Tel: +86-25-8461 0201
Website: www.hiclover.com
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
World Applied Sciences Journal 29 (12): 1516-1526, 2014
ISSN 1818-4952
© IDOSI Publications, 2014
DOI: 10.5829/idosi.wasj.2014.29.12.1908
Environmental Impact of Municipal Solid Waste in Karachi City
1Muhammad Shahid, 1Yasmin Nergis, 1Shimim A. Siddiqui and 2Afzal Farooq Choudhry
1Environmental Research Center, Bahria University, Karachi Campus, Karachi-75260, Pakistan
2Department of Environmental Science, Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology, Gulshan-e-Iqbal Campus, Karachi-Pakistan
Abstract: Developing countries face serious problem in managing Municipal solid waste. The municipal solid waste generation rapidly increases in proportion to the rises in population and urbanization. A reliable estimate of the quantity and quality of municipal solid waste is very important for a proper planning and management of the municipal solid waste. This paper deals with the generation, composition of municipal solid waste (MSW) and their impact on the ground water contamination. The data of municipal solid waste generation and their composition was found during the month of November, 2011 to January, 2012. Our study suggests that 10,000 ton per day of municipal solid waste generated from Karachi city out of which 60% of the waste is dumped at the landfill site and rest of the 40% is left on the streets which disturb the aesthetic beauty of the Karachi city. Also, my study examined municipal solid waste as well as ground water contamination around municipal landfill site in Karachi city. Sampling was carried out according to the spot sampling method of municipal solid waste as well as groundwater and analysis them physical and chemical parameters, such as, pH, TDS, Moisture Content, Total Hardness, Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg), COD, Sodium (Na), Phosphorous (PO4), Potassium (K) and the metals like Lead (Pb), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr) and Nickel (Ni) using analytical techniques. It has been found that most of the parameters of municipal solid waste and ground waste are beyond the permissible limits in accordance with the Pakistani Standards as well as Indian Standards. It is concluded that the contamination is due to the solid waste material that are dumped at the landfill site.
INTRODUCTION Solid waste (SW) constitutes a huge challenge for local governments due to its constant increase and the
Developing countries face serious problem in majority of the municipalities do not keep records on managing solid wastes. The annual waste generation waste generation, origin and characteristics. This lack of increases in proportion to the rises in population and information causes that the decisions regarding urbanization. Rapid urbanization, development and proper waste management are based on assumption change of life style in the cities have also changed the and inferences, which brings about its mishandling generation rate and the composition of the municipal with serious consequences for the environment solid waste. (O. Buenrostro, et al., 2003) [2].
Solid waste other than hazardous and radioactive World population continues to rise with material are often referred to as municipal solid waste projections nearing 7.2 billion by 2015 (UNEP, 2005) [3]. (MSW). Municipal solid waste is useless unwanted The increasing volume of waste being generated would material discharged as a result of human activity. not be a problem if waste was viewed as a resource and Most commonly, they are solids, semi solid or liquids in managed properly (UNEP, 2001) [4].
containers thrown out of houses, commercial or Municipal solid waste (MSW) management is a industrial premises (Nyangababo, et al., 1980) [1]. highly neglected factor of environmental management in
Corresponding Author: Yasmin Nergis, Environmental Research Center, Bahria University, Karachi Campus, Karachi 75260, Pakistan. Cell:+92-345-2424832.
all low and most middle-income countries Experimental
(Murtaza, et al., 2000) [5]. Poorly managed waste stream are causing adverse environmental impact and may result in health hazards (Misra, et al., 2005) [6]. Environmental concerns are assuming ever-increasing importance in the MSW decision-making process (Elizabeth, 1998) [7]. Appropriate waste management strategies can substantially reduce the burden placed on the environment. If the waste management system is based on sound data and is well executed with public awareness, it can reduce emission and resource depletion (Jurczak, 2003, [8] Woodard, et al., 2004 [9]). Global generation of municipal solid waste in 1997 was 0.49 billion tones with an estimated annual growth rate of 3.2-4.5% in developed nations and 2-3% in developing nations (Suocheng, et al., 2001) [10]. Inappropriate management of urban solid waste not only increases the pollution to the environment, but also threatens human health through its collection, transfer and disposal processes (Dong, et al., 2001) [11].
Landfills have been identified as one of the major threat to groundwater resources (Fatta, et al., 1999; [12] USEPA, 1984 [13]). Waste placed in landfill or open dumps are subjected to either groundwater underflow or infiltration from precipitation. The dumped solid wastes gradually release its initial interstitial water and some of its decomposition by-product gets into water moving through the waste deposit. Such liquid containing innumerable organic and inorganic compounds is called leachate. This leachate accumulates at the bottom of the landfill and percolates through the soil. Areas near landfill have a greater possibility of groundwater contamination because of the potential pollution source of leachate originating from the nearby site. Such contamination of groundwater resource poses a substantial risk to local resource user and to the natural environment. The impact of landfill leachate on the surface and groundwater has given rise to a number of studies in recent years (Saarela, 2003; [14] Abu-Rukah, et al., 2001; [15]
Looser, et al., 1999; [16] Christensen, et al., 1998; [17]
De Rosa, et al., 1996; [18] Flyhammar, 1995 [19]).
In the present study, it was estimated that the generation of municipal solid waste and their impact on the ground water at the landfill site of Karachi city. Various physico-chemical parameters including heavy metals were analyzed of municipal solid waste as well as groundwater and the quantity of municipal solid waste generated by the Karachi city.
Study Area: Karachi is the biggest city in Pakistan having population is more than nineteen (19) million. It comprises 18 Union Councils (U.C), Karachi generates municipal solid waste more than 10,000 tons per day, 60% of that waste is dumped at the landfill site and the 40% remains on the streets, which is not properly collected. There are two official landfill sites JAM CHAKRO, near Surjani town and GOND PASS, near Hub river road and two unofficial landfill sites are IBRAHIM HYDERI and REHRI GOTH landfill sites; these sites are 30 to 35 Km away from the city centre.
It was found that the municipal solid waste of 14 towns of the Karachi city is dumped at JAM CHAKRO landfill site and the municipal solid waste of remaining 04 towns is dumped at GOND PASS. On the landfill sites the municipal solid waste (mixed garbage) is brought through uncovered vehicles comes from the different areas of the cities and dumped openly without any segregation and discipline.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The survey was conducted during the month of Nov-2011 to Jan-2012, because the ground water gets polluted due to solid waste dumping nearer to the location.
