REV.CHIM.(Bucharest) 68No. 12 2017 http:www.revistadechimie.ro 2941Solid Waste Management on Romanian Households [622403]

REV.CHIM.(Bucharest) ♦68♦No. 12 ♦2017 http://www.revistadechimie.ro 2941Solid Waste Management on Romanian Households
GEORGE UNGUREANU1, GABRIELA IGNAT1*,,ELENA LEONTE1, CARMEN LUIZA COSTULEANU1, NICOLETA STANCIU2,
IOAN GABRIEL SANDU3,4, DAN DONOSA1, COSTICA BEJINARIU3,4*
1Ion Ionescu de la Brad University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Iasi, 3 M. Sadoveanu Alley, 700490, Iasi,
Romania
2 National High School of Agriculture and Economy, 107 1 Decembrie 1918 Str., Tecuci , Romania
3 Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iasi, Faculty of Materials Science and Engineering, 31 D. Mangeron Blvd., 700050,
700050, Romania
4 Romanian Inventors Forum, 3 Sf. P . Movila Str., 700089, Iasi, Romania
The problem associated with the household behavior on solid waste disposal site in today’s society is
complex because of the large quantity and diverse nature of the wastes. Due increase the population, rapid
development, global agricultural development has moved rapidly, limitations of financing, emerging
limitations of both energy and raw materials and also add to the complexity of any waste management
system, large quantities of wastes are being generated in different forms such as solid, liquid and gases. This
research explored factors affecting the level of participation in solid waste segregation and recycling of
households in Romania, as well as examining current Romania households waste management practices
and their knowledge of waste management. This study investigated the solid waste situation and the
organization of solid waste management in both urban and rural settings from the perspective of households.
Solid waste management is a key component of public services which needs to serve the urban and rural
municipalities in an efficient way in order to maintain a decent standard of public health.
Keywords : waste, household, development, environmental economics, indicators, strategy
The responsibility for the collection and management
of municipal solid waste belongs to the municipalities.
Solid waste that is improperly disposed of can result in
a number of problems. It can create a breeding ground for
pathogenic microorganisms and vectors of disease, and
cause a public nuisance due to unsightliness and bad smell.
It can cause contamination of surrounding soil,
groundwater and surface water, and it can also create firehazards, physical hazards and have poisoning effects (from
pesticides and insecticides) [1-11].
This paper tries to show the household behavior of
Romania residents towards solid waste management. The
waste generated by the part of the population who are
without access to waste collection services has beencalculated using a standard daily rate of 0.9 kg/capita/day
for the urban areas and 0.4 kg/capita/day in rural areas
[12]. This indicates that as there is more open space tothrow the waste people usually generates more waste. As
family size and income are the most significant factors
that influence the quantity of solid waste from householdconsumption, a study on the relationship among these is
vital in the decision making on waste management
strategies [13].
Environmental protection is the obligation and
responsibility of central and local public administration
authorities, as well as all natural and legal persons
[14].
Experimental part
Materials and methods
Hazardous wastes are treated as a separate category
of waste because special management and disposal
methods are required. The main sources of hazardoussubstances are agricultural offices/stores, health offices/
stores and possibly also private firms, homes and retail
shops and where modernization has substantially alteredagroecosystems [15].
* email: gabitu03@yahoo.fr; costica.bejinariu@yahoo.comEven with all these research, the problem of solid waste
management in Romania has been increasing over theyears. Presently, the task of solid waste management
comes under the protection of concerned municipalities.
Data for this research were collected by means of hand-
delivered questionnaires during November and December
2012-2016.
The paper selected five waste indicators in order to
assess the performance of an household waste
management system based on five specific wasteindicators such as: population access to waste collection
services (%), separate collection, including five recyclable
fractions such as paper/cardboard, plastic, metal, glass,wood and also the biodegradable fraction which may be
used as compost (%), reuse & recycle (%), landfilling (%)
and amounts of waste uncollected (Qwu-%).
