
directly next to the cans.
Figure 1

Data

From K-wing, the recycling bag weighed 90 grams and contained 100% recyclables, see
Figure 2. The trash bag initially weighed 325 grams and was composed of 10% compostable

Figure 2

Figure 3

material and 90% recyclables. The final weight of the organic material was 110 grams, and the final
weight of the recyclables from the trash was 160 grams. Some liquid was lost during sorting. From
lower I-wing, the recycling weighed 800 grams and was 100% recyclables, see Figure 3. The trash
1

bag weighed 560 grams and had approximately 2%

compost and 98% recyclables. The compost weighed
60 grams and the recyclables weighed 500 grams
from this trash bag. Lastly, the recycling bag from
upper I-wing weighed 90 grams and was also
composed of 100% recyclables. The trash bag
weighed 391 grams and had about 1% compost and

Figure 4

98% recyclables, see Figure 4. The compost weighed 51 grams and the recyclables weighed 340
grams. See Table 1 for a comparison of the waste found in the trash cans from all three locations.
See Table 2 for a comparison of the waste found in the recycling cans from all three locations.

Table 1

Table 2

Findings
The recycling and trash from Stockton University goes to the Atlantic County Utilities
Authority landfill and recycling center, right in Absecon, New Jersey. The University brings their
own waste to the ACUA, as opposed to the ACUA picking it up themselves (S. Bourguignon, personal
communication, September 14, 2015). If the entire trash on campus resembles what we found from
only three locations, then there is a considerable amount of recycling ending up in the landfill due
to our lack of knowledge and laziness. Themelis and Ulloa (2006) conducted a study on the
composition of biomass of US municipal solid waste (MSW). They found materials like paper, food,
yard wastes, wood, leather, cotton, and wool made up 69.5% of the MSW while plastics, rubber, and
petrochemicals made up 15% (Themelis & Ulloa, 2006). Trash that comes through the scale house
is dumped into the transfer station and goes into the landfill, unsorted. According to ACUA
employee, Amy Menzel, theyre unable to sort this trash because it comes in at such a high volume;
about 700 tons of waste per day (A. Menzel, personal communication, September 10, 2015).

The ACUA operates as a class III, or municipal, landfill. This means that, Dumping fees are
almost always calculated on a price per ton, with long-term contracts in place for high- volume
customers, often at reduced rates (Parker & Gentry, 2014). According to the data I received from
Sandy Bourguignon, the ACUA received an overwhelming 605.91 tons of trash from Stockton
University in 2014, and has already received 411.51 tons this year. Interestingly, they only received
199.20 tons last year and have so far only received 121.30 tons for 2015.

Stockton University 2014 Material Report

1.9%
4.3%

1.8%

1.5%

0.4%

0.2%

3.0%

8.6%

19.3%

58.8%

Trash
Recycling
Street sweepings
Brick & Concrete
CD
Bulky
Clean wood
Yard waste
Rigid Plastics
Tires-car

Figure 5
Figure 5 shows the report, by material, for 2014. Based on our lab, the University should
be disposing of significantly more recycling than they are, but isnt because students and faculty are
throwing their waste in the wrong bin. Not only does this mean that the landfill is receiving
unnecessary recyclables, but it also means that the University is paying way more than it has to, to
dispose of their trash. Last year the school payed $48,342.44 to dispose of all their waste and they
paid $40,093.30 for trash alone. The ACUA charges nothing for taking recyclables. Imagine how
much money the University would save if they recycled more and only disposed of real trash.
All the recyclables we found in each location are materials that can be recycled locally. The
ACUA takes plastics numbered 1-5 and 7, which consists of soda bottles, water bottles, and plastic
food containers, all of which we found in our recycling bags. They also accept plastic tubs, pails, and
flower pots, as well as colored glass and paper. Unfortunately, the ACUA does not accept plastic
number 6 which is Styrofoam or polystyrene (M. Bellinger, Personal Communication, September 14,
2015). Styrofoam is recyclable, but there are no facilities close by in South Jersey that accept it.
Recycling Styrofoam not only costs a lot of money, but is also an environmental threat
because of its chemical properties (Siyal n.d). There is a plant located in Springfield, New Jersey, as
well as Delaware and Philadelphia, where the public is able to take their Styrofoam waste to be
3

recycled. A company called RecyclTech Inc. is using new technology that takes used Styrofoam and
compresses, crushes, heats and compacts the material so that other companies can use it to create
new Styrofoam products (Betts, 2008). The machinery used in this process is relatively
inexpensive, making this a potential alternative for those that dont accept Styrofoam at all.
Recommendations
One thing we can do to promote recycling on campus would be to establish bottle return
centers that give you credits every time you put a recyclable can or bottle into it. With the credits,
students can trade them in for prizes such as Stockton apparel or free dining dollars. We could
also mimic Bishops University in Quebec, Canada and have Stockton University students become
more involved in a recycling and composting plan (The Canadian Environmental Education
Directory, 2010). Massey University in New Zealand does something similar to this by establishing
an environmental committee of students in 1995 to promote zero waste on the campus because of
the lack of recycling on the Turitea campus (Brooking, Harford, Horsley, Mason, & Oberender,
2003).
In 2001, the same school put up signs around their trash and recycling bins stating what
materials are actually recyclable and whats trash (Ganesh, Kelly, Leiss, & Mason, 2006). While they
dont use single stream recycling, they clearly explain what each bin is used for and what shouldnt
be thrown in each, as well. A study done at the University of Florida investigated the habits of 217
faculty, staff, and students and concluded that clear labeling of what can go into the specific bins
actually improved recycling habits (Austin, Bailey, Grindle, & Hatfield, 1993). This study showed a
54% improvement in the two departments they studied (Austin, et al., 1993). These studies
emphasize the difference proper labelling can make and how it even encourages people to recycle if
they know where their waste belongs.

Work Cited
Austin, J., Bailey, J.S., Grindle, A.C., & Hatfield, D.B. (1993). Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
26(2), 247-253.
Bellinger, M. (2015, September 14). [E-mail interview].
Betts, K. (2008, July 15). Styrofoam: From Packing to Picture Frames and Beyond.
Environmental Science & Technology, p. 5041. Retrieved September 14, 2015, from
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es087184i
Bourguignon, S. (2015, September 14). [Personal interview].
Brooking, A.K., Harford, J.M., Horsley, P.G., Mason, I.G., & Oberender, A. (2003). Implementation of
A Zero Waste Program at a University Campus. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 38,
257-269
The Canadian Environmental Education Directory. (2010). Alternatives Journal, 36(5), 19-27.
Ganesh, S., Kelly, T.C., Leiss, M.W., & Mason, I.G. (2006, May). University Community Responses to
On-Campus Resource Recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 47(1), 42-55.
Retrieved September 15, 2015, from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344905001503
Menzel, A. (2015, September 10). [Personal interview].
Parker, J. W., C.R.E., & Gentry, Curtis A, I.V., M.A.I. (2014). Landfills: Operations and Opportunities.
Real Estate Issues, 39(1), 21-25, 2, 7. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.stockton.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/153858
4812?accountid=29054
Siyal, A., Memon, S. & Khuhawar, M. (n.d.0. Recycling of Styrofoam Waste: Synthesis
Characterization and Application of Novel Phenyl Thiosemicarbazone Surface. Polish
Journal of Chemical Technology, p. 11. Retrieved September 15, 2015.
Themelis, N. J. & Ulloa, P. A. (2006). Methane Generation in Landfills. Journal of Renewable Energy.
Volume 32, Issue 7, June 2007, Pages 12431257.