What are the key pallet recycling statistics?
An estimated 280 million wooden pallets were repaired or remanufactured in the United States in 2021—23.4% of estimated new-plus-repaired output. These pallet recycling statistics describe annual industry output, not the percentage of all discarded pallets recycled. The count comes from Hobbs and colleagues’ 2025 study; the share is calculated from its published production estimates. [1][s1]
The newest national activity year in this compilation is 2021, while the EPA comparison uses 2018 waste data. Each figure below identifies its own population: industry output, incoming used pallets, disposal-facility flows or waste measured by weight. [1][s1], [3][s3], [4][s4], [5][s5]
U.S. repaired output in 2021
An estimated 280 million wooden pallets were repaired or remanufactured in the United States in 2021, according to Hobbs et al., published in BioResources in 2025. [1][s1]
Repaired share of U.S. output in 2021
Repaired/remanufactured pallets represented 23.4% of estimated U.S. new-plus-repaired wooden-pallet output in 2021, calculated as 280 ÷ (919 + 280) from Hobbs et al.; this is an output share, not an end-of-life recycling rate. [1][s1]
Incoming pallet-core pathways in 2021
About 94% of incoming recovered pallet cores entered reuse, repair or disassembly-for-remanufacture pathways in the 2021 U.S. industry survey, based on Hobbs et al.’s rounded shares of 5%, 78% and 11%; a core is a used or broken pallet received for processing. [1][s1]
U.S. used-pallet output in 2016
An estimated 326 million wooden pallets were produced in the U.S. study’s recycled/repaired-or-remanufactured category in 2016, according to Gerber et al., published in BioResources in 2020. [2][s2]
Alternative landfill estimates for 2021
Estimated wooden-pallet disposal at continental U.S. municipal-solid-waste and construction-and-demolition facilities in 2021 totaled 40.1 million under facility-based scaling or 19.9 million under population-based scaling, calculated from Mansharamani’s 2024 thesis; some construction-and-demolition inputs combine pallets and crates. [3][s3]
Recovery shares at disposal facilities in 2021
The recovered-pallet category represented 47.8% or 51.3% of the combined recovered-plus-landfilled pallet estimates for continental U.S. disposal facilities in 2021, calculated from Mansharamani’s facility-based and population-based methods, respectively; these are alternative methods, not confidence limits, and the pallets-and-crates qualification applies. [3][s3]
EPA wood-packaging recycling in 2018
EPA’s 2018 U.S. wood-container and packaging estimates imply 26.9% recycled by weight: 3.10 million of 11.53 million U.S. short tons, in a category that includes pallets and crates. [4][s4]
EPA all-wood recycling in 2018
EPA’s 2018 U.S. municipal-solid-waste estimates imply 17.1% of all wood recycled by weight: 3.10 million of 18.09 million U.S. short tons, using a broader denominator than wood packaging alone. [5][s5]
Pallet disposal in the Franklin County study
SWACO’s 2018–19 study estimated 47,082 annual tons of untreated wood pallets in its defined Franklin County, Ohio, commercial and residential disposal streams, using calendar-year 2018 tonnage; the report includes whole and broken pallets. [6][s6]
Commercial share of the Franklin County estimate
Commercial waste accounted for 95.2% of the pallet-disposal tonnage estimated in SWACO’s 2018–19 Franklin County study, calculated as 44,810 ÷ 47,082 tons on its 2018 annual-tonnage basis; this is a disposal-composition finding, not a recycling rate. [6][s6]
By Toledo Dock Door Repair Last verified: September 11, 2026
Toledo Dock Door Repair Research is the independent research and reference section of ToledoDockDoorRepair.com.
Contents: Key statistics · Recycling percentages · Methodology · Annual output · Recovered pallet cores · Landfill estimates · EPA wood data · Ohio and Lucas County · Data dates · Limitations · FAQ · Attribution · Sources
What percentage of pallets is recycled?
