Şule Altun Prediction of Textile Waste Profile and Recycling Opportunities in Turkey Uludag University, Abstract Engineering and Architectural Faculty, Effective utilisation and disposal of textile wastes requires an accurate prediction of solid Department of Textile Engineering, waste generation. This research predicted the waste quantity generated in households and Gorukle, Bursa, Turkey in industrial facilities in Turkey via surveys, factory research and official databases. Re- e-mail: slaltun54@gmail.com, altun@uludag.edu.tr, cycling methods, products and the profile of recycling sector were investigated. Approxi-mately 884,890 tonnes of textile waste was generated in 2009. Dialogue problems between manufacturers and recyclers as well as a lack of collection of post-consumer waste were the main reasons for the low recycling ratio. Key words: textile waste, industrial waste, recycling, environmental impact, waste manage- ment. in the biosphere. Fertilisers, cotton stalks it from virgin materials [13]. Therefore n Introduction generated from cotton cultivation [15] the prediction of production and post- The global supply of fibres has increased and cotton dusts, which can penetrate the consumer textile wastes is crucial in the from 52.6 million tonnes to 70.5 million head airways and enter the airways of aspect of recycling facilities. tonnes in the last 10 years [1]. More pro- the lungs, in ginning processes [16, 17] duction means more waste, as well as a as well as emissions during cotton trans- Turkey is among the top ten textile and larger environmental impact. Huge en- portation are some of the other environ- ready-made exporters in the world [23]; ergy and water consumptions in process- mental problems that occur during cotton therefore textile waste and recycling ra- ing stages, agricultural pollution and in- production. tios in Turkey will make a significant dustrial and post-consumer textile wastes contribution to global figures. in municipal solid waste (MSW) streams Polyester, which is also one of the fibres are the main sources of pollution from most used, has low photo- and bio-degra- The aim of the study was to analyse solid textile manufacturing. Textile wastes dadability, and the drilling and refining textile and apparel wastes in Turkey via comprise 1.0 - 5.1% of Municipal Solid of oil also cause serious environmental surveys, factory research and official Waste (MSW) compositions in the world problems [18, 19]. Although polyester data. Recycling efforts and solid waste regions [2], such as 7% of the Kaikoura and cotton fibres cover over 50 % of the disposal methods were also investigated. landfill in New Zealand [3], 4.95% in US world fibre production, other fibres such [4], 1.3% in Beijing, China [5], and 4.7% as viscose, flax and wool also have some in Bhutan - including leather [6]. Al- environmental impacts. New Zealand is n Methods though textile and apparel manufacturing the world’s third largest wool producing Data sources has largely shifted to developing coun- country [1]. In most countries, carbon tries, textile waste remains a big con- dioxide forms the largest proportion of Production quantities were vital to cal- cern both in developed and developing greenhouse gas emissions; New Zealand culate waste amounts. Therefore of- countries [7 - 9]. Some possible envi- is unique in that 37% of its emissions ficial capacity data were obtained from ronmental impacts of solid textile wastes come from methane released from live- the Union of Chambers and Commod- in MSW are green house gas emissions, stock [20]. ity Exchanges of Turkey (TOBB), local silver and chromium emissions as well as chambers of industry and local organised pesticide residuals [10 - 12]. Production processes, spinning, weaving, industrial zones. A questionnaire about wet processes and making up also have current production quantities and indus- The extracted energy consumption to environmental impacts. According to the trial waste details was also mailed to tex- manufacture one tonne of cotton gar- life cycle assessment (LCA) of a nylon/ tile and apparel manufacturers. The rates ments is 66,648 kWh and that to manu- cotton jogging suit, production processes of generated waste during textile and ap- facture one tonne of polyester garments consume 17% of the total primary en- parel processes according to manufactur- is 91,508 kWh. For the packaging, trans- ergy consumption and contribute 15 % ing type, such as weaving, knitting and port and sale of these garments an extra of greenhouse gases [21]. Textile waste- yarn production were calculated in fac- 30 – 40% of environmental burden from waters can cause serious hazards for both tory studies. the