Summary of street sweeping tracking methodologies
Summary of street sweeping tracking methodologies
Link to this table
| Tracking method | Advantages | Disadvantages | Data collected | Relative TP load reduction credit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distance Swept: Manual Logging |
|
Low accuracy, reliant on self-reporting | Miles swept | Low potential due to low accuracy and no strong research-based relationships between miles swept and TP load |
| Distance Swept: GPS Records | Automated tracking | More expensive than manual logging (hardware, software, data interpretation) | Miles swept | Low potential due to no strong research-based relationships between miles swept and TP load |
| Debris Collected: Mass Measurement | Once method is established, easy to track | Requires special equipment (scale) | Wet mass of swept materials | High potential due to research-based relationships between wet mass and TP load |
| Debris Collected: Mass Measurements with Lab Analysis | More representative of actual material swept | Pilot study may be initially time intensive and costly | Wet mass of swept materials plus initial lab work for dry basis moisture content, and optionally organic matter content, TP content | High potential and highest accuracy due to research-based and site-specific relationships between laboratory measurements and TP load |
| Debris Collected: Volume Measurement |
|
Not currently applicable for TP load reduction credit by MPCA | Count of hopper dumps | No potential currently due to no strong research-based relationships between volume and TP load |
| Debris Collected: Volume-Mass Relationship | Provides pathway for TP load reduction credit based on a low-tech measurement | Pilot study may be initially time intensive and costly | Count of hopper dumps plus initial lab work in developing volume/mass relationship | High potential pending MPCA approval of data-derived volume-mass relationship |