Weight of Municipal Solid Waste Generate in the Karachi City: For calculating the exact amount of waste generated from eighteen (18) town of the Karachi city. The sites were monitored and it was noted how many tracks dump the waste at landfill sites. For the calculation of exact weight of municipal solid waste (mixed garbage), first noted the weight of the municipal solid waste with the truck (W1), then weight of truck. (W2), after dumped of the waste, using the weighing bridge.
Weight of waste (mixed garbage) = weight of waste with truck-weight of truck
Or,
W (in ton) = W1 – W2
In this way, note the assessed weight of municipal solid waste (mixed garbage) town wise is shown in Appendix-I.
Physical Composition of Municipal Solid Waste: For this the entire crucible in an oven for one hr at 105°C, cool it in purpose, first identified the specific town then calculated to the desicator and then note the weight of the crucible the weight of municipal solid waste (mixed garbage) by plus sample (W3).
subtracting the weight of truck from the loaded truck, The percent moisture content is calculated by using
then the mixed garbage was dumped on the cleaned the following formula, covered area was segregated. After that the weights of
the segregated were noted separately and then calculated the percentages. The same procedure was repeated for the rest of the towns respectively.
Moisture Content (%)= (W2 – W1) – (W3 – W1)
(W2 – W1)
For heavy metal analysis, procedure is to take 1 gm of
Chemical Composition of Municipal Solid Waste the dry sample of the solid waste in a beaker and add Sampling of Solid Waste: A sample from the municipal 100ml of distilled water in the beaker, after that place it on solid waste (mixed garbage) was taken by means of spot the Hot Plate and add 20 ml Aqua Regia (mixture of 75 ml sampling method (take a sample at random from the HCL + 25 ml HNO3; ratio of 3:1) and mix it well. Then take source); first pointed out the loaded truck and then 20 ml of Aqua-Regia and add it into the sample of 100 ml, dumped it on the clean covered smooth surface, from when the sample remain of 5 ml add 2-3 drops of HCL and where was taken 50 kg amount of municipal solid waste then immediately stop heating and makeup up to 100 ml (mixed garbage) 50-60 kg. After that, segregated it and and then filter it through filter paper No. 42 and collect it different type of composition was taken out from the into the conical flask (100 ml), make up it into the 100 ml. mixed garbage and then took a sample on random basis After that, give the sample No of the collected from the waste about 1 kg for further analysis. The same sample respectively. Before run it on the Atomic procedure is repeated for sample collection from 06 Absorption, THERMO SCIENTIFIC, ICE-3000 SERIES different trucks which came from different part of the city. ATOMIC ABSORPTION, first standardize the Atomic After that, the samples were immediately send to Absorption by mean of the standard solution of the
the lab and were stored in a refrigerator at 4°C. Chemical required metal having 0.1 ppm, 10 ppm and 100 ppm, parameters analyzed from municipal solid waste then find out the value of trace metal such as, Lead (Pb), (mixed garbage) include pH, moisture content, Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr), Nickel (Ni), Sodium (Na) Sodium, Phosphorous and Potassium. Also were and Potassium (K) of the digest sample of the solid waste. determine the heavy metal like, Lead (Pb), Cadmium (Cd), And Phosphorous is estimated by using of Chromium (Cr) and Nickel. The pH was calculated by Hack-DR-2800 spectrophotometer and Hack 8114, using HACH-SENSION 156 METER. Molybduvanadate method and fixed it at program. No 480. Moisture content of the solid waste sample, Where 25 ml sample is mixed with 10 ml Molybduvanadate procedure is to take the weight of clean empty dry plate and set timer for three (3), min. After three (3) min get
by electronic balance, after that take 100 gm wet sample of required value in mg/l. This is shown in the Table 3. solid waste and put it on the clean dry steel plate and note
the weight of sample with plate and then place in an oven Physical and Chemical Characteristic of Ground at 40°C for 24 hrs respectively. After drying the sample, Watersampling of Groundwater: Bore wells at the note the weight of the dry sample. The dry samples are different location are in operation within 2 to 2.5 km transferred into the clean polyethylene bag, sealed and around the landfill site, i.e. JAM CHAKRO. Sample of numbered accordingly. groundwater at 06 different locations at various distance To calculate the moisture content in the sample, from the landfill were taken, during the month of procedure is to taken an empty crucible, clean it and then November, 2011. Sample were stored in a cold storage
put it in the oven for 30 min to dry at 93.5°C, after that, put bath and immediately transferred to the lab.
the hot crucible in the desicator for cooling. Then note After sampling, the samples were urgently send to the weight of the clean dry crucible (W1)) and then take 1 the lab and were stored in a refrigerator at 4°C. gm of the dry sample of the solid waste from the sealed Physical parameters such as pH and Total dissolved polyethylene bag put it in the dry crucible and note the Solid (TDS) were analyzed of the groundwater by using weight of the crucible plus sample(W2). After that put HACH-SENSION 156 METER.
In case of chemical parameters, which were analysis Molydbduvanadate and set timer for three (3), min. After of the sample in which includes, Total Hardness as three (3) min get the required value in mg/l.
CaCO3, Calcium (Ca) and Magnesium (Mg) is estimated
by using DIGITAL TITRATO (HACH). MODEL. NO. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
16900. In this method take 10 ml of a sample in a
measuring cylinder and add distilled water up to 100ml, Current Status of MSW Generated in Karachi City: after then transfer it into the conical flask and titrate it Karachi is divided into five zones (east, west, south, and find out the Total Hardness as CaCO3, Calcium (Ca) central and malir), eighteen (18) towns and 178 union and Magnesium (Mg). By using this meter, take a dilution councils. Karachi city generated more than 10,000 ton / factor (1:10) and also multiplied by the correction factor day of municipal solid waste and dumped at the landfill which is mathematically represented as, site without proper planning and segregation. Out of the
total amount of municipal solid waste 60% 0f the total
Ca (mg/l) = (X) * 10 * 0.4 = Y1 T.H (mg/l) = (X) * 10 = Y2
amount of municipal solid waste are dumped on the landfill site and rest of 40% remain on the street and did not collect from the towns. During the month of November, 2011 to December, 2012 survey was conducted
And for Magnesium, and find out amount of garbage dumped at the landfill site.