manufacturing process should be surface and underground water [22]. added [13]. Cotton, which is one of the Another survey about production capaci- fibres most used, production requires When comparing virgin material energy ties and methods was mailed to recy- 7,000 – 29,000 litres of water per kilo- consumption with recycled material en- cling enterprises. Municipal solid waste gram of cotton [14]. World cotton pro- ergy consumption, it can be concluded data were collected from the municipali- duction in 2009 was about 25.2 million that the reuse of 1 tonne of polyester gar- ties and the Turkish Statistical Institute tons. In addition, cotton accounts for ments only uses 1.8% of the energy re- (Turkstat). 11% of all pesticides used every year. quired for the manufacture of these goods Most pesticides used in cotton produc- from virgin materials and the reuse of 1 Apparel capacity was determined with tion are hazardous [14], having a direct tonne of cotton clothing only uses 2.6% production pieces from the TOBB data effect upon wildlife from accumulation of the energy required to manufacture base. The approximate weights of the 16 Altun Ş. Prediction of Textile Waste Profile and Recycling Opportunities in Turkey. FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2012; 20, 5(94): 16-20. pieces were calculated with factory data since the distribution of the piece size printing non-woven others and weight in grams were not known. 2%yarn dyeing 3% 2% weaving 4% 32% Survey methodology cloth dyeing6% The first survey was designed to analyse twisting the waste types generated, waste amounts 8% and the waste disposal behaviours of knitting manufacturers. Closed questions and 10% making-up open questions were used in the survey. spinning 17%16% Closed questions were chosen to help respondents select production, waste and Figure 1. Profile of participants. waste disposal types. Open questions were included so manufacturers could Table 1. Generated waste ratios and waste amounts in textile processes; *Data obtained explain their own opinions. A cover let- from SUSEB (Association of Man-Made Fibre Producers, in Turkey). **Waste ratios were ter was attached to both surveys in order determined in factory studies and in shrink values declared by local chambers of industry. to explain the purpose, utility and spon- Database of the Gaziantep Chamber of Industry, Karapınar Chamber of Industry, and Adana sors of the study. The letter assured re- Chamber of Industry were used. ***Excluding hard waste and texturing waste; during the spondents that the answers would be held polymerisation process approx. 0.06% of hard waste; during texturing processes approx. 1 - 2% of yarn waste occurs. in strict confidence. A self-addressed stamped envelope was also added to in- Production Type Production amount Waste ratio, Waste amount (tons/ crease the response rate. The Union of (tons/year) in 2009 %** year), average value Chambers and Commodity Exchanges (Cotton) carded yarn including ring spinning 288,940 12-20.6 46,230 of Turkey sent the questionnaires to its (Cotton) combed yarn including members in order to increase the re- ring spinning 79,836 23-50.6 29,939 sponse rate. Some local chambers of in- (Cotton) open-end yarn 303,607 10-19.2 43,944 dustry, such as the Gaziantep Chamber of Worsted yarn 68,283 21-33 18,436 Industry and Usak Chamber of Industry Woollen yarn 302,005 up to 40 120,802 also motivated their members to answer Polypropylene yarn 310,000 (SUSEB)* 14 43,400 the questionnaires. Acrylic yarn 308,000 (SUSEB)* 10-13 35,420 Polyester yarn 360,000 (SUSEB)* 3*** 10,800 Polyamide yarn 77,600 (SUSEB)* 3 2,328 Approximately 340 manufacturers in dif- Chenile, fancy yarns, hand ferent sectors participated in the survey knitting yarns, embroidery yarns 293,806 8-13 30,849.5 from all regions of Turkey. The manufac- Cotton weaving 26,214 Yarn waste:1-2/ Yarn waste: 393 turers were chosen randomly. The distri- Trimming:1-6 Trimmings: 917 bution of sectors is given in Figure 1. Wool weaving 600 Yarn waste:1-2/ Yarn waste: 9Trimming:1-6 Trimmings: 21 Yarn waste:1-2/ Yarn waste: 1,819 The questionnaire contained questions Man-made yarn weaving 121,314 Trimming:1-6 Trimmings: 4,245 that examined the following parameters: Knitting 581,632 2-4 29,081 n waste amount generated Knitting garment 70,000 3-23 9,100 n waste types generated Nonwoven 55,625 ∼ 5 2,781 n waste disposal attitudes and behav- Cloth dyeing 188,184 0,5-2 2,351.5 iours of manufacturers Ready made (except garment) 301,083 2-15 10,537 opinions and suggestions of manufac- Apparel garment 137,113 2-20 15,082n turers related to textile wastes Total 3,873,842 458,485 The second survey was prepared