There is no single interchangeable percentage in these sources. 23.4% describes the repaired share of 2021 industry output; 26.9% describes the mass of EPA’s wood-packaging waste recycled in 2018. Neither is a measurement of the same group of discarded pallets followed through to its final destination. [1][s1], [4][s4]
Table 1. Pallet recycling percentages and their denominators
| Measure | Observation year | Figure | Denominator—the quantity being divided into | What the figure does not measure |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repaired/remanufactured output share | 2021 | 23.4% | New plus repaired/remanufactured U.S. wooden-pallet output | Share of discarded pallets recycled |
| Incoming cores routed to reuse, repair or disassembly for remanufacture | 2021 | About 94% | Recovered cores entering responding U.S. industry operations | Complete recovery of every pallet’s wood |
| Disposal-facility recovery share, facility-based method | 2021 | 47.8% | Combined recovered-plus-landfilled estimates at continental U.S. MSW and C&D facilities | Recovery across the entire pallet industry |
| Disposal-facility recovery share, population-based method | 2021 | 51.3% | The same two estimated flows under a different expansion method | A confidence bound on the preceding estimate |
| EPA wood containers and packaging recycled | 2018 | 26.9% | Generated U.S. wood-packaging waste, by mass | Pallet-only, count-based recycling |
| EPA all wood recycled | 2018 | 17.1% | Generated wood in U.S. municipal solid waste, by mass | A wood-packaging-only recycling rate |
| Commercial share of SWACO’s pallet-disposal estimate | 2018 annual basis; 2018–19 sampling | 95.2% | Pallet tonnage in the study’s defined Franklin County disposal streams | A recycling rate for Ohio or Lucas County |
Source: Toledo Dock Door Repair Research calculations and denominator comparison from Hobbs et al., Table 2 and Table 4 [1][s1]; Mansharamani, Tables 23–24 [3][s3]; EPA wood-packaging and wood tables [4][s4], [5][s5]; and SWACO, Tables 18–20 [6][s6]. All checked September 11, 2026. C&D inputs include a combined pallets-and-crates category.
Municipal solid waste (MSW) is the general waste stream addressed by the cited sources. Construction and demolition (C&D) refers to waste from construction and demolition activity. The landfill study treats these facility categories separately before combining its estimates. [3][s3]
Dataset downloads: CSV · JSON · Reproduction script
The CSV contains published production estimates, recovered-core pathways, landfill estimates under both methods, selected EPA observations, SWACO estimates and reproducible calculations. Its columns are record_id, series, metric, value, value_operator, unit, observation_period, geography, population_or_denominator, record_type, source_ids, source_url, source_locator, source_publication_date, verified_date, verification_tier, formula, input_record_ids and qualification. A less-than sign in value_operator retains a source bound rather than turning it into an exact number.
The accompanying pallet-recycling-data-2026-09-11.json contains the same records, the source register and calculation definitions. Dataset version: 2026-09-11.2. The Python reproduction script uses the JSON file to recalculate the derived values and check them against the CSV; it does not require the source researchers’ unpublished data.
The comparison separates activity from outcomes. Producing a repaired pallet, accepting a used pallet and diverting wood from burial are different recorded events. Adding those counts would not produce a count of distinct pallets recycled.
What is behind the 95% recycling claim?
The Pallet Foundation’s March 29, 2018 announcement presented a 95% wooden-pallet recycling finding as a preliminary result. That announcement is historical evidence of the claim, not a measurement of 2026 activity. [7][s7]
A newer source also makes a high-recovery claim: Mansharamani’s 2024 thesis concludes that 95–97% of wood pallets produced in the United States are reused, used for repair or converted into other products. Its analysis compares annual landfill estimates with annual new-pallet production; it does not track the fate of one identified group of pallets from manufacture through disposal. [3][s3]
That distinction matters. A production denominator cannot establish the recycling rate of all pallets discarded in the same year, because the discarded pallets need not be the pallets produced that year. This reference therefore preserves the source’s conclusion as an attributed finding while keeping its underlying disposal estimates separate.