we subtract from Y2 to Y1
as, Mg (mg/l) = Y2
– Y1
Out of 18 town only eleven town such as, Gulshan, Gulberg, Gaddap, Korangi, Liaquatabad, Landhi, Malir,
Also, calculate COD for the ground water by using North-Nazimabad, North Karachi, Shah Faisal and Bin DIGITAL REACTOR BLOCK-DRB-200. In this method Qasim towns dumped their garbage at the Jam Chakro use prepared vial 1500 and add 2 ml sample and run for 2 landfill site and too much without any proper planning hrs at 150°C after 2 hrs take it out and put it for cool and and segregation of the garbage. Amongst them, Bin again placed it in the spectrophotometer. i.e., Spectro-DR- Qasim town does not dumped at the official landfill site; 2800 and fixed at Program. No- 435-Program. Then get the instead it dumped solid waste close to the town at kachra value of the COD level in the ground water in mg/l. kundhi. This is because Bin Qasim town is too far from For the trace of metal contents, take 100ml sample of the Jam Chakro landfill site and the cost trip is too high. groundwater and digest it. And placed it on the Hot Plate Therefore, CDGK has a plan to construct an official and add 20 ml of Aqua-Regia (mixture of 75 ml HCL + 25 ml landfill sites near the Bin Qasim town. The town that HNO3; ratio of 3:1) and mix it well. then takes 20 ml of dumped their solid waste at the Jam Chakro landfill site is
Aqua-Regia and adds it into the sample of 100 ml, when shown in the Table1 and Table 2.
the sample remain of 5 ml add 2-3 drops of HCL and then Rest of four towns dump their waste at the Gond Pass immediately stop heating and makeup up to 100 ml and landfill town near Hub River due to its being much near then filter it through filter paper No. 42 and collect it into to the town as compared to Jam Chakro landfill site. the conical flask (100 ml), make up it into the 100 ml. The towns which dumped at the Goud Pass landfill sites Then gives the sample No accordingly. Before run such as Baldia town, Kemari town, Lyari town and Orangi
it on the Atomic Absorption, THERMO SCIENTIFIC, town, during sampling it was observed that the municipal ICE-3000 SERIES ATOMIC ABSORPTION, first solid waste (mixed garbage) generated by these towns, standardized the Atomic Absorption by mean of the which indicates in the Table 3.
standard solution of the required metal having 0.1 ppm, Three towns of them i.e., Jamshed town, Sadder 10 ppm and 100 ppm and then run the prepared sample town and S.I.T.E town are those that dumped their accordingly and find out the value of trace metal such as, waste at both landfill sites. C.D.G.K trucks collect the Lead (Pb), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr) and Nickel (Ni), municipal solid waste from roadside, Street of the town in the groundwater. and other places to transport it to the nearest landfill sites. And phosphorous is estimate by using of Sadder town and Jamshed town consists of 11 and 13 Hack-DR-2800 spectrophotometer and Hack 8114, Union Councils and both the towns comprise big market Molydbduvanadate method and fixed it at program. of the city that produce huge amount of mixed garbage No 480. Where 25 ml sample is mixed with 10 ml such as, house hold garbage as well as market garbage.
Table 1: Weight of MSW dumped on jam chakro landfill site, Karachi
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Date |
—————————————————————————————————————– Weight (In Ton/ per day) —————————————————————————————————————– |
Total Trips (per day |
Total Weights (Ton / day) |
|||||
21-Nov |
470. 5 |
248. 82 |
0 |
0 |
181.31 |
603.3 |
94 |
1503. 93 |
22-Nov |
359. 46 |
310. 51 |
292. 7 |
155. 32 |
157.29 |
211.15 |
136 |
1486. 43 |
23-Nov |
569. 3 |
231. 72 |
44. 59 |
184. 27 |
187.22 |
220.98 |
142 |
1438. 08 |
24-Nov |
527. 05 |
247. 35 |
32. 14 |
211. 59 |
211.59 |
351.44 |
138 |
1581. 16 |
25-Nov |
435. 24 |
161. 99 |
188. 24 |
281. 1 |
202.01 |
364.83 |
161 |
1633. 41 |
12-Dec |
385. 32 |
242. 46 |
199. 32 |
324. 01 |
180.61 |
341.96 |
165 |
1673. 68 |
13-Dec |
492. 07 |
218. 53 |
137. 13 |
386 |
256.18 |
384.08 |
168 |
1873. 99 |
14-Dec |
356. 45 |
349. 25 |
215. 74 |
554. 52 |
278.5 |
679.12 |
211 |
2433. 58 |
15-Dec |
602. 3 |
274. 43 |
266. 97 |
492. 07 |
287.52 |
612.58 |
218 |
2535. 87 |
16-Dec |
593. 84 |
454. 5 |
256. 74 |
494 |
272.24 |
566.58 |
234 |
2637. 9 |
2-Jan |
358. 17 |
380. 22 |
0 |
441. 06 |
15.79 |
373.44 |
125 |
1568. 68 |
3-Jan |
265. 09 |
378. 5 |
205. 2 |
325. 69 |
323.86 |
293.57 |
175 |
1791. 91 |
4-Jan |
256. 98 |
328. 45 |
129. 33 |
106. 65 |
362.2 |
479.29 |
158 |
1662. 9 |
5-Jan |
539. 5 |
410. 67 |
97. 82 |
331. 4 |
493.84 |
377.78 |
191 |
2251. 01 |
6-Jan |
456 |
380. 22 |
127. 95 |
303. 62 |
420.09 |
230.19 |
169 |
1918. 07 |
Total Amount |
6667. 27 |
4617. 62 |
2193. 87 |
4591. 3 |
3830. 25 |
6090. 29 |
2485 |
27990. 6 |
Average Amount |
444. 48 |
307. 84 |
146. 25 |
306. 08 |
255. 35 |
406. 01 |
|
|
(1)=Gulshan Town, (2)=Gulberg Town, (3)=Gaddap Town, (4)=Korangi Town, (5)=Liaquatabad Town, (6)=Landhi Town
Table 2: Weight of garbage dumped on jam chakro landfill site, Karachi
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
———————————————————————————————————- Weight (In Ton/ per day) Date ———————————————————————————————————- |
Total Trips (per day) |
Total Weights (Ton / day) |
|||||
21-Nov |
217.7 |
330.83 |
297.88 |
237.95 |
0 |
156 |
1084.36 |
22-Nov |
212.45 |
311.56 |
300.82 |
283.77 |
0 |
174 |
1108.6 |
23-Nov |
176.17 |
587.9 |
284.9 |
239.64 |
30 |
183 |
1288.61 |
24-Nov |
193.67 |
326.49 |
221.3 |
235.84 |
0 |
85 |
977.3 |
25-Nov |
287.28 |
494.84 |
360.25 |
274.41 |
0 |
193 |
1416.78 |
12-Dec |
301.65 |
509.07 |
452.32 |
223.11 |
0 |
191 |
1486.15 |
13-Dec |
270.18 |
423.99 |
371.15 |
246.3 |
0 |
186 |
1311.62 |
14-Dec |
202.88 |
462.92 |
323.3 |
257.97 |
0 |
160 |
1247.07 |
15-Dec |
205.18 |
344.09 |
320.35 |
263.15 |
0 |
167 |
1132.77 |
16-Dec |
234.83 |
380.45 |
353.2 |
271.26 |
0 |
172 |
1239.74 |
2-Jan |
231.08 |
228.71 |
128.29 |
207.47 |
0 |
70 |
795.55 |
3-Jan |
239.1 |
468.47 |
456.58 |
191.92 |
0 |
206 |
1356.07 |
4-Jan |
196.21 |
384.5 |
462.09 |
217.81 |
0 |
199 |
1260.61 |
5-Jan |
229.01 |
361.56 |
375.23 |
202.75 |
0 |
177 |
1168.55 |
6-Jan |
237.83 |
483.68 |
363.07 |
263.61 |
0 |
192 |
1348.19 |
Total Amount |
3435.22 |
6099.06 |
5070.73 |
3616.96 |
0 |
2511 |
18221.97 |
Average Amount |
229.01 |
406.604 |
338.04 |
241.13 |
0 |
|
|
(1)=Malir Town, (2)=North Nazimabad Town, (3)=North Karachi Town, (4)=Shah Faisal Town, (5)=Bin Qasim Town
Table 3: Weight of garbage dumped on Gond pass landfill site, Karachi
(1) (2) (3) (4)
|
——————————————————————————————– Weight (In Ton/ per day) |
Total Trips |
Total Weights |
|||
Date |
——————————————————————————————– |
(per day |
(Ton / day) |
|||
21-Nov |
273.9 |
147.2 |
0 |
0 |
51 |
421.1 |
22-Nov |
255 |
92.66 |
284 |
76.49 |
95 |
708.15 |
23-Nov |
266.9 |
88.04 |
498.99 |
0 |
114 |
853.93 |
24-Nov |
0 |
187.76 |
356.04 |
300.12 |
78 |
843.92 |
25-Nov |
300.13 |
81.81 |
406.05 |
331.91 |
133 |
1119.9 |
12-Dec |
472.54 |
70.07 |
374.64 |
323.15 |
128 |
1240.4 |
13-Dec |
480.41 |
82.79 |
379.663 |
434.94 |
131 |
1377.803 |
14-Dec |
502.34 |
73.5 |
446.52 |
387.46 |
131 |
1409.82 |
15-Dec |
449.21 |
163.27 |
431.03 |
301.97 |
153 |
1345.48 |
16-Dec |
532.97 |
92.6 |
580.81 |
323.18 |
173 |
1529.56 |
2-Jan |
429.95 |
49.46 |
149.92 |
341.51 |
101 |
970.84 |
3-Jan |
456.06 |
66.32 |
500.99 |
363.68 |
145 |
1387.05 |
4-Jan |
230.77 |
87.69 |
566.29 |
326.2 |
135 |
1210.95 |
5-Jan |
261.97 |
84.05 |
115.94 |
246.7 |
87 |
708.66 |
6-Jan |
679.06 |
19.23 |
318.65 |
454.85 |
132 |
1471.79 |
Total Amount |
5591.21 |
1386.45 |
5409.53 |
4212.16 |
1787 |
16599.353 |
Average Amount |
372.74 |
92.43 |
360.63 |
280.81 |
|
|
(1)=Baldia Town, (2)=Kemari Town, (3)=Layari Town (4)=Orangi Town
Table 4: Weight of garbage dumped on Jam chakro and Gond pass landfill site, Karachi
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
———————- |
——————— |
——————– |
—————— |
(J) (G) |
(J) (G) |
(J) (G) |
(J) (G) |
——————————————————————————————————————
Weight (In Ton/ per day)
Date —————————————————————————————————————— Total Trips (per day Total Weights (Ton / day)
21-Nov |
344.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
243.2 |
78.7 |
110.7 |
592.0 |
410.3 |
201.0 |
1778.9 |
22-Nov |
534.8 |
46.2 |
90.1 |
195.8 |
302.6 |
13.0 |
532.7 |
373.0 |
265.0 |
2088.2 |
23-Nov |
743.5 |
0.0 |
292.7 |
197.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
255.8 |
358.6 |
279.0 |
1847.7 |
24-Nov |
437.0 |
51.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
338.7 |
0.0 |
246.1 |
349.4 |
193.0 |
1422.3 |
25-Nov |
782.7 |
0.0 |
74.3 |
143.7 |
0.0 |
4.5 |
47.6 |
508.4 |
292.0 |
1561.1 |
12-Dec |
572.9 |
16.2 |
93.1 |
178.9 |
354.2 |
1.7 |
294.5 |
430.5 |
270.0 |
1941.9 |
13-Dec |
912.2 |
0.0 |
195.6 |
54.1 |
393.5 |
2.5 |
299.5 |
433.8 |
299.0 |
2291.0 |
14-Dec |
628.2 |
13.5 |
62.5 |
438.7 |
292.9 |
2.5 |
265.1 |
479.4 |
279.0 |
2182.8 |
15-Dec |
646.8 |
0.0 |
113.4 |
311.5 |
276.6 |
0.0 |
145.5 |
569.6 |
283.0 |
2063.4 |
16-Dec |
717.7 |
0.0 |
69.9 |
357.4 |
401.8 |
2.0 |
114.2 |
580.8 |
301.0 |
2243.7 |
2-Jan |
394.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
240.3 |
345.5 |
0.0 |
22.0 |
0.0 |
112.0 |
1002.0 |
3-Jan |
533.0 |
0.0 |
153.2 |
407.4 |
358.5 |
0.0 |
99.6 |
618.0 |
295.0 |
2169.8 |
4- Jan |
682.4 |
0.0 |
245.4 |
236.3 |
389.2 |
4.7 |
65.3 |
0.0 |
215.0 |
1623.2 |
5- Jan |
438.4 |
0.0 |
100.4 |
281.8 |
466.9 |
0.0 |
63.4 |
0.0 |
157.0 |
1350.9 |
6- Jan |
358.0 |
5.9 |
67.7 |
257.6 |
641.7 |
64.2 |
32.4 |
32.4 |
224.0 |
1459.8 |
Total Amount |
8725.6 |
132.9 |
1558.4 |
3543.8 |
4640.6 |
205.7 |
3075.7 |
5144.2 |
3665.0 |
27026.9 |
Average Amount |
581.7 |
8.9 |
103.9 |
236.3 |
309.4 |
13.7 |
205.0 |
324.9 |
|
|
(1)= Jamshed Town, (2)= Saddar Town, (3)= S.I.T.E Town,(4)= C.D.G.K (J)= Jam Chakro, (G) = Gond Pass
Similarly, S.I.T.E town consists of nine Union total garbage generated) are as follow: 4788.25, 5391.33, Council and comprises largest industrial zone of Karachi 5428.33, 4824.68, 5731.23, 6342.12, 6854.443, 7273.3,
city.This town also generates huge amount of garbage 7077.56, 7650.94, 4337.11, 6704.81, 5757.7, 5479.13 and that is dumped at both the city landfill sites (Table 4). 6197.84 ton / day was collected and dumped at two landfill Some of the figure giving the amount of mixed garbage site and rest 40% mixed garbage was not collected and collected and dumped per day at landfill sites (60% of the dumped at two landfill sites and rest of the 40% is not
collected from the towns that remains on the streets of According to the record, amount of municipal solid Karachi city. Unfortunately, the dumping at the two waste generated and filled in 2006 were 6113 tons and landfill sites is without proper planning and segregation 5057 tons/day respectively, while 1057 tons remained on of the garbage, which not only adversely affected the the streets of the city. Survey conducted by us in Nov-11 aesthetic beauty of the Karachi city, but also causes bad to Jan-2012 showed that the amount of lifted solid waste odor, serious diseases and the bad impact on the was 8907.27 ton / day. This indicates that the amount of environment. According to the Pak-EPA, (2005) [20] the the MSW generated and lifted has almost doubled over a mixed garbage generated from the different areas varies period of 5 years. 60% of MSW dumped at the landfill site from 1.896 kg/house/day to 4.29 kg/house/day in a few and 40% of MSW did not collect from the town it shows major areas of the city. that municipal solid waste increases 50% from 2006.
An average amount (ton per 15 days) of the mixed
garbage generated by each individual town is: Gulshan Composition of Municipal Solid Waste Generated in 444.48, Gulberg 307.84, Gaddap 146.25, Korangi 306.08, Karachi City: It is has found that, the mixed municipal Liaquatabad 255.35, Landhi 406.01, Malir 229.01, North solid waste (MSW) comprises food waste, kitchen waste, Nazimabad 406.60, North Karachi 338.04, Shah Faisal green waste, paper waste, plastic waste, glasses, can,, 241.13, Bin Qasim 0, Baldia 372.74, Kemari 92.43, Lyari metal, plastic, dirt, rock, clothing, tetra pack, debris, 360.63, Orangi town 280.81, 590.56, 340.14, 323.08, 529.98 lighting bulb, sand and wood/board and other tons. From the tables it is indicated that Sadder town miscellaneous items. Composition is an important tool and Gulshan town produced higher amount of municipal which help us in deciding about the treatment to be given solid waste (MSW) than the other towns. to the given to the M|SW. Particularly about the reuse In 2006, CDGK solid waste management department and recycling of certain composition of the waste. also estimated the amount of municipal solid waste During, the studies in November, 2011 to January, 2012, generated and actual amount lifting and the amount that the garbage from individual towns was categorized remained unattended to. These values have been according to its composition. It was found out as to what compared with the values obtained during the survey percentage each fraction or category of the garbage was conducted in November, 2011 to January, 2012 for the generated in different towns. Proportion and kind of the
present study. The comparison has been shown Table 5. components of varies from town to town.
Table 5: Comparison of MSW generated in Karachi city in 2006 and 2011-12
S. No |
Name of Towns |
MSW Generated in 2006 |
Actual Liftingper day(in ton) |
Blocklogper day (in ton) |
Actual Lifting Of MSW In 2011-2012 |
01 |
Gulshan Town |
400 |
318 |
82 |
593.84 |
02 |
Gulberg Towm |
330 |
330 |
0 |
410.67 |
03 |
Gaddap Town |
350 |
320 |
30 |
266.97 |
04 |
Korangi Town |
360 |
272 |
88 |
554.52 |
05 |
Liaquatabad Town |
800 |
594 |
206 |
493.84 |
06 |
Landhi Town |
370 |
324 |
46 |
679.12 |
07 |
Malir Town |
280 |
270 |
10 |
301.65 |
08 |
North Nazimabad Town |
375 |
336 |
39 |
587.9 |
09 |
North Karachi Town |
365 |
280 |
85 |
462.09 |
10 |
Shah Faisal Town |
105 |
105 |
– |
283.77 |
11 |
Bin Qasim Town |
65 |
27 |
38 |
0 |
12 |
Baldia Town |
400 |
302 |
99 |
679.06 |
13 |
Kemari Town |
220 |
180 |
40 |
163.27 |
14 |
Layari Town |
350 |
300 |
50 |
580.81 |
15 |
Orangi Town |
346 |
240 |
106 |
454.85 |
16 |
Jamshed Town |
330 |
525 |
78 |
958.38 |
17 |
Sadder Town |
500 |
454 |
46 |
684.15 |
18 |
S.I.T.E Town |
167 |
153 |
14 |
752.38 |
|
Total Amount |
6113 |
5057 |
1057 |
8907.27 |
Table 6: Physical COMPOSITION OF waste of MSW generated in Karachi city
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Weight (In Kilograms)
Name of Fraction ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Kitchen |
150.2 |
96.2 |
186.2 |
181 |
200.5 |
146.2 |
180.2 |
230.2 |
110 |
Green |
110.7 |
75.3 |
95.3 |
101 |
110.3 |
105.3 |
125.3 |
135.3 |
85.3 |
Paper |
37.1 |
27.5 |
57.5 |
27.1 |
47.2 |
47.5 |
67.5 |
87.5 |
57.5 |
Glass |
76.3 |
25.6 |
55.6 |
56.3 |
36.2 |
35.6 |
35.6 |
55.6 |
15.6 |
Metal |
5 |
1 |
9 |
8 |
2 |
8 |
14 |
12 |
11.6 |
Plastic |
37.4 |
35.3 |
65.3 |
47.3 |
57.1 |
55.3 |
35.3 |
45.3 |
25.3 |
Dirt |
20.1 |
16.2 |
26.2 |
18.1 |
28.2 |
16.2 |
24.2 |
14.2 |
14.2 |
Nappies |
61 |
51.3 |
41.3 |
51.6 |
41.4 |
51.3 |
71.3 |
61.3 |
51.3 |
Clothing |
20.7 |
38.5 |
48.5 |
18.5 |
28.5 |
58.5 |
62.5 |
72.5 |
35.5 |
Tetra Pack |
86.8 |
41.4 |
51.4 |
71.7 |
51.4 |
41.4 |
61.4 |
81.4 |
41.4 |
Wood /Board |
47.4 |
14.1 |
20.1 |
17.1 |
13.1 |
18.1 |
21.1 |
22.1 |
20.1 |
TotalWeight |
647.3 |
422.4 |
656.4 |
597 |
616 |
583.4 |
698.4 |
817 |
468 |
(1)= Liaquatabad Town, (2)= Lyari Town, (3)= Malir Town, (4)= North Nazimzmbad Town, (5)= North Karachi Town, (6)= Orangi Town, (7)= Shah Faisal Town, (8)= SaddarTown, (9)= S.I.T.E Town
Table 7: Physical COMPOSITION OF waste of MSW generated in Karachi city
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Weight (In Kilograms)
Name of Fraction ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Kitchen |
119.1 |
72.1 |
112.5 |
175.5 |
265.4 |
190.8 |
89.8 |
100.6 |
118.2 |
Green |
75.3 |
65.3 |
105.3 |
80.4 |
120.5 |
120.6 |
45.6 |
85.2 |
100.3 |
Paper |
47.5 |
37.5 |
27.5 |
37.2 |
67.1 |
77.2 |
17.2 |
27.1 |
37.1 |
Glass |
28.6 |
18.6 |
14.6 |
15.1 |
16.1 |
25.1 |
20.1 |
28.6 |
18.6 |
Metal |
7 |
10.2 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
9 |
2 |
3 |
6 |
Plastic |
15.3 |
16.3 |
14.3 |
47.3 |
67.5 |
67.3 |
57.3 |
77.3 |
45.3 |
Dirt |
12.2 |
18.2 |
15.2 |
28.2 |
38.2 |
38.2 |
18.2 |
20.2 |
12.2 |
Nappies |
61.3 |
71.3 |
61.3 |
31.4 |
71.4 |
71.4 |
31.4 |
51.4 |
41.3 |
Clothing |
23.5 |
55.5 |
45.5 |
38.5 |
48.5 |
48.5 |
28.5 |
38.5 |
48.5 |
Tetra Pack |
31.4 |
51.4 |
61.4 |
61.4 |
71.4 |
51.4 |
41.4 |
61.4 |
51.4 |
Wood/ Board |
10.1 |
11.1 |
15.1 |
15.1 |
10.1 |
17.1 |
7.1 |
27.1 |
12.1 |
Total Weight |
431.3 |
427.5 |
473.7 |
533.1 |
770.2 |
716.6 |
358.6 |
520.4 |
491 |
(1)= Baldia Town, (2)= Bin Qasim Town, (3)= Gadap Town, (4)= Gulberg Town, (5)= Gulshan Town, (6)= Jamshed Town, (7)= Kemari Town, (8)= Korangi Town, (9)= Landhi Town
For example, some town produced large amount of anaerobic degradation it contributes to global warming kitchen waste, green waste, paper plastic, tetra pack as by the produced methane.
against larger amounts of dirt debris, metal, clothing and During the survey conducted for the present study wood produced by some other towns. The nature of the the composition of municipal solid waste and percentages garbage produced depends upon the type of the of various components or categories of the waste were locality you are dealing with; for example residential vs. determined town wise. Thos indicates that 80% of the commercial, poor and middle class residents vs. upper waste comprised recyclable materials such as paper, class and well to do class of residents. Compositions also plastic, glass and metal fraction and rest of 20% was help in separating the recyclable articles from the other organic type waste. This indicates in the following type of the material such as organic type and some other table 6 and Table 7,
that can be used for composting. According to the It was observed during the survey, that the waste Ahmed, et. al., (2002) [21], organic waste are also picker or scavengers were mostly Afghani. They picked responsible for pollution of soil and water bodies up most of the recyclable or reuse material from the through leachate and in the process of uncontrolled municipal solid waste. These scavengers collect the
( Na ) (PO4) (K) (Pb) (Cd) (Cr) (Ni)
————————————————————————————————————————————–
mg/kg
S. # pH M.C (%) ————————————————————————————————————————————–
SW1 |
8.21 |
1.35 |
12875.58 |
1370 |
609.57 |
107.2 |
4.74 |
58.93 |
100.8 |
SW2 |
7.9 |
1.36 |
11129.49 |
1310 |
449.99 |
149.7 |
5.07 |
63.66 |
103.6 |
SW3 |
8.11 |
1.33 |
8154.69 |
1290 |
450.26 |
168.5 |
4.78 |
104.5 |
116.8 |
SW4 |
7.98 |
1.57 |
10525 |
1460 |
563.03 |
159.2 |
4.58 |
92.99 |
112.3 |
SW5 |
7.92 |
1.46 |
9668.03 |
1160 |
249.22 |
159.1 |
3.75 |
102 |
111 |
SW6 |
7.99 |
1.66 |
8125.05 |
1280 |
442.02 |
180.4 |
4.53 |
100.9 |
117 |
S 1* |
5.5-9.0 |
No Specs |
100 |
5 |
50 |
15 |
|
|
|
S 2** |
5.5-8.0 |
<50 |
—- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
M.C indicates Moisture Content, All values in (mg/kg) except pH and moisture content, Sodium (Na), Phosphate (PO4), Potassium (K), Lead (Pb), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr), Nickel (Ni)
*S 1 (Indian Standard 1) = *MSW (Manag Handling) Rule 2000.
