EREF Blog

Shopping Online this Holiday Season? Recycle those Cardboard Boxes, Expert Says

recycle cardboard this holidayOnline shoppers can help combat climate change and reduce deforestation by recycling cardboard boxes and other packaging materials this holiday season.

As the coronavirus pandemic continues to surge, a growing number of consumers across the country are shopping online this holiday season – a trend that could have severe environmental consequences if packaging materials aren’t properly disposed of.

“Packaging materials, whether they’re made from paper or plastic, are very important because they help protect products,” said Richard Venditti, the Elis-Signe Olsson Professor of Pulp and Paper Science and Engineering at NC State’s College of Natural Resources. “But some of these materials, especially plastics, are still making their way into trash cans instead of recycling bins.”

Venditti, whose areas of expertise include paper recycling and environmental life cycle analysis, added that packaging materials in trash cans are sent to landfills where non-biodegradable materials occupy space for centuries and biodegradable materials break down and release greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.

In the United States, more than 95% of the packages shipped to the country’s 200 million online shoppers are sent in containerboard – cardboard and corrugated containers. The use of cardboard and other packaging materials is expected to increase in the coming years as online sales continue to grow, according to Venditti. Between January and November of this year alone, American consumers spent about $547 billion online. That’s an increase of roughly 33% from the same period in 2019.

Several companies are working to reduce packaging waste and find more sustainable alternatives. For example, Amazon – which ships an average of 608 million packages each year – has eliminated more than 665,000 tons of packaging materials and more than 1.18 billion shipping boxes since 2008 through its Frustration-Free Packaging program, which provides consumers with recyclable boxes that are easy-to-open and free of excess materials such as plastic bindings and wire ties.

Venditti said recycling is one of the most efficient methods available for both retailers and consumers to reduce the number of cardboard boxes in the waste stream. It not only conserves energy and natural resources but also helps reduce pollution.

Cardboard, like other paper-based products, is manufactured from cellulose fibers extracted primarily from trees. “Paper and paperboard recycling makes more efficient use of our forest resources and avoids some of the environmental burdens associated with making cardboard from trees,” Venditti said.

More importantly, when consumers recycle packaging, it reduces the amount of cardboard in landfills – and the amount of greenhouse gases that it emits during decomposition. Cardboard packaging that is sent to landfills releases some fugitive methane that is not captured in landfill collections systems. Methane has a global warming potential that’s 20 times higher than carbon dioxide over the course of 100 years. It’s estimated that when consumers recycle 1 ton of cardboard, they save over 9 cubic yards of landfill space.

The percentage of cardboard boxes that Americans recycle has increased from 55% in 1993 to 92% in 2019. The remaining 8% of cardboard boxes is sent to landfills because it’s unsuitable for recycling, since it may be disposed of in remote areas, or contaminated with food or other material, according to Venditti.

“Paper is definitely a success in the materials recycling universe, with recovery rates far higher than plastics or glass and other materials,” Venditti said. “The recycling levels that we’re seeing with these boxes are incredible. But we need people to be more effective in their overall recycling, especially with other materials such as plastics and metals.”

Most Americans have access to community curbside or drop-off recycling for paper and paperboard packaging. But as consumers receive more products directly from online retailers, they’re recycling less and throwing away more. Part of the reason is the confusion over what is recyclable, according to Venditti.

However, while consumer behavior certainly plays a role in the country’s ongoing packaging waste, recycling programs in the U.S. face a bigger challenge. For the past quarter century, the U.S. and other countries around the world have sent a significant portion of their recyclable discards to China for recycling. But in 2018, China implemented strict restrictions on imported waste, including plastic, mixed paper and cardboard. This has left many municipalities and companies with nowhere to send their waste for recycling.

“China was purchasing recyclable materials for rather high prices, but now they’re not buying from us anymore,” Venditti said. “As a result, the price for recycled paper has decreased dramatically. What that means is that collectors and haulers don’t get as much money for their efforts. They’re not going to go the extra mile to collect the fringe materials that are on the borderline of profitability, so now we’re experiencing an excess buildup of waste materials.”

To address this issue, Venditti is spearheading a study that will examine the potential use of low-grade mixed paper waste in cardboard packaging in order to increase demand for recycled materials. The study is funded by the Environmental Research and Education Foundation, a Raleigh-based organization that supports solid waste research and education initiatives.

