Summary of street sweeping tracking methodologies

Link to this table

Tracking method Advantages Disadvantages Data collected Relative TP load reduction credit potential1
Distance Swept: Manual Logging
  • Inexpensive
  • Low-tech
Low accuracy, reliant on self-reporting Miles swept Low potential
Distance Swept: GPS Records Automated tracking More expensive than manual logging (hardware, software, data interpretation) Miles swept Low potential
Debris Collected: Mass Measurement Once method is established, easy to track Requires special equipment (scale) Wet mass of swept materials High potential
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 high accuracy
Debris Collected: Volume Measurement
  • Inexpensive
  • Low-tech
Not currently applicable for TP load reduction credit by MPCA Count of hopper dumps No potential
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
1Relative TP Load Reduction Credit Ratings based on the MPCA Street Sweeping Credit Calculator:
  • High Credit: high accuracy, research-based and site-specific correlations between lab measurements and TP load
  • Moderate Credit: moderate accuracy in tracking method that can be improved upon with lab analyses
  • Low Credit: low accuracy and/or lack of strong research-based relationships
  • No Current Credit: currently pending MPCA approval of data-derived volume-mass relationship
  • No Credit: no crediting option or plan to develop such a method based on research to date

This page was last edited on 20 December 2022, at 22:33.