to ex- n Unrecycled waste types chambers of industry were also evalu- amine the textile waste recycling sector n Problems ated. in Turkey. Although much more open n Suggestions. questions were used compared to the first survey, closed questions were also used. Determination of generated waste n Results and discussion Approximately 58 recycling companies ratio In total, 340 textile and apparel manufac- answered the questions. The following Generated wastes were weighed for each turers and 58 textile recyclers, who recy- issues were included in the questionnaire: production step in the factory studies and cle almost 85 % of all textile waste in n Production quantity (recycling capac- waste rates were calculated as follows: Turkey, responded to the questionnaires. ity) n Waste types used (waste source) WR = GW/IM × 100 (1) Recycling methods Industrial waste types and sources n where: WR - Waste ratio, GW - Gener- n Waste supply path (How they have got ated waste, IM - Input material. Industrial waste types were determined the wastes) by factory studies and manufacturer re- n Application fields of recycled prod- The allowable wastes (shrinkages) of sponses. Waste quantities were calculat- ucts each manufacturing process for local ed using the TOBB data. FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2012, Vol. 20, No. 5 (94) 17 Fibre was the most common waste type in-line recycling others generated since during yarn production it 17% 5% is difficult to use short fibres in the spin- ning process. Manufacturers were also asked about sending to landfills selling to recyclers 16% 62% their disposal behaviours, the results of which are shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. Disposal behaviours of manufacturers. Textile waste is a cheaper feedstock for some processes, and thus 62% of the manufacturers preferred to sell their Granules waste. Actually this was an encouraging Nonwoven 5% production result in terms of the environment and 13% the economy. During yarn spinning proc- Openning and yarn esses, especially in natural fibre process- production es, 10 - 40% of the waste generated and 60% Openning and web in-line recycling was the most common production recycling method in spinning processes. 22% Fibre wastes were also the most used according to the recycler survey. Over- Figure 3. Waste recycling methods according to the survey. all, 36% of the recyclers used fibre/yarn wastes, 33% - fibre, yarn and trimming waste, 24% - trimmings and 7% of the Rug, pillow, quilt 4% recyclers used other types of wastes (un- Footwear Carpet 4% 3% Filling materials known materials). Socks 22% 7% Yarn (Application Recycling methods and application field was not known) Felt fields of recycled materials 9% 13% Mechanical methods were the most Weaving products 12% common method according to recycler Blanket Knitting products survey; as seen in Figure 3 ninety-five 13% 13% percent of the recyclers used mechanical methods (see Figure 3). Figure 4. Application fields of recycled materials according to the survey. Yarn production was the most common Table 2. Total textile waste amount of selected municipalities (tons/year). recycling method, where 66% of the re- cyclers used open-end technology. Polya- Total waste Textile wastes Textile Municipality generated in tons in in MSW (%, in wastes (tons) mide fibre, yarn and cloth wastes were re- 2008 (Turkstat, 2010) weight) in MSW melted and the granules were used in the Municipality of Uşak 109.331 2 2.186 plastic industry as plugs, doorknobs and Metropolitan Municipality of Adana 771.361 2 15.427 armrests, as well as for many other uses, Metropolitan Municipality of Gaziantep 279.919 3 10.545 for example PET bottles mixed with PET Metropolitan Municipality of İstanbul 5.215.122 3,4 173.740 Metropolitan Municipality of Bursa 624.772 4,7 29.364 fibre, yarn and cloth wastes. Then the Metropolitan Municipality of Kayseri: 423.959 3,1 (Turkstat, 1996) 13.142 blend is extruded to produce yarns. Total 7.424.464 244.404 Applications for the recycled materials Four main types of solid textile waste processes as well as for ready-made according to the survey results are shown were generated during textile processes clothing. in Figure 4. according to factory studies: n Other wastes, such as polymer wastes, Filling materials are used in mattresses, n Fibre wastes, which were mostly pro- were not incorporated into this study. furniture, coats and for many other uses. duced during yarn and non-woven In total, 384,369 tonnes/year of fibre and Felts are produced as insulation material, production. yarn waste and 74,115.5 tonnes/year of floor-coverings and automotive textiles, n Yarn wastes, which were mostly pro- cloth waste (or trimmings) were pro- among other uses. Recycled coarse yarns duced during yarn, weaving and knit- duced in Turkey in 2009 according to the are knitted to produce jumpers, tricot fab- ting processes. calculations using TOBB data. The dis- rics, socks and other forms of clothing. n Fabrics which were produced during tribution of waste according to process is Weaving products are mainly used in fur- non-woven, weaving, knitting and wet shown in Table 1 (see page 17). nishings, especially in upholstery fabrics. 