How were these statistics assembled?
On September 11, 2026, we checked the original research, agency tables and SWACO report, inspected the relevant PDF tables, and recalculated the sums and ratios used here. This is a compilation of published estimates and secondary calculations—not a new survey or a reanalysis of unpublished respondent records.
Table 2. Evidence sources and observation periods
| Evidence | Source type | Publication or report date | Activity observed | Contribution to this reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gerber et al. | Peer-reviewed research | 2020 | 2016 | Earlier U.S. production estimates |
| Hobbs et al. | Peer-reviewed research | 2025 | 2019–2021 | Production and incoming-core pathways |
| Mansharamani | Master’s thesis | 2024 | 2021 | Alternative landfill-estimation methods |
| EPA wood packaging | Agency statistical table | Live reference page | Selected 2010–2018 observations | Packaging mass flows |
| EPA all wood | Agency statistical table | Live reference page | Selected 2010–2018 observations | Broader wood mass flows |
| SWACO | Commissioned waste-characterization report | November 2019 | 2018 annual tonnage; 2018–19 sampling | Defined Franklin County disposal streams |
Source: Original publications and tables [1][s1], [2][s2], [3][s3], [4][s4], [5][s5], [6][s6]. Publication year and observation year were recorded separately. Verified September 11, 2026.
What was calculated—and what was not?
The calculations use published aggregate values. They include combined output, repaired-output shares, same-method landfill totals, recovered shares of those totals, EPA recycled/generated shares, and the commercial share of SWACO’s estimated pallet-disposal tonnage.
The reproduction script reproduces this arithmetic. It does not reproduce the researchers’ original survey expansion models or recover missing microdata. Dataset records distinguish source-reported values from derived values and identify every calculation’s inputs.
Percentages are generally displayed to one decimal place. The incoming-core shares retain the source’s rounded values and its less-than-1% landfill bound. We do not turn that bound into an exact value or force the displayed shares to total 100%. [1][s1]
EPA’s original tables use thousands of U.S. short tons; the page expresses them in millions by dividing by 1,000. SWACO’s figures remain tons as reported. No weight has been converted into a number of pallets. [4][s4], [5][s5], [6][s6], [8][s8]
Table 3. Source discrepancies and the calculations used here
| Issue found | Published values | Treatment in this reference |
|---|---|---|
| New-pallet production change | Hobbs et al.’s abstract reports a 75% increase; the 2016 and 2021 counts are 513 million and 919 million | Calculate (919 − 513) ÷ 513 × 100 = 79.1%, using 2016 as the base |
| Repaired/remanufactured production change | The abstract reports a 16.4% decrease; the counts are 326 million and 280 million | Calculate (280 − 326) ÷ 326 × 100 = −14.1%, using 2016 as the base |
| Combined 2021 output | Hobbs et al.’s first conclusion reports 1.18 billion total pallets; Table 2 lists 919 million new and 280 million repaired/remanufactured | Calculate 919 + 280 = 1,199 million (1.199 billion); preserve the table inputs and the disagreement with the conclusion |
| Combined landfill flows | Nearby thesis prose says 60.8 million pallets received; Table 23’s four entries sum to 76,841,631 | Retain the table entries and label 76,841,631 as their calculated sum; the thesis abstract also reports approximately 76.8 million |
Source: Hobbs et al., abstract, Table 2 and Summary and Conclusions item 1 (printed page 3066) [1][s1]; Gerber et al.’s 2016 estimates [2][s2]; Mansharamani, abstract and printed page 52, Table 23 [3][s3]. Checked and recalculated September 11, 2026.
These are transparent calculations from published inputs, not author-issued corrections. The disagreement remains visible rather than being replaced with one unexplained number.
Who conducted and supported the original research?