Results and discussionsThe objectives of this paper are to discuss household
behavior regarding waste generation and management of
waste; the relationship of the waste component in different
zones within the city; and the willingness to pay for changes
in the provision of waste management services.
The management of solid waste has become a
significant research problem that combines technical,economic, environmental and social issues [16-19].
The first g oal of an y waste mana gement system is to
maximize the economic benefit fr om the waste resour ce
and maintain accepta ble environmental standar ds.
Sustaining effective solid waste management practices iscrucial to both developed and developing countries. Wastemanagement practices, especially the solid waste, differ
significantly for developed and developing countries, for
urban and rural areas, and for residential, commercial, andindustrial producers [20].
In the following, we will present a number of good
examples of waste prevention which we think are possible

http://www.revistadechimie.ro REV.CHIM.(Bucharest) ♦68♦No. 12 ♦2017 2942
Table 1
DOMESTIC AND URBAN WASTE
IN RELATION TO THE NUMBER
OF INHABITANTS IN 2013
Table 2
ESTIMATES OF FOOD WASTE
IN EU-28to initiate in municipalities in Romania and abroad. In their
role as authorities, municipalities are able to work for the
prevention of waste among industries, trade andhouseholds.
The selection of good examples is based upon several
considerations: (1) what concrete examples of wasteprevention are there in Romania and abroad? (2) Have the
efforts been easy to realize and have results been
successful? (3) Is it likely that the efforts would work in aRomanian setting, in case of an example from abroad? (4)
Which kinds of waste are important to prevent from an
environmental perspective? The project group made a jointassessment to determine which good examples to include
in the paper [21-29].
These indicators are calculated for every urban locality
based on information provided by Environmental Protection
Agency from Iasi, local authorities or waste operators. Also,
these indicators are calculated for 2007 (year of EUaccession), 2015 (post-accession period reflecting the
transition from a traditional to an integrated waste
management system). Each indicator according to itspercentage values will get a score which will be added to
the total amount of points accumulated by a household
waste management system.
W aste that does not pose an immediate threat to man
or the environment, i.e. household waste, builders’ rubble,
garden waste, and certain dry industrial and commercialwaste. It may, however, with decomposition, infiltration
and percolation, produce leachate with an unacceptable
pollution potential [30].
Under the conditions of a modern economy, waste is no
longer just waste generated by anthropogenic activities,
but real sources of raw materials and energy. Thedevelopment of a strategy for the judicious management
of waste on the basis of statistical reporting is of utmost
importance for the full use of resources, their focus on areas
that ensure superior capitalization and the elimination of
material and energy losses.
Urban waste management is drawing increasing
attention, as it can easily be observed that too much
garbage is lying uncollected in the streets, causinginconvenience, environmental pollution, and posing a
public health risk [31]. Table 1 is presented the composition
of household waste in Romania at the level of 2013.
In the course of 2013, 12.60 million tons of waste was
recovered, representing a recovery rate of 19.7%. By
eliminating the tailings waste, the waste is a waste of 33%of recoverable waste. The recovery methods were as
follows: 79% of the used waste was reused in the production
units, respectively reused in other technological processes;12% of the waste was recovered from other economic
agents.
More than 4% of the waste was recovered through waste
recycling units (type (REMAT). It is noted that out of the
total waste used, only 16% were subject to sale-purchase
processes.
Households’ agriculture intensification will have to be
achieved by boosting land, water, nutrient and labor
productivity, while at the same time avoiding theenvironmental degradation caused in the past by wasteful
resource and input use. Sustainable intensification, as this
process is called, will take place under conditions ofincreasing resource scarcity and climate change [32].
Table 2 shows the share of each economic activity and
of households in total waste generation in 2014.Construction contributed 33 % of the total in 2014 (with
871 million tons) in the EU-28 and was followed by mining
and quarrying (29.8 % or 774 million tons), manufacturing(11 % or 256 million tons), households (8.1 % or 209 million
tons) and energy (3.7 % or 95 million tons), agriculture 1.7
% , the remaining 15 % was waste generated from other
economic activities, mainly including waste and water
services (7 %) and services (5 %).