“A key challenge in the recycling industry is creating end-market demand for lower value/quality recyclables,” said Bryan Staley, president and CEO of the Environmental Research and Education Foundation. “Dr. Venditti’s research aims to strengthen pathways to increase recycled content using these materials. This allows for increased circularity of materials that otherwise would have limited value and improves overall sustainability.”

One of the study’s primary objectives is to better understand consumer impressions of packaging that contains paper waste, according to Venditti.

“Most cardboard boxes are brown with a consistent texture. But we’re using low-grade mixed paper waste to create boxes that have lighter speckles that might be recognizable as copy paper or magazine paper,” he said. “If a consumer sees a box with recycled content on the outside, how does that make them feel? Are they more likely to think that the packaging and therefore the product and company are more environmentally friendly? That’s what we want to know.”

In addition, Venditti and his research team are analyzing how the use of low-grade mixed paper waste impacts the physical properties of cardboard boxes, including strength and durability. Preliminary results show that the physical properties decrease by about 20%. The research team is currently working to compensate for that loss by exploring the addition of recycling process changes and additives.

Initial results from the study will likely be published sometime in 2021. Although the study is funded for 18 months, Venditti expects it to extend into the future as students and colleagues conduct additional research.

“The research, showing the benefits of low quality waste in paper packaging, is expected to demonstrate to companies a green and effective way to protect their products that have the added benefit of projecting a positive image of the product,” he said. “As the population of the world increases and demands for packaging increase, research projects to develop solutions like this one are critical for society.”

Written by Andrew Moore, College of Natural Sciences, NC State University

EREF Awards Two Grants for Solid Waste Research

Click here for a PDF of this release.

Raleigh, NC (October 29, 2020) – The Board of Directors of the Environmental Research & Education Foundation (EREF) are pleased to announce the award of 2 new research grants.

The following projects have been funded in 2020:

Non-Recyclable Plastics to Pavements
Investigator: University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Award Amount: $161,075

This research seeks to create high-value and high-volume products from plastic waste for bitumen (asphalt binder) replacement in pavements. The bitumen replacement market is a potential repurposing for large quantities of waste plastics. It addresses an urgent economic and environmental need for plastic recycling as well as the transportation industry. With 4-5% replacement of bitumen, this market has the potential to consume 1 million tons of waste plastics out of the 26 million tons that go to landfills in the US. Also, the study goal is aligned with the global emphasis on enhancing transportation infrastructure sustainability. Moreover, asphalt pavements are 100% recyclable; therefore, plastic waste will remain in a recycling circular loop. Plastic waste that would typically be landfilled will be formulated for incorporation in bitumen that meets performance specifications for durability. Through manipulation of the chemical and molecular composition of waste plastics, current challenges, including sorting and processing of different plastics, storage instability and compatibility between bitumen and various plastics will be addressed.

The objectives of this study are as follows:

  1. Develop compatibility and blending methodology of various plastic waste plastic for bitumen modification.
  2. Investigate the suitability of plastic types and mixed plastics for modifying bitumen.
  3. Determine the storage stability of plastic waste modified bitumen.
  4. Perform chemical and rheological characterization of plastic-modified bitumen.
  5. Quantify environmental benefits using life cycle assessment (LCA) for plastic-modified bitumen.

Techno-Economic Evaluation of Supercritical Water Oxidation
for Landfill Leachate and Condensate Management

Investigator: Duke University
Award Amount: $152,000

Landfill leachate and condensate management can be a major cost of operating a landfill and they are an important contingent liability. For example, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are now found in many landfills and cause great concerns to owners and operators. Supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) is a game-changing treatment technology that could provide superior treatment with better economics. Deshusses’ lab is leading the U.S. in SCWO technology research.

The objectives of this project are to demonstrate the technical and economic feasibility of using SCWO at landfills by:

  1. Demonstrating treatment of representative landfill leachates, condensates and concentrated liquids, such as leachate reverse osmosis (RO) concentrate, in our pilot 1 ton/day SCWO system with specific focus on PFAS and emerging contaminants.
  2. Conducting a detailed economic analysis of using SCWO at landfills at a larger scale. This will include an early assessment of scale and SCWO system throughout. If this assessment indicates that concentration of leachates and condensates (e.g., using reverse osmosis) followed by SCWO is the preferred route for treatment, the project will focus on treatment of concentrated liquids such as RO leachate concentrates.
  3. Exploring treatment synergies (e.g., hazardous wastes, PFAS contaminated sludge, selected organic wastes) that may be co-treated with leachate/condensate or RO concentrates and that may affect the economic outcome.

