CHAPTER ONE
1.1Background of the Study
Wastes are materials or things that have been abandoned, disposed of, or are intended for disposal(UNEP/GRID-Arendal, 2011). Garbage or abandoned substances and objects resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, agricultural, and normal day-to-day activity are examples of solid wastes, and a thorough list of such materials can be found here (Bamgbose et al., 2000). Municipal solid wastes (MSWs) are the most widely recognized discarded wastes, and they include all substances or objects thrown away as products of packaging, lawn cuttings, furniture, clothing materials, bottles/glasses, food scraps, electric appliances, newspapers, paint, and batteries, among other things (Afon, 2006). The selection and proper application of appropriate methodology, management policies, and technology to meet specific waste management objectives is characterized as integrated solid waste management (ISWM). Waste characterization studies must be carried out in order for this system to be successful (Tchobanoglous et al., 2002). For efficient MSW collection, transportation equipment selection, energy transformation and recovery, reusable matter recovery, and the right planning and implementation of optimal disposal routes and methods, waste characterization is essential. Variations in people's consumption habits, along with rapid technology improvements, have resulted in variations in MSW generation and composition. MSW differs in quantity and content from one country to the next, from one region to the next, from one neighborhood to the next, and even from one neighborhood to the next.The disparities could be due to income levels, socioeconomic distribution, consumption habits, or people's disposal habits (Banar and Ozkan, 2008). In Nigerian universities, just a sliver of attention has been paid to the composition and generation trends of garbage. Universities are supposed to be the driving force behind initiatives to create clean and welcoming campuses by enacting acceptable waste management regulations (Geng et al., 2013).
Nigeria is one of the emerging countries that is grappling with the problem of managing its growing solid waste creation. Land filling is the primary method of disposal because to lax environmental legislation, insufficient funding, and uncontrolled increasing urbanization and industry. With regard to trash management, there is little difference between the dreadful situation in Nigeria and what is available at the Federal University of Technology, Owerri (FUTO), as well as other Nigerian public universities and localities (Agunwamba, 1998). The shift to modern garbage treatment on university campuses and in Nigerian cities is hampered by these barriers, as well as a lack of understanding of the numerous deciding criteria in the hierarchy of effective and efficient waste management. As a result, it's vital to look at the type and content of MSW generated on campus, as well as the efficiency and effectiveness of the waste management agency and policy in place, in order to set a standard or serve as an example for other Nigerian institutions to follow.
1.2Statement of the Problem
This research work is about solid waste management.Despite the fact that waste management services are widely recognized as critical services that must be made available in every society, little is understood about what actually constitutes a waste. Knowing that the definition of waste is very subjective, since one person's waste is another person's resource. As a result, it's critical to have a clear understanding of what constitutes waste. As a result, the current study investigates the notion of wastes and waste management in order to determine what waste is, how it is classified, managed, and also the estimation of the quantity of waste generated in Federal University of Technology Owerri (FUTO).
1.3Objectives of the Study
1.4Significance of the Study
This project is an important one because of the solution it is geared to provide. It is to bring a remedy to knowing the quantity of solid wastes generated in FUTO and also important in predicting the future solid waste quantity generation for informed policy formulation. It will still be of help in the creation of job opportunities. The FUTO community will enjoy a cleaner environment and also give room for more active research.
1.5Scope of the Study
This study will be carried out within the boundaries of FUTO campus. The waste stream of interest is solid waste. The solid waste will be characterized and daily quantity generated estimated. A review and suggestion of possible solutions to solid waste problem will also be made.
1.6Limitation of the Study
This work has limitations just like most research works. These limitations include:
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1WASTES AS A GLOBAL ISSUE
The vast bulk of human activities result in waste (Brunner and Rechberger, 2014). Despite this, waste generation, which has been a major source of concern since prehistoric times, continues to be a major cause of concern (Chandler et al, 1997). In recent years, both the rate and volume of waste produced have increased. The variety of garbage created grows in tandem with the amount of waste produced (Vergara and Tchobanoglous, 2012). Unlike in the prehistoric era, when wastes were simply an irritation that needed to be removed, today's wastes are a necessity. Because the population was small and there was plenty of land available at the time, appropriate management was not a major concern. Those were the days when the ecology could simply absorb the rubbish produced without causing any harm (Tchobanoglous et al, 1993). People began to relocate from rural to urban areas as a result of the industrial revolution in the sixteenth century, resulting in a major increase in rubbish output (Wilson, 2007). This flood of people into cities led in a population explosion, which increased the volume and diversity of waste generated in cities. Around this time, metals and glass began to appear in significant quantities in municipal trash streams (Williams, 2005). As the population of cities and villages grew, littering and open dumps became more prevalent. As a result, these landfills became breeding grounds for rats and other vermin, posing major health risks. Poor waste management procedures have caused several pandemic epidemics with high mortality rates (Tchobanoglous et al, 1993). As a result, in the nineteenth century, public officials began to dispose of waste in a controlled manner in order to preserve public health (Tchobanoglous et al, 1993). A period of environmental development occurred in the majority of developed countries. On the other hand, the majority of these countries have effectively addressed many of the current health and environmental degradation issues associated with garbage generation. The increased rate of urbanization and growth in emerging countries, on the other hand, is producing a return of the same historical difficulties that developed countries have encountered in the past (Wilson, 2007). What exactly is a waste? In today's garbage management, this is a crucial topic. Waste is an unusable by-product of human actions that contains the same ingredients as the valuable product in its physical form (White et al, 1995). Any product or substance that is no longer valuable to the manufacturer is also considered waste (Basu, 2009). According to Dijkema et al., (2000), wastes are items that people would like to get rid of even if it costs money to do so. Although waste is an unavoidable outcome of human activities, it is also the result of inefficient production processes, resulting in the waste of valuable resources (Cheremisinoff, 2003). A substance that one person considers a waste may be viewed as a resource by another. As a result, a substance can only be classified as rubbish if its owner declares it to be so (Dijkema et al, 2000). Despite the fact that wastes are subjective, it is vital to define what constitutes a waste. This is because a material's classification as a waste will form the basis for the guidelines that will protect the public and the environment when wastes are handled or disposed of (DEFRA 2009).