Estimates of food waste in EU-28 in 2014 from this
quantification study; includes food and inedible parts
associated with food.
The collection and analysis of data from across Europe
for this study generated an estimate of food waste in the
EU-28 of 90 million tons (table 2).The quantity of waste for
2014 and includes both edible food and inedible partsassociated with food. This equates to 173 kilograms of
food waste per person in the EU-28. The total amounts of
food produced in EU for 2015 were around 865 kg / person;
this would mean that in total we are wasting 20 % of the
total food produced.
Rural waste management sector is in a full expansion
process at national, regional and local levels in order to
comply the targets assumed by Romania to EU. The wastecollection companies prefer to serve dense urban centers
with high population density and avoid sparsely populated
rural areas with a lower-income population [33]. The shareof household waste collection services (WCS %) is a
relevant indicator for studying an household waste
management system in Iasi because these services still

REV.CHIM.(Bucharest) ♦68♦No. 12 ♦2017 http://www.revistadechimie.ro 2943do not cover the entire population, favoring illegal dumping
of household waste. Furthermore, highlight the majordisparities between Iasi counties regarding the urban
population access to WCS. Also, these disparities are
reflected at local scale between urban localities from IasiCounty.
These indicators are used according to the waste
hierarchy principle, thus, high values of some indicatorsthat promote these principle such as waste collection
services, separate collection (SpC), reuse and recycling
(Rs&Ry ) correspond to a higher score (table 3). On the
other side, high values of some indicators which
correspond to a traditional waste management system
such as landfilling or uncollected waste will get fewer
points. Also, these percentage values are specific to each
indicator and cannot be uniform; these are selected in order
to express more accurately the positive or negativeimplications for a household waste management system.
Finally, based on total score, each municipal waste
management system corresponds to a certain category
such as: excellent (45-50 max.), good or efficient (35-45),
moderate or proper (25-35), inefficient (20-25), poor (10-20), rudimentary or lacking (<10).
Reuse and recycling
EU member states must organize separate collection
systems at least for paper, metal, plastic and glass by 2015
according to the 2008/98/EC Framework Directive.Preparative targets are imposed for waste re-use up to
minimum 50% of the total mass for household and similar
waste by 2020 and also for re-use, recycling and othermaterial re-use operations, including waste-using filling
operations for at least 70% of the mass of waste coming
from construction and demolition activities. For packagingit was established as per the 94/62/EC European\Directive,
as amended, to recycle at least 55% of the total weight of
packaging materials contained in the packaging waste, atleast 60% for glass and paper-paperboard, at least 50% for
metals and at least 22.5% for plastic of the weight of each
type of material contained in packaging waste [34].
The sectors contributing the most to food waste are
households (47 million tons ± 4 million tons) and
processing (17 million tons ± 13 million tons). These twosectors account for 72 percent of EU food waste, although
there is considerable uncertainty around the estimate for
the processing sector compared to all the other sectors.Thequantity and quality of household waste depends on [34]:
1) the level of industrialization and mechanicalness
reached by the human community, influencing both thequantity and quality (structure) of the produced waste; 2)
the standard of living and civilization of the population; the
amount of waste increasing with the increase; 3) newmethods of conditioning the goods (packaging and delivery
to final consumers); increasing the level of conditioningleads to an increase in the quality of waste (increasing the
input of high calorific material such as paper and plastic);4) the prevailing climate and seasons; 5) Seasonal and
occasional movement of the population during holidays,
holidays, holidays, weekends; 6) permanent populationmovement between localities, which is related to the area
of attraction of large urban localities to the rural population
and small urban localities. For example, statistical analyzeshave highlighted the fact that in Bucharest, in addition to
the stable population of 2300000 inhabitants, a total of
approximately 300 to 400 thousand people pass throughBucharest daily. The evaluation of the production of waste
is done by the formula of E.V . Peterson, where this
production is considered to be a function of the degree ofindustrialization, population growth and the effectiveness
of control measures. The formula does not give absolute
figures but reference values over a base year [33-37].
A mathematical formula of the waste production rate
describes the level of interaction between industrial
development rate, based on the size of their capita
productivity, the time in years of the year taken as the basis
of calculation and waste production per capita in the baseyear:

W = 1 (+ ht) × 1 [(- b) × egt + b] × ert
where: w – is the function of the waste production rate; h –
industrial development rate, expressed in terms of per
capita productivity in the base year; t – the time in years of
the year taken as the basis of calculation; b – wasteproduction per capita in the base year; g – factors that
express the effectiveness of control and pollution control
measures; r – population growth rate. Knowing the amountof household waste produced in an urban agglomeration
within a specified period (usually 1 year) is of particular
importance for the determination of the waste treatmentlines and for the evaluation the financial and social effort
that the community has to make. In general, Knowing the
total amount of waste is the result of some measurements.For the assessment of the quantities of waste often use
two indicators: (a) the average annual quantity expressed
in kg/ha;
b) the average daily quantity expressed in kg/inhab. Such
a grouping of the components of the waste gives the
possibility based on the weighting of each category todetermine the direction to which should make efforts to
capitalize on them.
The sustainable development indicator
generation of
waste excluding major mineral wastes is defined as all
waste generated in a country per inhabitant per year,
excluding major mineral wastes. The indicator enables themonitoring of waste generation over time for the EU as a
whole, and makes it possible to compare developments
across countries.
The amount of generated and collected municipal waste
varies from one year to the other but there is a general
Table 3
ASSESSMENT TABLE OF HOUSEHOLD AND SIMILAR WASTE INDICATORS

http://www.revistadechimie.ro REV.CHIM.(Bucharest) ♦68♦No. 12 ♦2017 2944growth tendency determined both by the growing
consumption and by an increase in the proportion of people
who benefit from centralized public waste collectionservices. In 2014 and 2016 we notice a decrease in the
amount of municipal waste due to the economic crisis
and to the significant drop of the people’s purchase power.The amounts of collected and re-used municipal waste
broken down per main categories for the years 2014-2016
are represented below in table 4 .
In the structure of urban waste, the highest share is
represented by household waste (75-80%), followed by
municipal services waste (10-12%) while the constructionand demolition waste has the lowest share. Currently, in
Romania there is no mandatory requirement to keep a
record of construction and demolition waste (fromproducer to user and to the disposal in landfills, if
applicable) in order to have an accurate database reflecting
the market reality and showing clearly the collection andre-use rate of this waste category. On the other hand,
construction and demolition waste is disposed of at old
municipal landfills without weighing systems and quiteoften the waste is thrown on fallow lands, therefore the
recorded data is not exactly accurate [34].
Due to the rapid increase in population and increase in
the consumption of packed goods, the amount as well as
the quantum of non-biodegradable waste is increasing over
time. Among the total waste generated in NE region ofRomania, 80% is generated only from Iasi and only 30% of
the total urban refuse is being collected in containers and
transferred to the landfill site [35].
Thus solid waste management is a growing issue in the
context of urban environmental degradation of
Romania .
Using the table provided, determine the amount of nitrogenand carbon in your materials. While this isn’t possible to do
exactly without submitting samples to a lab for analysis,
you can estimate, which means take an educated guess!
Chemical composition analysis carried out for this study
involved analysis of moisture content (MC) of waste, carbon
and nitrogen analysis and three component analysis. ForMC analysis, at least 1 kg of waste of each composition
was used. First the samples were sealed in aplastic bag to
avoid loss in MC and then kept in oven/incubator for 4-5days at a temperature range of 90-100°C [36].
