Single Stream Recycling And Dual Stream Recycling Systems Comparison I attached a file has a table that shows a comparison between two collection systems w

Single Stream Recycling And Dual Stream Recycling Systems Comparison I attached a file has a table that shows a comparison between two collection systems within the solid waste management area. Below the table, several paragraphs to describe the table. Those paragraphs are not organized well and they are also not paraphrased. What I need from you is to re write those pargraphs, link them to each other, and re organized them to look profissional as well as understandble Table 1. Comparison between Single Stream Recycling and Dual Stream Recycling Systems
Collection System
Single Stream Recycling
• All recyclables are
mixed together
•
Dual Stream Recycling
Paper is separated from
other recyclables by
consumers
Less capital cost
Less contamination rates
Better material quality
Less operating costs
References
Advantages
•
•
•
Less collection costs
Higher participation
Increased participants
•
•
•
•
Disadvantages
•
•
•
Increased risk of
contamination rates
Higher processing costs
Clean glass cullet
quantity is decreased
Color-separated glass
cullet quantity is
decreased
Higher
•
Lower
(Morawski, 2009)
(Goodman, 2006)
(Pressley et al.,2015)
•
Higher
•
Lower
(Yasar et al., 2017)
•
•
•
Avg.
Contamination
rate in Inbound
Stream
Avg.
Contamination
rate in Outbound
Stream
•
Higher collection cost
Higher chances of incorrect
separation and sorting on
the consumer’s part.
(Morawski, 2009)
(Goodman, 2006)
(Pressley et al.,2015)
(Lakhan, 2015)
(Mueller,2013)
(Fyffe et al., 2016)
(Morawski, 2009)
(Goodman, 2006)
(Pressley et al.,2015)
(Snow, 2003)
(Pressley et al.,2015)
Table 1 shows that one of the advantages to adapt SSR system is to reduce the collection costs. Therefore,
the number of vehicles servicing a route could potentially be reduced which translates to lower labor and
fuel costs. Moreover, studies show there has been an increase in the participation rate in SSR than DSR.
On the disadvantages side, there has been an increase in residuals generated at MRFs that adapted SSR due
to the larger amounts of contaminated materials and non-recyclable broken glass. Thus, increased costs for
processing as a result of the required investment in more sophisticated separation equipment.
There has been a dramatic decrease in the quantity of clean, color-separated glass cullet available locally to
the glass container manufacturer with the major cause of this decrease being the move to single-stream
recycling collection and processing (Goodman, 2006)
Feedstock contaminants and problem loads of glass are just as likely to come from dual stream MRFs as
from single-stream MRFs.
There are higher chances of incorrect separation and sorting on the consumer’s part. This leads to creating
problems for contamination which the dual stream facilities might be less prepared to tackle.
The report also indicates that dual-stream MRFs average a 6.4% residual rate while single-stream MRFs
average a 27.7% residual rate. The average residual rate for single-stream MRFs, however, is based on
results from a national study conducted by Governmental Advisory Associates and did not include data
from local MRFs.
On average, 40 percent of glass from single stream collection winds up in landfills and another 20 percent
constitutes small broken glass (“glass fines”), used for low-end applications. Only 40 percent remains to be
recycled into containers and fiberglass (Kinsella & Gertman, 2007). In contrast, 90 percent of the mixed
glass from dual stream recycling (DSR) systems is recycled into containers and fiberglass, and the
remaining 10 percent comprises glass fines used for lowend
conducted descriptive statistical analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA) to investigate if there is a
statistical significance of the difference between the mean contamination rates of the inbound SSR and
DSR systems. In order to visualize the descriptive statistics of the data collected for SSR and DSR
systems, we built a boxplot combining the samples of both systems along with their outliers (see Figure
12). Here, the standard deviation (8.97) and mean (18.54) of the SSR contamination dataset were found to
be higher than that of the DSR contamination data set (3.08 and 3.89, respectively). Comparison of the
two boxplots reveals the difference in rates between the two systems in terms of mean, median, and
overall distribution of outliers. It is also shown that SSR contamination rates were more spread out over a
wide range of values than were DSR contamination rates.
Residues make up the largest portion of prohibitive materials in the outbound stream. Residues in the end
products of MRFs arise from the following: 1) collected nonrecyclables in the inbound stream (inbound
contamination) and 2) collected recyclables that are not separated out in the MRFs. As shown in Section
4.1, inbound contamination rates were much higher in SSR systems compared to DSR. Also, since
recyclables are commingled in the SSR bins, residue rates in single stream MRFs are expected to be higher
than residue rates in dual stream MRFs.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment