Laserfiche WebLink
March 23, 2Q45 <br />Page 8 <br />Comparison of 5ingle Sfream and Dual Stream Collection Methods <br />The results of the Monday single stream pilot routes were compared to the combined results of <br />the Tuesday through Friday duai streaxn callection routes in September {Table 7) and October <br />(Table 8) to compare #1ae overall single strea�n results to the dual stream results. <br />Table 7 <br />Comparison of Singie Stream and Dual Stream Routes <br />September <br />Single Stream (Monday) <br />Routes' <br />90% Confidence lnterval <br />Material Mean Lower Upper <br />Category <br />Paper 78.7% 75.4% 82.4% <br />Metals 2.8% 2.0% 3.6% <br />Glass 5_3% Q.4% 6.2% <br />Plastic 6.0% 4.8% 7.2% <br />Contaminants 7.1% 5.8% 8.4% <br />Total3 100% nla nla <br />� Four samples were sor[ed from the single sfream rouies. <br />zTwelve sam�les were sorted (rom tt�e dual stream routes. <br />'The totals may not eqaal the sum of the material categories due In round9ng. <br />Dual Stream (Tues—Friday) <br />Routesz <br />90% Coo�dence Interval <br />Mean � Lower � Upper <br />58.6% <br />6.6°ID <br />20.7% <br />10.7% <br />3.5% <br />1Q0% <br />53.5% <br />5.9% <br />14.4% <br />7.6% <br />2.6% <br />�fa <br />63.7% <br />7.3°/a <br />27.0% <br />13.8% <br />4.4% <br />nla <br />O1-00253-]0101-0101 � 070001 , 13500 P:\i3500 Ratnsey Co. 2003\RTA�Roseville�FA�B1544 - Final Data Analysis <br />Statisiically <br />Significant <br />Difference <br />✓ <br />✓ <br />✓ <br />✓ <br />✓ <br />