** S 2 (Standard 2) = **Zucconin and deBertoldi, 1987 standard
waste from door to door as well as from the kachra-kundhi damage. Landfill leachates are the major source of hazard (dust bins), sort it out and keep the portion with worth to the environment. Several cases of groundwater and throw away the rest carelessly, which is littered on pollution from landfill leachates were reported.
the streets, become stinky, cause ugliness and health The analytical result shows that pH of Table-1 and hazards. Tabl;e-3 slightly alkaline and the moisture content is It has been survey of 18 towns that the solid waste favorable for composting. Also, heavy metal contents of mostly comprising, kitchen waste, garden waste, nappies the municipal solid waste collected at different and clothing materials is largely produced by the high location (on random basis) have been shown in Table 8. income residential areas, whereas organic type of waste The concentration of Lead, Cadmium, Chromium and is generally generated from the vegetable markets. Nickel are comparatively high. The analytical results of The towns that includes like Sadder town, Jamshed town, the contents of the above metals, when compared with Gulberg town and Gulshan-e- Iqbal towns produced waste standards, shown that the concentration of metal such with greater amount of paper, plastic, glass and some as, lead, Cadmium, Chromium and Nickel were beyond the
amount of metals. Liaquatabad town generated waste permissible limits for drinking water. consisting dominantly of wood/Board material The nature
(composition) of solid waste generated in various towns Study the Ground Water near about the Landfill Site: of the city largely depends upon the social status of the Landfills have been identified as one of the major threat to inhabitants and the types of the markets occurring there. groundwater resources (Fatta, et al., 1999; USEPA, 1984).
Open dumping of mixed garbage is a threat to the surface Study the Quality of Municipal Solid Waste in the water as well as underground water and the surrounding Vicinity of Landfill Site: In order to characterized the environment. The dumped solid wastes gradually release municipal solid waste at a landfill pH, moisture content, their initial interstitial water and some of its decomposition sodium, phosphate, potassium and heavy metal contents by-products get into water moving through the waste were determined (Table 8). Heavy metal remain unaffected deposit. Such a liquid containing innumerable organic during degradation of organic waste and become toxic and inorganic compound is called Leachate. This leachate when the concentration of heavy metal exceeding a accumulates at the bottom of the landfill and percolates certain limits. In case of the compost from solid waste through the soil.
being used as manure then heavy metals are subject to Groundwater near the landfill sites becomes bioaccumulation and may cause risk to human health, as contamination because of the potential pollution they are transferred to the food chain. Exposure to heavy source of leachate originating from the nearby site. metal may cause blood and bone disorders, kidney Such contamination of groundwater resource poses a damage and decreased mental capacity and neurological substantial risk to users and to the natural environment.
1524
Table 9: Physico-chemical characterization of ground water sample
pH (TD S) (T. H) (Ca) (Mg) (CO D) (Pb) (Cd) (Cr) (Ni)
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
mg/l
Sample # —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
GW1 |
7.06 |
1095 |
830 |
112 |
297.3 |
67 |
0.10 |
0.04 |
0.31 |
0.17 |
GW2 |
7.28 |
1488 |
800 |
116 |
283.2 |
70 |
0.11 |
0.04 |
0.32 |
0.16 |
GW3 |
7.36 |
1486 |
600 |
136 |
192.1 |
68 |
0.09 |
0.03 |
0.42 |
0.15 |
GW4 |
7.36 |
1489 |
680 |
128 |
228.5 |
71 |
0.16 |
0.04 |
0.42 |
0.17 |
GW5 |
7.42 |
1472 |
700 |
144 |
230.2 |
66 |
0.12 |
0.04 |
0.32 |
0.17 |
GW6 |
7.41 |
1486 |
820 |
152 |
276.6 |
80 |
0.08 |
0.03 |
0.32 |
0.17 |
Pak. STD.* |
6.5-8.5 |
< 1000 |
< 500 |
— |
— |
— |
= 0.05 |
0.01 |
= 0.05 |
=0.02 |
Ind. STD.** |
— |
— |
300 |
75 |
30 |
20 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
Total Hardness (T.H),Calcium (Ca),Magnesium (Mg),Lead (Pb),Cadmium (Cd),Chromium (Cr),Nickel (Ni), (COD) Chemical Oxygen Demand, All values in (mg/l) except pH, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
*Pakistan Standard values for Pakistan
** Indian Standard Value
The impact of landfill leachate on the surface and 178 Union Council. Of the total amount of municipal solid groundwater has been discussed in several studies in waste 60% is dumped at the landfill sites and rest of the recent years. Our landfill sites are old and municipal 40% remain littered on the street of the city, which not waste is openly dumped at the landfill sites without only spoils the face of the city but also becomes a stake taking any kind of precautions. Due to which leachate for the health of its citizens.
migrate from municipal waste towards the groundwater Out of total municipal solid waste generated, table and contaminate it. Therefore, the physical and 80% contains recyclable material and the remaining chemical characteristics of the groundwater occurring 20 % is organic type waste.
near the landfill sites have been examined and the values On the basis of analysis of the municipal solid waste, are shown in the Table 9. These values have been it is found that the pH is slightly alkaline, moisture compared with the NEQS standard. content is less than 50% and the amount of heavy metal This showed that the groundwater near the like, Lead, Cadmium, Chromium and Nickel are beyond landfill site is polluted with the leachate derived from the permissible limits. They are responsible for casting the municipal solid waste. The pH of ground water is bad impacts on the environment as well as for slightly alkaline and the TDS, total hardness, calcium, contaminating groundwater in the vicinity of the landfill
magnesium and the values of COD is beyond the sites through leachate forming.
permissible limits. The pH of groundwater is slightly alkaline and Results of heavy metal analysis were compared with Hardness of ground water is due to the leaching of both
the standard values. It was found that the values of Ca and Mg into the groundwater Table.
concentration of Lead, cadmium, Chromium and Nickel are Heavy metals contents in the groundwater like beyond the permissible limits of the ground water and Lead, Cadmium, Chromium and Nickel are beyond the ground water is unfit for the use of domestic purpose as permissible limits.
well as for the agricultural purpose. Therefore, it is
necessary to make a proper plan to enhance and improve REFERENCES
our solid waste management practices to prevent the 1. Nyangababo, J.T. and J.W. Hamya, 1980. contamination of surface as well as ground water quality. The Deposition of Lead, Cadmium, Zinc and Copper
from Motor Traffic on Bradaria Enimi and Soil along
CONCLUSION a mojor Bombo Road. Int. J. Environ. Stud. Legoi, 1(32): 117.
Based on the study, it concluded that more than 2. Buenrostro, O. and G. Bocco, January. Solid Waste 10,000 ton per day of municipal solid waste generated Management in Municipalities in Mexico: Goals and from the Karachi city. Which is comprises 18 towns and Perspectives, Resource. Conserv. Recycl, 39: 251-263.