Pre-proposals are required prior to submitting a full proposal. EREF invites investigators to submit pre-proposals pertaining to the topics outlined on the “How to Apply for a Grant” page on EREF’s website. The next pre-proposal deadline is December 1, 2020. For more information regarding EREF’s Research Grants Program, please visit erefdn.org or e-mail proposals@erefdn.org.

EREF is a 501(c)3 class charity that funds and directs scientific research and educational initiatives for waste management practices to benefit industry participants and the communities they serve. For more complete information on EREF funded research, its scholarship program and how to donate to this great cause, visit erefdn.org.

###

Media Contact:
Catherine Ardoin, Communications Manager
Phone: 919.861.6876 ext. 109
Email: cardoin@erefdn.org

Improving Worker Safety: Understanding Needlesticks at Material Recovery Facilities

The Environmental Research & Education Foundation and the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) collaborated to quantify the number of needlesticks that occur at Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) with the goal to improve worker safety. This infographic outlines some key findings from this report.

To download your free copy of the Household Needles in Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) report, click here.

View the infographic (PDF)

Think Waste Wise This Holiday Season!

The holiday season is upon us, filled with family time and tasty holiday meals, and that means a substantial amount of waste.
Before hitting the grocery store for some last minute shopping or carving up that turkey this Thanksgiving, consider how much waste is produced and steps you can take to reduce it.

EREF Answers: A Deeper Look at City and State Recycling Goals

After landfilling, recycling is the most common method of waste management in the United States with 21% of municipal solid waste (MSW) processed at recycling facilities and 64% sent to landfills.* Across the U.S., cities and states are setting recycling goals to increase the recovery and beneficial reuse of materials.

Click the infographic above for more on U.S. recycling!

This America Recycles Day, learn more about these goals and U.S. recycling operations.

How are recyclables defined?

While recyclables may be defined specifically as commodity recyclables (i.e. paper, plastic, metal, glass) or include activities like composting or energy recovery from waste, an upcoming report from EREF has found at least 18 different ways states are defining and reporting recycling. This variability in definition makes it difficult to quantify actual diversion rates, as there is no set standard.

Why are U.S. cities and states setting recycling goals and policies?

The most commonly cited reasons are to increase energy conservation, protect environmental quality, improve public health and better manage our resources.

How many states have recycling or diversion goals in place?

Currently, 45 states (90%) have set recycling or diversion rate goals, which range from encouraging specific, stated activities (e.g. recycling, composting) to focusing on reducing total waste being managed each year. Twenty-three of these goals are written as recycling goals.

What are the targeted recycling rates?

States’ target recycling rates range from 10% – 80% with some citing a deadline to reach the goal while others are open-ended.

Where do recyclable items go after discard?

The sorting and processing of commodity recyclables happens through a network of over 3,900 recycling facilities made up of Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) and non-MRFs (i.e. smaller, low-technology facilities).

What are Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs)?

MRFs accept, sort and process recyclable material for re-use. These facilities are classified either as clean, where recyclables are already pulled from the waste before arrival at the facility, or mixed-waste, where recyclables and waste materials are collected together, then separated from the waste through manual and/or automated sorting upon arrival.

How much waste is processed through a recycling facility?

Each year, over 70 million tons of recyclables are processed. A large MRF could manage up to 200,000 tons/year.

Looking for more recycling data?

Additional recycling data can be found in EREF’s Data & Policy (D&P) reports here. Look for EREF’s report on recycling policy this winter!

Data is collected, aggregated and analyzed through the foundation’s Data & Policy Program. D&P projects serve as a resource for solid waste-related data for researchers and decision-makers within other areas such as sustainability and environmental policy. Fees charged for D&P reports are used to provide internships to college students who assist in data gathering and analysis efforts for the program.

*Found in EREF’s report “Municipal Solid Waste Management in the U.S.: 2010 & 2013.”