Good quality compost improves soil fertility and
thereby increases the yield of the crops which eventuallycontributes to food security. The Carbon: Nitrogen (C/N)
ratio of compost is an important factor that determines
whether the soil fertility has improved or deteriorated(table 5).Energy content of solid waste components
The energy content of organic waste components can
be determined experimentally using a boiler as a
calorimeter or a calorimetric laboratory bomb or can be
calculated if the elemental composition is known. Theamount of ash and the percentage of moisture should be
considered in the calculation of the energy content (table
6).
The approximate energy value (E) for individual waste
materials can be determined using the equation:
E(J) = 145C + 610 (H-1/8O) + 4S + 10N,
where: C – carbon (% by weight); H – hydrogen (% by
weight); O – oxygen (% by weight); S – sulfur (% by weight)
and N – nitrogen (% wt ).
The share of urban waste collection services (WCS %)
is a relevant indicator for studying an urban waste
management system in Pascani because these servicesstill do not cover the entire population, favoring illegal
dumping of household waste (Table 7). Furthermore,
highlight the major disparities between Iasi countiesregarding the urban population access to WCS. Also, these
disparities are reflected at local scale between urban
localities from Iasi County.
http://www.anpm.ro/ Table 5
DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF NITROGEN AND CARBON IN THE
SOLID WASTETable 4
AMOUNTS OF COLLECTED AND RE-USED MUNICIPAL WASTE
*) Source: Adapted from the On – Farm Composting Handbook,
Natural Resource, Agriculture and Engineering Service [37]

REV.CHIM.(Bucharest) ♦68♦No. 12 ♦2017 http://www.revistadechimie.ro 2945According to table 7, no urban locality from the county
has a higher value than 85 % of WCS in the 2012-2016periods. Major differences between Pascani and others
towns is due to rural localities included in Administrative
territorial unit types (ATTY) of urban areas which are notserved by WCS. The lists of codes represent the
administrative territorial units, based on national official/
legal information and the ISO 3166-2 standard. Differencescan be noticed due to the rapid changes occurring in the
countries.
The codes have been created, as far as possible, by
integrating the code used in UNECE [40]. The administrative
territorial units must not be confused with the
Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS). Alsothe private sector of WCS has developed earlier in Pascaniand Iasi (including significant investments) than Targu
Frumos or Harlau. Podu Iloaie has no WCS until 2011, sincea separate collection is implemented and a transfer station
is operational.
It is worth mentioning that in Romania the solid
municipal waste system was also not very well developed,
for example until 2006 in Iasi county was not established a
separate collection of the municipal solid waste system. Itis mentioning that in Iasi County in July 2009 was approved
so called
Master Plan – Long Term Investment Plan for the
period 2008-2038 regarding Integrated Solid W aste
Management.
The project results will positively affect the both side of
the border by: increased exchange of people; bettercooperation at local level; establishment of cooperation
between Local Public Authorities; increased capacities of
Table 6
ELEMENTAL ANAL YSIS AND INFERIOR
CALORIC POWER OF DOMESTIC WASTES IN
ROMANIA
Table 7
POPULATION ACCESS TO WASTE
COLLECTION SERVICES (%)
Table 8
SHARE OF SEPARATE
COLLECTION (%) FROM TOTAL
AMOUNTS OF HOUSEHOLD
AND SIMILAR WASTE (HSW)
Table 9
SHARE OF REUSE AND RECYCLING (%) FROM
TOTAL AMOUNTS OF HSW COLLECTED

http://www.revistadechimie.ro REV.CHIM.(Bucharest) ♦68♦No. 12 ♦2017 2946the local population to lobby their rights for clean
environment [41].
Mixed waste collection prevailed during 2012-2016 in
Iasi and Podu Iloaie (SpC = 0), separate collection being
provided since 2011. Also, separate collection systems
were in early stages in 2012 for Iasi and Pascani (table 8).
SpC = Qrw * 100/QHSW SpC- separate collection;
QHSW = household and similar waste collected;
Qrw = recyclable waste collected 5+1, (t/yr), total sum
of paper/cardboard, plastic, metal, glass, wood and
biodegradable waste, these fraction are collected from
special containers.
Separate collection is insignificant in Pascani during
2012-2016 because there was no facility for recycling,
treatment or composting municipal waste. On the otherside, Iasi has extended the separate collection systems in
every collection point of the town since 2007, reflecting
the higher values compared to 2012.
Iasi has an operational sorting and composting stations
(2007) which reflect higher values of RS&RY compared to
2012, yet the maximum values are still under 10% (table9). This fact highlights the early stages of the integrated
urban waste management system implemented through
ISPA funds.
Most of the Romanian towns are facing the transition
period from mixed waste collection and landfilling
(traditional way) to reduce, reuse and recycling (3R policy)specific to an modern waste management system.
The poor value of the reuse and recycling indicator
outline the fact the main current option in municipal wastemanagement is still landfilling (over 90 % for every town of
the county during 2007-2010). Thus, according to the
assessment table (table8) the score of this indicator is 0for all towns in every year.
Furthermore, municipal waste (beside HSW fraction is
also included garden & street waste , construction &demolition waste) is disposed in non-compliant landfills
which are often located on improper sites close to the
residential areas [35]. Iasi has a sanitary landfill (2 cells)which serves only this municipality until 2017.
The last indicator used for PAM refers to the uncollected
waste [35] outlined the vulnerability to illegal dumping ofurban areas from Romanian counties using this indicator.
In order to highlight this vulnerability at local scale it iscalculated for every city applying the following formula
(table 10):
Uncollected waste t/yr = Pu·Ig·365/1000, Pu – pop.
unserved by WCS (nr. of inhab.);
Ig –per capita generation of household waste (0.8
kg.inhab/day – an average value for 2003, adding an annualincrease of 0.8%).
The next step is to calculate the share of Uncollected
waste from total QHSW collected in the urban areas : S(%)
Uncollected waste = Uncollected waste·100/QHSW .
Urban population without access to WCS disposes the
HSW on improper sites from surroundings, polluting thelocal environment and threatening human health.
These situations prevailed in Podu Iloaie because of the
lack of WCS during 2012- 2016 and also in rural localitiesincluded in the administrative territorial units (ATU) of Iasi,
Targu Frumos and Pascani.
Causes of Not Willing to Pay
Questions were asked regarding the unwillingness of
the households to pay. Households have given more thanone reason for not willing to pay for the management of
the waste. Table 11 shows that the majority of the
households (53%) were not willing to pay as their wastewas collected and they do not have any problems from the
waste. Some (21%) of them do not feel the problem from
the waste since they have sufficient space to throw thewaste either within their compound or outside. Few
households were not ready to pay, as their income was
very low [39-42].
They account for only 12 % among the unwilling
households (8 % of the total surveyed households). They
feel that their priority is hand to mouth survival and not thewaste. Very few households feel that it is the duty of the
municipality and the government and so they are not willing
to pay.
Conclusions
The background of traditional waste management
system based on mixed waste collection, waste disposalTable 10
SHARE OF UNCOLLECTED WASTE (%)
FROM TOTAL AMOUNTS OF HSW
COLLECTED
Table 11
CAUSES OF NOT
WILLING TO PAY

REV.CHIM.(Bucharest) ♦68♦No. 12 ♦2017 http://www.revistadechimie.ro 2947in non-compliant landfills and illegal dumping prevails in
most urban localities of Iasi County during 2012-2016,
threatening the urban environment and human health. OnlyIasi has a modern waste management infrastructure
system since 2007, but it is outlined that the performance
is poor so far.
The role of local authorities to prepare the people for the
transition from a traditional to a sustainable waste
management system in a short period of time is essentialand cannot stagnate, otherwise Romania will not be able
to comply the objectives assumed to the EU in this priority
area of environmental policies.
The Emergency Ordinance no. 78/2000 on Waste regime
approved with modifications by Law 426/2001, modified
and completed by Emergency Ordinance no.61/2006. Inaccordance with article 8 of this Emergency Ordinance
the national competent authority was elaborated Plans for
management of wastes.