The underlying fieldwork belongs to the authors and organizations named in the sources, not this publication. Virginia Tech’s funding announcement identifies Pallet Foundation support for the pallet-market research and discusses support from the National Wooden Pallet and Container Association; the Foundation’s 2018 announcement also identifies research funding. [7][s7], [9][s9]
This page’s contribution is the source-preserving comparison, verification record and reproducible arithmetic. It does not claim university affiliation or ownership of the original survey findings.
How many wooden pallets are repaired or remanufactured?
Hobbs et al. estimated 280 million repaired or remanufactured wooden pallets in the United States in 2021. Against 919 million new pallets in the same study, repaired/remanufactured output made up a calculated 23.4% of combined output. [1][s1]
Table 4. U.S. wooden-pallet output by observation year
| Year | New output, million pallets | Repaired/remanufactured output, million pallets | Combined output, million pallets—calculated | Repaired/remanufactured share—calculated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 513 | 326 | 839 | 38.9% |
| 2019 | 748 | 223 | 971 | 23.0% |
| 2020 | 880 | 237 | 1,117 | 21.2% |
| 2021 | 919 | 280 | 1,199 | 23.4% |
Source: Gerber et al. [2][s2] for 2016; Hobbs et al., Table 2 [1][s1] for 2019–2021. All production counts are survey-based estimates. The 2016 source labels its used category “recycled/repaired or remanufactured.” Combined totals and shares are calculations. Verified September 11, 2026.
For 2021, the calculation is 280 ÷ (919 + 280) × 100 = 23.4%. The denominator includes both new output and repaired/remanufactured output. Dividing 280 by new production alone would answer a different question.
The table compares published annual estimates, not the lifetime histories of individual pallets. It also does not follow an unchanged group of firms across the 2016 and later research. Missing observation years remain missing; no values have been interpolated.
What happens to recovered pallet cores?
In the 2021 industry results reported by Hobbs et al., 78% of incoming recovered pallet cores went to repair. Adding reuse without repair and disassembly for remanufacture gives approximately 94% routed into those three pathways, based on rounded source shares. [1][s1]
A pallet core is a used or broken pallet received for evaluation and further use or processing. Remanufacturing uses recovered components to construct a pallet; it is distinct from reusing a whole pallet without repair. [1][s1]
Table 5. Reported destinations of incoming recovered pallet cores, 2021
| Pathway | Reported share | How to interpret the category |
|---|---|---|
| Reused without repair | 5% | Reuse of the pallet without the repair step |
| Repaired | 78% | A repair pathway, not new-pallet production |
| Disassembled for remanufacture | 11% | Recovery of components; not proof that every component was reused |
| Ground or chipped | 5% | Material processing rather than continued use as a whole pallet |
| Landfilled | Less than 1% | A bound, not an exact 1% estimate |
| Other | 1% | A separate residual category in the source |
Source: Hobbs et al., Table 4 and accompanying explanation [1][s1]. Shares are rounded; the approximately 94% subtotal is 5 + 78 + 11. Verified September 11, 2026.
The incoming-core population has already reached responding industry operations. It is not all pallets sold, all pallets discarded, or all wood entering landfills. The low landfill share within this population should not be extended to pallets outside that collection stream.
How many pallets are landfilled or recovered?
Mansharamani’s study of 2021 activity produces combined landfill estimates of 40.1 million pallets under facility-based expansion and 19.9 million under population-based expansion. These are alternative estimates from the same research, not the lower and upper limits of a statistical confidence interval. [3][s3]
Expansion means using the survey responses to estimate a larger population. The facility method scales by facility numbers; the population method uses waste per person served and the national population. [3][s3]
Table 6. Published pallet estimates by facility type and expansion method, 2021
| Expansion method | Facility category | Estimated pallets landfilled | Estimated pallets recovered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facility-based | Municipal solid waste | 13,415,855 | 18,914,897 |
| Facility-based | Construction and demolition | 26,721,561 | 17,789,318 |
| Population-based | Municipal solid waste | 8,533,761 | 13,031,421 |
| Population-based | Construction and demolition | 11,345,002 | 7,911,971 |
Source: Mansharamani, Tables 23–24, printed page 52 [3][s3]. Continental U.S. landfill survey with national expansion. The thesis labels these estimates pallets, but the C&D questionnaire combines pallets and crates in relevant material categories. Published integers are retained for reproduction, not as a claim of census-level precision. Verified September 11, 2026.