Research Spotlight: Eco-Clamshell Reusable To-Go Program

Researchers at Eckerd College (Saint Petersburg, Florida) developed a reusable to-go system and container prototype called “Eco-Clamshell” via a $32,000 grant from the Environmental Research and Education Foundation (EREF). The project was led by Alison Ormsby, Associate Professor of Environmental Studies, and Audrey Copeland, Grant Research and Coordinator. The program has since been adopted by more than 400 colleges/universities while the container has seen design improvements by G.E.T. Enterprises under the name Eco-Takeouts™.

Find out more about Eco-Clamshell, Eco-Takeouts™, their benefits and testimonials in its Research Spotlight.

Industry Consultant, Ivan Cooper, on Leachate Management & Treatment

 

Leachate management is fast becoming one of the most costly and troublesome components of landfill operations. Leachate is treated and disposed of in many different ways, depending on site conditions, discharge limits, costs, or other factors.  Some of the more common approaches include on-site management through recirculation to the landfill, evaporation, discharge to sewer or hauling untreated to a nearby wastewater treatment plant (either treated or untreated), or treated and directly discharged to surface waters.

In the first attempt to characterize what approaches are used from the above scenarios in the United States (U.S.), the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) leachate management subcommittee surveyed its members on leachate treatment and disposal options. A total of 184 responses from the U.S. and a few other countries were received. Almost half (47.3%) discharged untreated leachate to a Publically Owned Treatment Works (POTW) split almost evenly between trucking and direct discharge to a sewer system through gravity or force main pumping. Approximately 12.5% discharged treated wastewater to a POTW. Landfills treated about 18% entirely on-site, mostly through recirculation, while 22.3% reported that they managed leachate by other means, including treatment and direct discharge. Facilities that discharged reported limitations that typically include flow, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), ammonia, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Total Nitrogen, and pH; while a third of the respondents who had limitations indicated that there were other effluent parameters that needed to be met.  A more comprehensive analysis is currently being completed for other parameters, including spatial distribution, and will be available from SWANA in the near future.

In general, there were some interesting geographical approaches based on anecdotal information from this survey and from personal experience.  Nutrient limitations were most stringent for total nitrogen when discharging to nutrient (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorous) sensitive locales, including the Chesapeake Bay, while arsenic appeared as a limitation in many Florida locales.  For landfills that discharge into small to medium size wastewater treatment plants with ultraviolet disinfection, we found that there are limitations on UV transmittance that cause a POTW to incur an effluent below 65% transmittance, failing to meet disinfection requirements.  The absorbance is typically caused by organic matter (e.g., humic and fulvic acids) in leachate, as documented by various EREF and other studies.

Treatment technologies for off-site disposal frequently encountered ranged from natural based systems (lagoons and land disposal/constructed wetlands) to mechanical systems, such as sequencing bioreactors (SBR), membrane bioreactors (MBR) and moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBR).  Effluent filtration as a separate step is less common. On-site disposal, where treatment technologies were implemented, include chemical precipitation and settling, while some landfills reported reverse osmosis treatment for discharge with the reject flows, which may be as much as 30 to 40% , discharged back to the landfill.

Other questions remain unanswered and will be the subject of future analyses, including operation and maintenance issues, capital and O&M costs, labor staffing, and troublesome compliance issues.

Ivan Cooper, PE, BCEE, has served as the National Practice Leader at Civil & Environmental Consultants since 2012.

Join the School Cafeteria Discards Assessment Project (SCrAP) Today!

The Environmental Research & Education Foundation (EREF) has developed the School Cafeteria Discards Assessment Project (SCrAP) to quantify both food waste and related wastes (eg. recyclables, to landfill) generated in cafeterias at K-12 schools nationally.

Roughly 40% of food produced in America is thrown away which equates to nearly $165 billion worth of food each year.

SCrAP aims to gather information regarding the quantity of waste generated in school cafeterias and gain an understanding of how this waste is managed both at the school and after it is hauled away.

Additionally, SCrAP could provide benefits to schools such as:

  • Educating students/school staff regarding more sustainable waste management strategies,
  • Reducing unnecessary food waste,
  • Reducing food costs to schools, and
  • Developing ways to better manage institutional food waste.

To register, please click here or e-mail SCRAP@erefdn.org with any questions.

Click here for more information (PDF)

Click here for the SCrAP flyer