2005 Recycling Pilot Program Report

Home

March 23, 2005 Page 13 It appears that on a monthty basis, the weekly collection would result in gzeater quantities collected than bi-weelcly collection_ Howevez, because the data set is limited, we cannot draw a deiuutive conclnsion without additional pilot data. Comparison of ihe Current Dual Stream B�-Weekly Method to the Dual Stream Bi-Weekly Me#hod with Additional Education The residerzts in the Wednesday pilot area received additional recyciing educational materiais while theiz collcctian method (dual stream) and frequency {bi-weekly) remained ►�nchanged. The results are reflected below in Table 14. Table f 4 Comparison of Dual 5trear� Routes During �i1ot 8i-Weekly with Addifianal Education vs. Bi-Weekly Control Wednesday (Addt'I Educ) Route� 90°/a Confidence Interval Material I Mean I Lower I Upper Category J Paper 56.4% 53.d% 59.5% Metals 8.9% 7.8% 7 Q.4% GIaSS 16.3% 14_7% 21.8% PIaStIC 12,3% 9.5% 15.1% Contaminants 4.1 % 3.8% 4.4% Total3 100% nla n/a � Three samples were sqrted from the Wednesday rautes. 2 Three samples were sorfed irom the Friday routes. 'The kotals may not equal the sum of the materlal categories due fo rounding. Friday {Controf) Route2 90% Confidence lnterval Mean l.ower Upper 59.5% fi.7% 22.2% 8.6% 3.fl% 100% 53.9% 6.U% 14.5% 6.3% 2.5% nla 65.1 % 7.5% 29.8% 10.9% 3.5% nfa Statisticafly Sigoificant Di�feren ce As shown in Table 14, the upper and lower confidence intervals of the bi-vveekly, dual strea� with additional edncation colIection routes were not . si�ificantly different than the bi-weekly dual stream (contro�) routes. Thus, the composition o� the materials collected did xzot significantly change. As for the quantities of materials collected, Table 15 below reflects the weights of the quantities collected for each ronte_ O1-D0253-101�1-OIOI � 070DOI � 13500 P:113506 Ramsey Co. 200311tTA\RosevillelFA1B1544 - Fina[ bata A�alysis