Figure 1.
![The share of waste types in total MSW mass in Ukraine (performed by the authors using data: 1928, 1980 from [19]; 1990–2011 – from [3]; 2013 – from[12]; 2017 – http://www.uabio.org/activity/uabio-analytics; https://www.globalmethane.org/; 2018 – from The Project of Odessa Regional Waste Management Plan)](https://sciendo-parsed.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/6470714071e4585e08a9d3c5/j_acee-2022-0023_fig_001.jpg?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA6AP2G7AKOUXAVR44%2F20251105%2Feu-central-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20251105T202704Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Signature=6ae4dff2eeaade5abf48bbc4a5793561d3751bbe41c8e2f33ccc9450fe8d6ae9&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&x-amz-checksum-mode=ENABLED&x-id=GetObject)
Figure 2.
![Composition of biodegradable waste group (based on data from [12])](https://sciendo-parsed.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/6470714071e4585e08a9d3c5/j_acee-2022-0023_fig_002.jpg?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA6AP2G7AKOUXAVR44%2F20251105%2Feu-central-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20251105T202704Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Signature=0b9cf606d0ead6643bcd18e3d305e298ceea9d3eeaf70efe311209ad68262ff4&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&x-amz-checksum-mode=ENABLED&x-id=GetObject)
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
The variability of biodegradable waste type content level (in MSW of Ukrainian cities with 10,000 to 1 mln_ people) and averaged data from different sources of information
| Waste type | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paper and cardboard | Food waste | Wood | Textile | Rubber and leather | |
| Average content,% | 8.62 | 33.78 | 1.91 | 3.08 | 1.63 |
| Coefficient of variation, % | 38.80 | 31.25 | 85.49 | 49.74 | 82.47 |
| Source of data | Average data about content level (% by mass) of biodegradable waste types by different data sources | ||||
| [6] | 6.37 | 40.02 (with park and garden waste) | 1.19 | 2.33 | 1.07 |
| [21] | 8.81 | 31.49 (with park and garden waste) | 2.72 | 2.95 | 2.24 |
| [12] | 14.6 | 33.1 | 1.7 | 4.0 | 1.7 |
| [3] | 13.7 | 31.8 | 1.8 | 3.9 | 1.9 |
GHG emission from the main MSW treatment methods in Ukraine (composed by the authors on the basis of data from [3, 23]
| Treatment method | GHG | Trend 1990–2019 |
| Waste disposal into landfills and dumps | increased by 30.25% | |
| Incineration | decreased by 81.6% | |
| Biological treatment (including livestock waste and others) | CO2, | decreased by 76.2 % |
The biodegradable waste management and treatment system
| easily-decomposed organic waste (containing moisture) | potentially recyclable material resources | hazardous waste | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| food waste | park and garden waste | paper and card-board | textiles | wood | rubber and leather | personal care products (nappies) |
| Biological treatment, for example, the complex recovery1 | reuse | recycling and recovery | incineration or disposal | |||
| recycling | ||||||
| ← Non-standard part → | ||||||
Classification of biodegradable waste types in MSW
| easily-decomposed organic waste (moisture-laden) | potentially recyclable material resources | hazardous waste | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| food waste | park and garden waste | paper and cardboard | textiles | wood | rubber and leather | personal care products (nappies) |
The estimation of GHG emission from the biodegradable waste management and treatment system
| easily-decomposed organic waste(containing moisture) | potentially recyclable material resources | hazardous waste | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| food waste | park and garden waste | paper and cardboard | textiles | wood | rubber and leather | personal care products (nappies) |
| The first stage (anaerobic digestion) of complex recovery1 | reuse recycling recovery | incineration or disposal | ||||
| GHG emissions | ||||||
| 0 kt CO2-eq., excluding biogas process losses above 5%2 | Depends on recycling and recovery technologies, reported in others Sectors of Inventory Report. | 7389.57 kt CO2-eq. | ||||