3.8 Article

POTENTIAL REDUCTION OF SOLID WASTE GENERATED FROM TRADITIONAL AND MODERN MARKETS

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY
卷 6, 期 5, 页码 838-846

出版社

UNIV INDONESIA
DOI: 10.14716/ijtech.v6i5.2016

关键词

Market waste; Solid waste; Waste characteristics; Waste generation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Trading activities, whether in traditional or modern markets, generate both solid waste and wastewater. This study aims to analyze the characteristics and composition of solid waste generated from traditional and modern markets and their potential reductions in Pasar Pondok Bambu and Pasar Cinere, based on waste generation, composition, and solid waste's characteristics that are generated from both markets. The method used in this study is based on SNI 19-3964-1994 about Measurement and Collection Method for Waste Generation and Composition of Municipal Solid Waste Sample. Results showed that the average volume of solid waste generation from Pasar Pondok Bambu and Pasar Segar Cinere is 2.74 m(3)/day and 0.76 m(3)/day, respectively. The main components of Pasar Pondok Bambu solid waste are 65.56% garden and vegetable waste, 13.04% slaughterhouse waste, 7.34% plastic waste, and 7.28% food waste. Meanwhile, the main components of Pasar Segar Cinere are 58.77% garden and vegetable waste, 20.58% food waste, 9.60% plastic waste, and 3.76% paper waste. There is a chance to reduce the amount of waste in both traditional markets in order to reduce the waste load in landfills. Alternatives to reducing the amount of solid waste are through reducing, reusing, recycling, and composting. These alternatives are expected to reduce solid waste generation in both Pasar Pondok Bambu and Pasar Segar Cinere. In order to be able to be used as compost material, both sources of solid waste should add materials such as leaves from garden waste to increase the levels of carbon content. Based on solid waste composition, potential reduction waste in both Pasar Pondok Bambu and Pasar Segar Cinere is around 40%.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据