In accordance with article 19 (2) of the Emergency
Ordinance no. 78/2000 modified and completed by Law
426/2001 and Emergency Ordinance no.61/2006,producers of wastes shall adopt technologies and solutions
for reduction and elimination of generation of wastes.
References
1.SCHARFF , H., W aste Management, 34, No. 11, 2014, p. 2218.
2.MARQUES. R.C.E., SIMOES, P ., Resources, Conservation andRecycling, 52,. 2008, p. 1040.
3.PAPADATU, C.P ., BORDEI, M., ROMANESCU, G., SANDU, I., Rev. Chim.
(Bucharest), 67, no. 9, 2016, p. 1728.
4.SAHU, P .C., International Journal of Conservation Science, 8, No. 1,
2017, p. 145.
5.DA SILVA, P .R.B., MAKARA, C.N., MUNARO, A.P ., SCHNITZLER, D.C.,DIACONU, D.C., SANDU, I., POLETO, C., Rev. Chim. (Bucharest), 68,
no. 8, 2017, p. 1834.
6.ROMANESCU, G., ZAHARIA, C., SANDU, A.V ., JURAVLE, D.T.,
International Journal of Conservation Science, 6, No. 4, 2015, p. 729.
7.SEDRATI, A., HOUHA, B., ROMANESCU, G., SANDU, DIACONU, D.C.,SANDU, I., Rev. Chim. (Bucharest), 68, no. 2, 2017, p. 420.
8.ROMANESCU, G., TIRNOVAN, A., COJOC, G.M., SANDU, I.G.,
International Journal of Conservation Science, 7, No. 4, 2016, p. 1135.
9.BOCIORT, D., GHERASIMESCU, C., BERARIU, R., BUTNARU, R.,
BRANZILA, M., SANDU, I., Rev. Chim. (Bucharest), 63, no. 11, 2017, p.
1152.10.BRICIU, A.E., TOADER, E., ROMANESCU, G., SANDU, I., Rev. Chim.
(Bucharest), 67, no. 8, 2016, p. 1583.
11.BRICIU, A.E., TOADER, E., ROMANESCU, G., SANDU, I., Rev. Chim.(Bucharest), 67, no. 7, 2016, p. 1294.
12.LEVER, L., Only 1 percent of trash recycled places Romania at
bottom of Eu league again. Romania Business Insider, 2012. http://www.romania-insider.com/only-1-percent-of-trash-recycled-romania-
bottom-of-eu-league-again/53958/.
13.SIVAKUMAR, K., SUGIRTHARAN, M., Impact of family income andsize on per capita solid waste generation: a case study in Manmunai
North divisional secretariat division of Batticaloa. J Science University
Kelaniya, 5, 2010, p. 13.
14.ANDERSON, I., Environmental Management Tools for SMEs: A
Handbook, CCEM, European Environment Agency,. 2, 1998, p. 5.
15. BARDSLEY , D., Land Use Policy, 23, 2006, p. 643.
16.PRAWIRADINATA, R.S., Integrated solid waste management model:
the case of central Ohio district, PhD Thesis, Ohio State University,
2004.17.UNGUREANU, G., IGNAT, G., VINTU, C.R., DIACONU, C.D., SANDU,
I.G., Rev. Chim. (Bucharest), 68, no. 3, 2017, p. 570.18.COSTULEANU, C.L., BREZULEANU, S., IGNAT, G., BOLDUREANU,
G., TOMA, M.C., ANDRUSEAC, G.G., Rev. Chim. (Bucharest), 67, no.
10, 2016, p. 1990.19.COSTULEANU, C.L., VINTU, C.R., ROBU, D.A., IGNAT, G.,
BREZULEANU, S., Rev. Chim. (Bucharest), 66, no. 5, 2015, p. 743.
20.SETH, K., JERRY COBBINA, S., ASARE, W ., BALLU DUWIEJUAH, A.,American Journal of Environmental Protection, 2, No. 4, 2014, p. 74.