18 FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2012, Vol. 20, No. 5 (94) Textile waste in Turkey landfills eliminate this problem, a study carried Table 3. Ultimate disposal methods for The following municipalities have the out in Çorlu-Turkey [27] was used as a industrial textile wastes (Turkstat). most important textile industry regions in data source for textile wastes generated Disposal methods % Turkey. Table 2 shows the textile waste in households. In this study, different Dumping site 46.64 portion of municipal solid waste, which income districts were evaluated for dif- Controlled landfill 37.94 also includes industrial wastes. ferent seasons and wastes were collected Incineration 7.62 before they were sent to the dump site. Composting - Municipal solid waste generally con- According to this study, an average of Stored within the establishment 4.60 sisted of that generated from residential 1.41% of the total municipality wastes Used as filling material 2.26 and commercial areas and industries in Dumping in an open area 0.83included textile wastes generated in Turkey [24]. The ratio of textile wastes Dumping into the sea, river and lake 0.02households [27]. The amount of munici- in MSW was mainly higher for cities that Others 0.09pal waste per capita for Turkey was 1.15 have textile industry regions. Although used clothing and other textiles also ap- kg in 2008 (There were no data for 2009), Table 4. Waste disposal behaviours accor- peared in the MSW streams, the ratio was and for the Turkish population in Decem- ding to the survey and TOBB data. lower than those for Europe and the US. ber 2009 it was 72,561,312 [30]. There- Weight, This result likely occurred due to eco- fore the total textile waste generated in Disposal method tonnes % nomic reasons and consumer attitudes. households per year can be calculated as Sold to recycling enterprises 284,260 62 For example the lifetime of clothing may follows: Recycled within the facility 77,942 17 be longer than the those in Europe and Dropped on landfills 73,357 16 US, and in Turkey used clothes might be Total textile waste in households = Unknown ways 22,924 5 given more frequently to charity shops, (0.014 × 1.15 kg × 365 × Total 458,485 100 relatives or low income households in- × 72,561,312) / 1000 = stead of throwing them away. Textile = 426,406 t/y Some environmental impacts waste amounts in MSW also changed of unutilised cotton textile wastes according to living standards, climatic Consumer waste was not found in the in Turkey conditions, seasons and industrial fa- recycling facilities since there was not a Turkey is the 7th cotton producer in the cilities [24, 25]. Textile waste ratios in collection process in Turkey. Household world [31]; therefore some environmen- MSW were lower in other municipalities, and industrial waste values were surpris- tal impacts were evaluated according to such as the Municipality of Gümüşhane, ingly similar. Unrecorded production cotton production. where the ratio was 1.4% [25] or in the and illegal industrial waste disposal ulti- a) Since 1 kg of cotton fibres requires ap- Municipality of Kırıkkale, where the ra- mately reduced the real industrial waste proximately 2.4 kg of harvested seed tio was 3.19% [26], or at the Municipality amounts. cotton [32], at least 347,834 tonnes of Çorlu, where the ratio was 1.41% [27]. of cotton should be harvested to get 144,931 tonnes of cotton fibre. Cotton According to the Turkstat database, the n Conclusions production requires 7,000 – 29,000 li- amount of textile waste brought to con- tres of water per kilogram of cotton, trolled landfills was 287,105 tonnes, Overall, 426,406 tonnes of textile waste therefore 2.4 -10.9 billion m3 water which comprised 2.62% of the total was produced in households and 458,484 was also wasted (textile processing municipal waste at controlled landfills tonnes of production waste was gener- wastes were neglected). in 2008 - there is not any newest data in ated by the textile industry, which added b) Almost a third (29 percent) of the pes- Turkstat [28]. No textile waste was re- up to a total 884,890 tonnes generated ticides in Turkey are