Table 7. Same-method sums and recovery shares, 2021
| Expansion method | Landfilled—calculated sum | Recovered—calculated sum | Sum of both estimated flows | Recovered share of that sum |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Facility-based | 40,137,416 | 36,704,215 | 76,841,631 | 47.8% |
| Population-based | 19,878,763 | 20,943,392 | 40,822,155 | 51.3% |
Source: Toledo Dock Door Repair Research calculations from Mansharamani, Tables 23–24 [3][s3]. C&D category qualification applies. The final column divides recovered by recovered plus landfilled; it is not an all-industry recycling rate. Verified September 11, 2026.
For the facility method, 36,704,215 ÷ 76,841,631 × 100 = 47.8%. The population method uses its own numerator and denominator. Mixing an input from one method with an input from the other would create a third figure that neither method supports.
“Recovered” also does not necessarily mean returned to pallet service. The thesis describes uses including mulch, fuel, road base and alternative daily cover—the material placed over landfill waste. Its future-research discussion specifically recommends separating pallets from crates in the C&D questionnaire. [3][s3]
What do EPA’s wood-recycling figures count?
EPA estimates 3.10 million U.S. short tons recycled in 2018 in both its wood-packaging table and its broader all-wood table. The denominators differ: 11.53 million tons of generated wood packaging versus 18.09 million tons of all wood in municipal solid waste, producing calculated shares of 26.9% and 17.1%. [4][s4], [5][s5]
Table 8. EPA wood-container and packaging waste
All quantities are million U.S. short tons. These are selected observations, not a continuous annual series.
| Year | Generated | Recycled | Combusted with energy recovery | Landfilled | Recycled/generated—calculated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 9.770 | 2.280 | 1.330 | 6.160 | 23.3% |
| 2015 | 9.770 | 2.660 | 1.390 | 5.720 | 27.2% |
| 2017 | 11.560 | 3.030 | 1.670 | 6.860 | 26.2% |
| 2018 | 11.530 | 3.100 | 1.650 | 6.780 | 26.9% |
Source: EPA, Containers and Packaging: Product-Specific Data, wood section [4][s4]. Original table units are thousands of U.S. short tons; amounts above divide those values by 1,000. Percentages are calculated. Verified September 11, 2026.
Table 9. EPA all-wood waste in municipal solid waste
All quantities are million U.S. short tons. This broader category overlaps the packaging category above.
| Year | Generated | Recycled | Combusted with energy recovery | Landfilled | Recycled/generated—calculated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 15.710 | 2.280 | 2.310 | 11.120 | 14.5% |
| 2015 | 16.300 | 2.660 | 2.570 | 11.070 | 16.3% |
| 2017 | 18.200 | 3.030 | 2.880 | 12.290 | 16.6% |
| 2018 | 18.090 | 3.100 | 2.840 | 12.150 | 17.1% |
Source: EPA, Wood: Material-Specific Data, generation-and-management table [5][s5]. Original table units are thousands of U.S. short tons; amounts above divide those values by 1,000. Percentages are calculated. Verified September 11, 2026.
Wood packaging includes pallets and crates. The all-wood category extends beyond packaging. Consequently, these tables must not be added together, and neither table supplies a pallet-only count. [4][s4], [5][s5]
EPA separates combustion with energy recovery from recycling. Its wood-packaging discussion includes processing into products such as mulch and animal bedding, while excluding fuel from the recycling quantity. A source using a broader meaning of recovery can therefore report a different percentage without measuring the same outcome. [4][s4]
What pallet-waste data are available for Ohio and Lucas County?
SWACO’s 2018–19 waste-characterization study provides pallet-specific disposal estimates for defined Franklin County streams: 47,082 annual tons, of which 44,810 tons were assigned to commercial waste. These findings do not establish a statewide Ohio recycling rate or a Lucas County estimate. [6][s6]
What did the Franklin County study include?
The Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio, or SWACO, commissioned sampling during November 2018, February 2019, May 2019 and August 2019. Annual estimates used calendar-year 2018 tonnage. Its pallet category covers untreated whole and broken wood pallets. [6][s6]
The relevant streams were commercial and residential waste originating within the study’s SWACO/Franklin County boundaries and handled through the sampled landfill and transfer facilities. The scope excluded self-hauled waste, special waste and loads originating at construction or demolition sites. It should not be described as every waste stream in Franklin County. [6][s6]
Table 10. Pallet disposal in SWACO’s defined study streams
| Study stream | Estimated annual pallet tons | Pallets as a share of the stream’s weight | Reported 90% confidence-interval half-width for that share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 47,082 | 4.1% | ±1.5 percentage points |
| Commercial | 44,810 | 6.5% | ±2.5 percentage points |
| Residential | 2,272 | 0.5% | ±0.4 percentage points |
Source: SWACO 2018–19 Waste Characterization Study, Tables 18–20; annual-tonnage basis in Appendix C; material definition 57 in Appendix A [6][s6]. Tons remain as reported. Verified September 11, 2026.
The original cross-sector calculation in this reference is:
Commercial share of estimated pallet-disposal tonnage = 44,810 ÷ 47,082 × 100 = 95.2%.
This ratio uses the report’s tonnage estimates, not its rounded 6.5% and 4.1% composition shares. It describes where the study-estimated disposed pallet tonnage originated; it does not measure how much pallet material was recycled.
The published confidence intervals describe the pallet share within each waste stream. They are not confidence intervals for the 95.2% commercial-share calculation. No interval has been calculated for that new ratio.
Table 11. Ohio and home-county evidence coverage
| Geography | Evidence checked | Publishable numerical scope | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Franklin County, defined SWACO streams | Original report, scope and material tables | Historical pallet-disposal tonnage and stream composition | ★ |
| Ohio statewide | Selected sources in this compilation | No statewide pallet-specific recycling rate verified | Not established |
| Lucas County | Official page listing an Approved 2024 Plan Update | No pallet-specific count or recycling rate verified; the underlying plan was not retrieved | ● |
Source: SWACO report [6][s6] and Lucas County’s official Solid Waste Management Plan Update page [10][s10]. Evidence status checked September 11, 2026.
★ means the primary source was checked directly and any stated calculation reproduced. ● means the official source pointer was checked, but the underlying document could not be verified. These symbols describe verification depth, not statistical confidence.
The Lucas County page was accessible, but its approved-plan download was not retrievable during this review. That does not establish what the unread plan contains. “No figure verified” must not be read as “the county has no data.”
How current are these statistics?
The 2025 production paper reports activity through 2021, not 2025. EPA’s overview identifies its last Facts and Figures fact sheet as a 2020 release using 2018 data; the wood tables reviewed for this page retain 2018 as their latest observation year. [1][s1], [4][s4], [5][s5], [8][s8]
A document’s publication date, a website’s update date and the year measured are different dates. SWACO’s report illustrates the distinction: its file is hosted in a newer upload directory, but the report is dated November 2019 and its annual-tonnage basis is 2018. [6][s6]
For this reference, “last verified” means the sources and calculations were checked on that date. It does not turn an older observation into a current measurement. The dataset records observation periods separately from verification dates, so an unchanged historical value remains identifiable as historical.
What are the limitations?
The production study received 98 company responses, representing 212 facilities, with a reported 4.2% overall response rate; responses varied by question. The landfill study received 91 MSW responses and 20 C&D responses, with reported response rates of 8.0% and 3.6%. These are expanded survey estimates, not complete national counts. [1][s1], [3][s3]
Verification does not remove estimation uncertainty. A checked table cell can still depend on nonresponse, respondents’ estimates, the expansion method and category definitions. The difference between the two landfill methods is a visible example of that sensitivity.