21.CHU, P .-Y., CHIU, J.-F.. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 33,
No. 3: 2003, p. 604-626.22.DESMOND, M., Irish Geography, 39, No.1, 2016, p. 22.
23.BEJINARIU, C., SANDU, A.V ., BACIU, C., SANDU, I., TOMA, S.L.,
SANDU, I.G., Rev.Chim. (Bucharest), 61, no. 10, 2010, p. 961.
24.YAHYA, Z., ABDULLAH, M.M.A., HUSSIN, K., ISMAIL, K.N., SANDU,
A.V ., VIZUREANU, P ., ABD RAZAK, R., Rev.Chim. (Bucharest), 64, no.
12, 2013, p. 1408.25.MINCIUNA, M.G., VIZUREANU, P ., ACHITEI, D.C., GHIBAN, B.,
SANDU, A.V ., MARECI, D., BALAN, A., Rev .Chim. (Bucharest), 65, no.
10, 2014, p. 1138.26.POPITA, G.E., ROSU, C., CORBU, O., POPOVICI, A., SANDU, A.V .,
PROOROCU, M., NICULA, M.A., Mat. Plast. 53, no. 3, 2016, p. 375.
27.POPITA, G.E., ROSU, C. MANCIULA, D., CORBU, O., POPOVICI, A.,NEMES, O., SANDU, A,V ., PROOROCU, M., DAN, S.B., Mat. Plast., 53,
no. 2, 2016, p. 308.
28.PUSKAS, A., MOGA, L., CORBU, O., SZILAGYI, H., Nano, Bio AndGreen – Technologies For A Sustainable Future, Vol II, (SGEM 2015),
2015, p. 203.
29.CORBU, O., POPOVICI, A., POPITA, G.E., RUSU, T., ROSU, C.,PUSKAS, A., Nano, Bio and Green – Technologies For A Sustainable
Future, Vol II, (SGEM 2014), 2014, p. 813.
30.BREDENHANN, L., Minimum requirements for waste disposal bylandfill, Third Edition, Kathleen Langmore, Jarrod Ball & Associates
cc, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2005.
31.ZIA, H, DEVADAS, V ., Habitat Int., 32, 2008, p. 58.
32.*** Sustainable agriculture and the sustainable use of agricultural
biodiversity: Concepts, Trends and challenges. Subsidiary body on
scientific, technical and technological advice. Fourteenth meeting.
Nairobi, 10-21 May 2010.
33.*** Environmental Performance Reviews, Romania, Second Review,UNECE, 2012.
34.IACOBOAEA, C., LUCA, O., PETRESCU, F ., Theoretical and Empirical
Researches in Urban Management, 8, No. 4, 2013, p. 73.
35.**8 FAOSTAT – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, http://faostat3.fao.org/download/FB/FBS/E.
36.MIHAI, F.C., Bollettino dell’Associazione Italiana di Cartografia,154, 2015, p. 93. doi: 10.13137/2282-472X/11830
37.**8 Standard test methods for determination of the composition of
unprocessed municipal solid waste. ASTM D5231 – 92/2003. ASTMInternational, West Conshohocken, PA. p. 6.
38.ANTONESCU N., R. POLIZU, M. POPESCU, V alorificarea energetica
a deseurilor: procese si instalatii de ardere. Editura Tehnica,Bucuresti, 1988.
39.APOSTOL, T., Waste Management, AGIR Publishing House,
Bucharest, 2000.40.*** http://www.unece.org/cefact/locode/service/location.html.
41.*** Cross-border Improvement of solid municipal waste
management in Republic of Moldova, Romania and Ukraine (SMWM).MIS-ETC 1106. http://www.rec.md/en/SMWM.
42.ELLIOTT, A.L., DOESKEN, K.C, DAVIS, J.G., Western Sustainable
Agriculture Research and Education Program. Manure Managementfor Livestock 4-H Projects. Department of Soil and Crop Sciences,
Colorado State University, 2008, p 21.
Manuscript received: 4.07.2017