applied to cotton, corded at incineration and composting in 2009 by Turkey. The real waste figures which has caused a substantial loss of facilities in 2008, however, some wastes were also larger than the official records wild-life in areas such as Çukurova were burned in open areas, some were due to unrecorded production. Therefore (in Turkey), where large quantities of dumped into rivers and on the ground, the waste amount estimated, environ- pesticides are used on cotton [33,34] and some were buried in the ground [29]. mental impacts and financial damage Unutilised 347,834 tonnes of harvest- The distributions of ultimate disposal ed cotton caused excess pesticide use. methods are shown in Table 3. were higher. c) In Turkey fertilisers used in cotton According to the manufacturer survey, production are mainly nitrogen based The manufacturers also declared their the raw materials most used were cotton, [35], and an average of 8,993tonnes/waste disposal behaviours (Figure 3) in year of nitrogen leached into water the survey. When these ratios were ap- which was 29% of raw materials used, plied to industrial wastes from the TOBB and polyester, which was 24% of raw bodies due to cotton production in the period of 1997-2001. The average cot- data, the data presented in Table 4 are ob- materials used. When these ratios were ton production was 2,199,990 tonnes/ tained for 2009: applied to total household textile waste year for the same period [36]. There- (426,406 tonnes) and textile waste in fore, 0.004 tonnes of nitrogen leached Household textile wastes landfills (73,357 t), it was calculated that into the water bodies for one tonne of Since non-hazardous industrial wastes 144, 931 tonnes of cotton and 119,943 cotton. The reuse of 144, 931 tonnes and household wastes are generally land- tonnes of polyester might have been of cotton fibre (347,834 tonnes of har- filled together in Turkey [24], municipal- wasted in 2009 together with other wast- vested cotton) could diminish leached ity waste values can lead to errors. To ed textile raw materials. nitrogen by approx. 1391 tonnes. FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2012, Vol. 20, No. 5 (94) 19 Suggestions 4. United States Environmental Protection 19. Cheon JY, Lee ÆJY. & Lee ÆKK. Envi- n Local authorities may collect textile Agency, Solid Waste Emergency Re- ronmental Geology 2004; 45: 869–883. sponse (5306P), Municipal Solid Waste 20. http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/atmos- wastes in households in a fashion Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in phere/3/4/1 similar to collecting glass and plastic the United States: Facts and Figures for 21. Lauresn SE, Hansen J, Knudsen HH, wastes. Also textile banks could be 2008, EPA-530-F-009-021. http://www. Wenzel H, Larsen HF, Kristensen FM. placed in cities. epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/ EDIPTEX: Environmental assessment n Collection and sorting can be done by msw2008rpt.pdf of textiles. Danish Environmental Pro- private enterprises which already col- 5. Qu X, Li Z, Xie X, Sui Y, Yang L, Chen tection Agency, working report 24, 2007. lect other wastes in municipalities in Y.Waste Management 2009; 29: 2618- 22. Kos L,Perkowski J, Fibres & Textiles in 2624. Eastern Europe 2009; 17, 5(76): 99-105.Turkey. 6. Phuntsho S, Dulal I, Yangden D, Tenzin 23. World Trade Organization (WTO), n Textile production wastes could be UM, Heart S, Shon H, Vigneswaran S . (2011). Statistics: World merchandise collected from textile factories that Waste Management & Research 2010; export by major product group, 2009, are separated from facilities that col- 28: 545-551. http:/ /www.wto.org/engl ish/res_e/ lect other wastes. Clean and known 7. Morley N, Slater S, Russell S, Tipper statis_e/its2010_e/its10_merch_trade_product_e.pdf sources of waste will ensure that M, Ward GD. Recycling of Low Grade Clothing Waste. Oakdene Hollins Ltd, 24. Berkun E, Aras E, Nemlioglu S. Disposal waste quality will be high; therefore of solid waste in Istanbul and along the the sorting cost will also be reduced. Salvation Army Trading Company Ltd Black Sea coast of Turkey. Waste Man-Nonwovens Innovation & Research n Locally organised industrial zones agement 2005; 25: 847-855.Institute Ltd, DEFR01 058 Low Grade which are responsible for waste col- 25. Nas S, Bayram A. Waste Management Clothing – Public,2006. 