3. UNEP, 2005. Global Environment Outlock (GEO) 3 12. Fatta, D., A. Papadopoulos and M. Loizidou, 1999. Data Portal, United Nation Environment Programme. A Study on the Landfill Leachate and Its Impact on UNEP, [Online] Available: geodata. the Groundwater Quality of the Greater area. Environ. Grid.unep.ch/. Geochem. Health, 21(2): 175-190.
4. UNEP, 2001. Solid Waste Management, Nepal: State 13. United States Environmental Protection Agency of the Environment 2001, United Nation Environment (USEPA), 1984. Office of Drinking Water, a Programme, pp: 97-118. Groundwater Protection Strategy for the
5. Murtaza, G. and A. Rahman, 2000. Solid waste Environmental Protection Agency, pp: 11. Management in Khulana city and a Case Study of a 14. Saarela, J., 2003. Pilot Investigations of Surface Part CBO: Amader Paribartan. In: Community Based of three Closed Landfills and Factors affecting them Solid Waste Management: The Asian Experience. environ.Monit.Assess, 84: 183-192.
Waste Concern, Dhaka, Bangladesh. 15. Abu-Rukah, Y. and O. Al-Kofahi, 2001. The
6. Misra, V. and S.D. Pandey, 2005. Hazardous Waste, Assessment of the Effect of landfill Leachate on Impact on Health and Environment for Development ground-Water Quality-A Case Study. El-Akader of Better Waste Management Strategies in Future in Landfill Site-North Jordan, Arid Environ, 49: 615-630. India. Environment International, 31(3): 417-431. 16. Looser, M.O., A. Parriaux and M. Bensimon, 1999.
7. Elizabeth, 1998. Incorporating the environment Landfill Underground Pollution Detection and into Municipal Solid Waste Planning: Life Cycle characterization Using Inorganic Traces. Water res., Inventory Tools Paper Presented at System 33: 3609-3616.
Engineering Model for Waste Management. 17. Christensen, J.B., D.L. Jensen, C. Gron, Z. Filip and International Workshop in Goteborg Sweden, T.H. Christensen, 1998. Characterization of the pp: 25-26. Dissolved Organic Carbon in Landfill Leachate-
8. Jurczak, G.M., 2003. The Relation between Polluted Groundwater, Water Res., 32: 125-135. Education, Knowledge and Action for Better Waste 18. DeRosa, E., D. Rubel, M. Tudino, A. Viale and Management in Poland. Waste Management and R.J. Lombardo, 1996. The Leachate Composition of an Research, 21: 2-18. Old Waste Dump Connected to Groundwater:
9. Woodard, R., M.K. Harder and N. Stantzos, 2004. Influence of the Reclamation Work. Environ. Monit. The optimization of Household waste Recycling Assess, 40(3): 239-252.
centers for Increased recycling-A case Study in 19. Flyhammar, P., 1995. Leachate Quality and Sussex, UK, Waste and Energy Research Group Environmental Effect at Active Swedish Municipal (WERG), School of the Environment. University of Landfill, in: R. Cossu, H.T. Christensen and R. Brighton, Lewes Road, Brighton, Sussex, UK. Stegmann (eds) Regulations, Environmental Impact
10. Suocheng, D., K.W. Tong and W. Yuping, 2001. and Aftercare. Proceedings Sardiia 95, Fifth Municipal Solid Waste Management in china: Using International Landfill Symposium. Vol.III, Sardinia, Commercial management to solve a growing problem. Italy, pp: 549-557.
Utilities policy, 10: 7-11. 20. Pak-EPA, Guidelines for Solid Waste Management,
11. Dong, S.S., K.W. Tong and Y.P. Wu, 2001. Municipal Pak-EPA in Collaboration with JICA, Ministry of Solid waste Management in China: Using Commercial Environment, PEP and UNDP (2005).
Management to Solve a Growing Problem. Utilities 21. Ahmed Noman and Chris Zurbrugg, 2002. Policy, 10, 7-11. http:// china 5e.com/dissertation/ Urban Organic Waste Management In Karachi,
naturalgas/0058.htm (in Chinese). Pakistan. 28th pp: 18-22.
WEDC Conference in Kolkata,
Items/Model | TS10(PLC) | TS20(PLC) | TS30(PLC) | TS50(PLC) | TS100(PLC) |
Burn Rate (Average) | 10 kg/hour | 20 kg/hour | 30 kg/hour | 50 kg/hour | 100 kg/hour |
Feed Capacity(Average) | 20kg | 40kg | 60kg | 100kg | 200 kg |
Control Mode | PLC | PLC | PLC | PLC | PLC |
Combustion Chamber | 100L | 210L | 330L | 560L | 1200L |
Internal Dimensions | 50x50x40cm | 65x65x50cm | 75x75x60cm | 100x80x70cm | 120x100x100cm |
Secondary Chamber | 50L | 110L | 180L | 280L | 600L |
Smoke Filter Chamber | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Feed Mode | Manual | Manual | Manual | Manual | Manual |
Voltage | 220V | 220V | 220V | 220V | 220V |
Power | 0.5Kw | 0.5Kw | 0.5Kw | 0.7Kw | 0.7Kw |
Oil Consumption (kg/hour) | 5.4–12.6 | 7.8–16.3 | 10.2–20 | 12.1–24 | 14–28 |
Gas Consumption (m3/hour) | 6.2–11.4 | 8–15.7 | 9.8–20 | 9.9–26.1 | 10–32.2 |
Temperature Monitor | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Temperature Protection | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Oil Tank | 100L | 100L | 100L | 100L | 200L |
Feed Door | 30x30cm | 45x40cm | 55x50cm | 70x55cm | 80x60cm |
Chimney | 3Meter | 3Meter | 5Meter | 5Meter | 10Meter |
Chimney Type | Stainless Steel | Stainless Steel | Stainless Steel | Stainless Steel | Stainless Steel |
1st. Chamber Temperature | 800℃–1000℃ | 800℃–1000℃ | 800℃–1000℃ | 800℃–1000℃ | 800℃–1000℃ |
2nd. Chamber Temperature | 1000℃-1200℃ | 1000℃-1200℃ | 1000℃-1200℃ | 1000℃-1200℃ | 1000℃-1200℃ |
Residency Time | 2.0 Sec. | 2.0 Sec. | 2.0 Sec. | 2.0 Sec. | 2.0 Sec. |
Gross Weight | 1500kg | 2200kg | 3000kg | 4500kg | 6000kg |
External Dimensions | 140x90x120cm | 160x110x130cm | 175x120x140cm | 230x130x155cm | 260x150x180cm |