Annual flows are not individual-pallet histories. Output, incoming cores and landfill activity cannot be combined into a distinct-pallet total or a lifetime recycling probability without evidence tracking the same population.
The geographic boundaries are not interchangeable. The Franklin County study cannot fill the Ohio or Lucas County gaps. National estimates cannot establish a local recycling rate by population-based allocation alone.
The material boundaries also differ. The primary production evidence concerns wooden pallets; some landfill inputs include crates; EPA includes broader wood categories. This reference does not establish plastic-pallet or all-material pallet recycling rates. [1][s1], [3][s3], [4][s4], [5][s5]
Figures not verified for this edition: a measured 2026 national end-of-life pallet recycling rate, a statewide Ohio pallet recycling rate, and a Lucas County pallet count or recycling rate. No missing value has been filled with zero or a modeled local substitute.
The dataset also does not estimate avoided carbon emissions, trees saved, pallet service life or pallet counts from waste weight. Those would require additional definitions and evidence beyond the assembled inputs.
What are the answers to common pallet recycling statistics questions?
The most consequential distinction is between a pallet, a pallet-processing event and a quantity of wood. For example, 280 million repaired/remanufactured pallets in 2021 and 3.10 million short tons recycled in EPA’s 2018 tables use different units and observation years; they cannot be combined into one total. [1][s1], [4][s4], [5][s5]
Is 95% the current U.S. pallet recycling rate?
Not as a verified 2026 measurement in this compilation. The 2018 Pallet Foundation announcement and the 2024 thesis both support attributed historical claims about high reuse or recovery, but their dates, definitions and production-based comparisons must remain attached. Neither establishes a newly measured 2026 rate for all discarded pallets. [3][s3], [7][s7]
Does repairing a pallet count as recycling?
That depends on the source’s category. Gerber et al.’s 2016 production category groups recycled, repaired and remanufactured output; Hobbs et al. distinguishes incoming-core pathways, including reuse without repair, repair, disassembly and grinding. This reference preserves those labels instead of assuming that every source defines recycling identically. [1][s1], [2][s2]
Why are EPA’s percentages lower than industry recovery claims?
EPA divides recycled wood mass by generated waste mass in specified material categories. Industry figures may describe incoming cores, production or avoided disposal instead, and EPA keeps energy recovery separate from recycling. A lower number does not by itself show disagreement about the same population. [1][s1], [3][s3], [4][s4], [5][s5]
Can the Franklin County study estimate Toledo’s pallet recycling rate?
No. Its 95.2% commercial-share calculation concerns the composition of estimated pallet disposal in defined Franklin County streams, not recycling in Toledo or Lucas County. A local recycling rate would require an appropriate local numerator and denominator that this compilation has not verified. [6][s6]
How is this page identified in a citation?
This reference combines published estimates with explicitly labeled calculations. The publication and dataset identifiers below distinguish the September 11, 2026 verification edition from the older activity years in its sources.
Publication: Toledo Dock Door Repair Research Organizational author: Toledo Dock Door Repair Page title: Pallet Recycling Statistics: U.S. Reuse, Recovery and Disposal URL: https://toledodockdoorrepair.com/research/pallet-recycling-statistics/ Last updated: September 11, 2026 Last verified: September 11, 2026 Dataset: Pallet Recycling Denominator and Source Audit, version 2026-09-11.2
Which primary sources support these statistics?
Sources were checked on September 11, 2026. The list distinguishes peer-reviewed papers, a graduate thesis, agency tables, a commissioned local report and historical announcements; Lucas County’s entry supports only the official page and its plan pointer, not the contents of the inaccessible plan.