2008; 28: 2435-2442. lection in Turkey could therefore be 8. Allwood JM, Laursen SE, Malvido 26. Kayalak TC. Environmental and Eco- responsible for collecting and storing C, Bocken NMP. Well Dressed? The nomical Aspects for The Disposal of textile wastes. present and future sustainability of cloth- Municipal Solid Waste in Kirikkale City. n Textile recyclers have been unable ing and textiles in the United Kingdom, Master Thesis, Gazi University Institute to find enough waste so they have Institute for Manufacturing, Cambridge, of Science and Technology, Ankara, ISBN 1-902546-52-0, 22-25, 2007. imported wastes, as declared in the 2007 pp. 65-66,. 9. Hussey C, Sinha P, Kelday F. 8th Euro- 27. Tınmaz E, Demir İ. Waste Management survey. However, approximately pean Academy Of Design Conference, 2006; 26: 307–314. 500,000 tonnes of waste was dis- Aberdeen, 2009, Responsible Design: 28. Turkish Statistical Institute, Amount of posed, and there is an apparent lack of Re-Using/Recycling Of Clothing.. disposed/recovered waste brought to communication between manufactur- 10. Tsiliyannis CA Waste Manage. Res. controlled landfill sites by type of waste ers and recyclers. Manufacturers and 1999; 17: 231-241. and disposal/recovery methods, An- recyclers should communicate with 11. Singhi G, Iyer GV. Environmental Moni- kara,2008, Turkey http://www.tuik.gov.tr/ each other via associations established toring and Assessment 2004; 96: 163– VeriBilgi.do?tb_id=10&ust_id=3 181. 29. Turkish Statistical Institute, Amount of in their industrial zones. 12. Eckelman MJ, Graedel TE. Environ. Sci. waste by disposal methods and industry n Collected post consumer wastes may Technol. 2007; 41: 6283-6289. group, Turkstat, 2008, http://www.turk- also be added to the industrial wastes 13. Woolridge AC, Ward GD, Phillips PS, stat.gov.tr/VeriBilgi.do?tb_id=10&ust_ that are sent to recyclers. Collins M, Gandy S. Resources, Conser- id=3 vation and Recycling 2006; 46: 94-103. 30. Turkish Statistical Institute, Press re- 14. Soth J, Grasser J, Salerno R, Thalmann lease, 2010; 15. Acknowledgments P. The impact of cotton on fresh water 31. U.S. Cotton Market Monthly Economic resources and ecosystems a preliminary Letter - June 10, 2011, http://www.cot- This research was supported by the Scien- synthesis. Background Paper, WWF In- toninc.com/MarketInformation/Monthly- tific and Technological Research Council of ternational, Gland, Switzerland, 1999. EconomicLetter/#3 Turkey and Uludag University Scientific Re- 15. Van Dam JEG. Workshop on utilisation 32. Kalliala E. The ecology of hotel textiles search Fund. The author would like to thank of coton plant by-produce for vaule add- and textile services. Institute of Fibre, the Union of Chambers and Commodity Textile and Clothing Science, Tampere, ed products, Mumbai, 2003, CIRCOT, Exchanges of Turkey as well as the anony- Finland. Publication no: 214, 1997. Availability of cotton stalks for industrial mous respondents. 33. Uluatam SS. Improvement of Water and board production in India. (CFC Techni- Soil Resources, Ankara,State Hydraulic cal Mission Report by ATO bv, Wagenin- Works, III, 1994. Protection measures References gen, The Netherlands). for environmental problems due to water 16. United States Environmental Protection development in the Southeastern Anato- 1. Engelhardt A. International Fiber Journal Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning lia Project regionpp. 1119-1130. 2010; 25(3): 4-21. and Standards Emission Factors and 34. Harmancioglu N, Alpaslan N, Boelee E. 2. Pipatti R, Sharma C, Yamada M. Waste Inventory Group, Emission Factor Docu- Irrigation, health and environment: A re- Generation, Composition and Manage- mentation for AP-42 Section 9.7, Cotton view of literature from Turkey. Colombo, ment Data, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for Ginning, Final Report, 1996. http://www. Sri Lanka: International Water Manage- National Greenhouse Gas Invento- epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/bgdocs/ ment Institute (IWMI). 21 p. (IWMI work- ries. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/ b9s07.pdf ing paper 6), 2001. public/2006gl/pdf/5_Volume5/V5_2_ 17. WHO/SDE/OEH/99.14. Hazard Preven- 35. Yilmaz I, Akcaoz, H, Ozkan B. Renew- Ch2_Waste_Data.pdf tion and Control in the Work Environ- able Energy 2005; 30: 145–155. 3. Ministry for the Environment Manatū Mō ment: Airborne Dust. http://www.who. 36. Chapagain AK, Hoekstra AY, Savenije Te Taiao, Solid Waste Audits for Min- int/occupational_health/publications/en/ HHG,Gautam R. Ecological Economics istry for the Environment Waste Data oehairbornedust.pdf 2005; 60: 186-203. Programme 2007/08. http://www.mfe. 18. Rao PS, Ansari MF, Gavane AG, Pandit govt.nz/publications/waste/solid-waste- VI, Nema P, & Devotta S. Environ. Monit. audits-2007-008/kaikoura/page6.html. Assess. 2007; 128: 323-328. Received 04.07.2011 Reviewed 16.12.2011 20 FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2012, Vol. 20, No. 5 (94)