- Hobbs, Sean; Horvath, Laszlo; and Gething, Brad. “Investigation of the status of the wooden pallet market during the COVD-19 pandemic.” BioResources 20(2), 3047–3074. Published March 5, 2025; activity years 2019–2021. Production: Table 2, printed page 3054. Core pathways: Table 4, printed page 3058. Survey context: Respondents section. Total-output discrepancy: Summary and Conclusions item 1, printed page 3066. Publisher’s title spelling retained.
https://bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu/resources/investigation-of-the-status-of-the-wooden-pallet-market-during-the-covd-19-pandemic/ PDF: https://bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/BioRes\_20\_2\_3047\_Hobbs\_HG\_Investig\_Wooden\_Pallet\_Market\_during\_Covid\_19\_24072.pdf
- Gerber, Nathan; Horvath, Laszlo; Araman, Philip; and Gething, Brad. “Investigation of new and recovered wood shipping platforms in the United States.” BioResources 15(2), 2818–2838. Published March 6, 2020; activity year 2016. Abstract and production findings.
- Mansharamani, Yash. Investigation into the Landfilling and Recovery of Wood and Wooden Pallets at U.S. Landfills in 2021. Virginia Tech, Master of Science thesis, dated May 7, 2024. Tables 23–24, printed page 52; methods and response rates, pages 24–25; conclusions and future-research qualifications, pages 54–56; C&D questionnaire in the appendix.
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Containers and Packaging: Product-Specific Data. Wood Containers and Packaging section and historical generation-and-management table. Selected observations: 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2018.
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Wood: Material-Specific Data. Overview of Wood Generation and Management table. Selected observations: 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2018.
- Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio; Cascadia Consulting Group and MSW Consultants. 2018–19 Waste Characterization Study: Final Report. November 2019. Scope: Table 6, printed page 10. Material definition: category 57, page 39. Annual-tonnage basis: Appendix C, page 44. Pallet estimates: Tables 18–20, pages 50–52.
https://www.swaco.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/SWACO-WCS\_Final-Report\_2018-19.pdf
- Pallet Foundation. “Study Shows 95% of Wooden Pallets Are Recycled.” March 29, 2018. Historical announcement presenting preliminary findings; used here for the claim’s provenance, not a 2026 rate.
https://palletfoundation.org/study-shows-95-of-wooden-pallets-are-recycled/
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures Report. Agency overview identifying the 2020 fact-sheet release, its 2018 data and the short-ton convention.
- Virginia Tech Center for Packaging and Unit Load Design. “Research Update: New grant from The Pallet Foundation and NWPCA for a pallet market research study.” Spring/Summer 2022. Source-research funding disclosure.
- Lucas County, Ohio. Solid Waste Management Plan Update. Official page listing the Approved 2024 Plan Update. Landing page checked September 11, 2026; the underlying approved plan was not retrievable during this review.
https://www.co.lucas.oh.us/2193/Solid-Waste-Management-Plan-Update
Last verified: September 11, 2026 By Toledo Dock Door Repair
[s1]: https://bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu/resources/investigation-of-the-status-of-the-wooden-pallet-market-during-the-covd-19-pandemic/ [s2]: https://bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu/resources/investigation-of-new-and-recovered-wood-shipping-platforms-in-the-united-states/ [s3]: https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/1f33b547-77f3-4695-b935-052c6d10b11d/content [s4]: https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/containers-and-packaging-product-specific [s5]: https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/wood-material-specific-data [s6]: https://www.swaco.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/SWACO-WCS_Final-Report_2018-19.pdf [s7]: https://palletfoundation.org/study-shows-95-of-wooden-pallets-are-recycled/ [s8]: https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/advancing-sustainable-materials-management [s9]: https://www.unitload.vt.edu/about-us/media-center/cpuld-news/9-8-cpuld-news-spring-summer-2022/ru-new-grant-from-pallet-foundation-for-sean-hobbs-pallet-market-study.html [s10]: https://www.co.lucas.oh.us/2193/Solid-Waste-Management-Plan-Update