2.1.1WASTE MISMANAGEMENT
Waste mismanagement is a global problem in terms of environmental contamination, social inclusion, and economic sustainability (Gupta et al, 2015), and its treatment necessitates integrated analyses and holistic interventions (Bing et al, 2016). In emerging and transitional nations, where unsustainable waste management is frequent, special attention should be devoted. Differences between emerging big cities and rural areas, where waste management concerns are different, particularly in terms of the volume of garbage generated and the waste management facilities available, should be addressed (Ferronato et al, 2019). Both, however, face unfavorable economic legislation, as well as political, technological, and operational constraints. Heavy metal pollution occurs in the water, soil, and plants as a result of uncontrolled disposal (Vongdala N. et al, 2019). Waste collection in open dump sites poses a severe health danger to those who work in these regions, and waste dumping into water bodies improves global marine litter, increasing environmental damage (Wiedinmyer et al, 2014). As a result, waste mismanagement has a wide range of environmental and social consequences that obstruct progress toward a more sustainable future. To achieve both economic growth and sustainable development, policies must be put in place to reduce the global ecological footprint, as well as to change the way commodities and resources are produced, used, and discarded. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which include 17 targets for reducing poverty, enhancing social equity, lowering pollution, and improving city livability, introduced the ideas of sustainable development. By 2020, the global waste management goals include ensuring that everyone has access to adequate, safe, and affordable waste collection services; eliminating uncontrolled dumping and open burning by 2030; and achieving sustainable and environmentally sound waste management of all wastes, particularly hazardous wastes, by 2030. (Wilson et al, 2015).
Many studies have identified potential solutions for improving waste management in developing countries, including organic waste buyback programs with compost or biogas production, waste-to-energy plans and technologies, waste-to-energy in combination with glass, metals, and other inert, biomass waste briquette production, and involvement of the Integra. (Ghisolfi et al, 2017). However, there are still a number of roadblocks in the way of improving formal collection, treatment, and disposal (Matter A. et al, 2015). As a result, environmental pollution remains a serious issue around the world, and universal solutions should be developed and implemented while considering waste management methods appropriate for each context. There have been several studies published on trash management in both developed and developing countries, as well as waste contamination of the environment. To name a few, char fuel production, waste electric and electronic equipment (WEEE) management, food waste management and treatment, battery recycling, informal sector inclusion and the risks that such activity poses for vulnerable informal workers, waste management pollution, household hazardous waste management, and healthcare waste management (Ali et al, 2017).
2.2TYPES OF WASTE
Waste occurs in a wide range of shapes and sizes, and it can be classified in a number of ways. Physical states, physical qualities, reusable potentials, biodegradable potentials, production source, and environmental impact are all common variables in rubbish classification (Demirbas,2011; Dixon & Jones, 2005; White et al., 1995). Waste can be classified into three groups depending on their physical states, according to White et al. (1995): liquid, solid, and gaseous waste. Although it is self-evident that different countries have different classifications. The most common categorization is as follows:
One sort of waste is non-solid waste. Liquid waste is common in both homes and businesses, and some solid waste can be converted to liquid garbage and disposed of this way. There are two categories of waste: point source and non-point source trash. All manufactured liquid waste is referred to as point source waste. Non-point source waste, on the other hand, is defined as natural liquid waste. Liquid waste includes water used to clean residences, cleaning products used in businesses, and waste detergents. (Demirbas,2011).
2.2.2Solid waste
Solid waste is any garbage, rubbish, or trash that we produce in our homes and other sites. Tires from old cars, newspapers from the past, broken furniture, and even food trash are examples. Any non-liquid waste could be included. Solid waste can include a variety of products that can be found in your house, as well as commercial and industrial settings. The following are some of the most common solid waste types:
2.2.3Hazardous waste
Wastes that are hazardous or dangerous have the potential to harm people or the environment. Combustible (easy to ignite), reactive (quick to burst), corrosive (easy to eat through metal), or toxic (easy to poison) wastes are all possibilities (poisonous to human and animals). The involvement of the appropriate authority to supervise the disposal of such hazardous waste is required by law in many countries. Extinguishers, old propane tanks, pesticides, mercury-containing equipment (e.g. thermostats), lamps (e.g. fluorescent bulbs), and batteries are just a few examples of hazardous materials. (Demirbas,2011).
Plants and animals produce organic waste. Organic waste includes food waste, fruit and vegetable peels, flower trimmings, and even dog faeces. They naturally disintegrate (this means they are easily broken down by other organisms over time and turned into manure). Many people use their organic waste to generate compost, which they then use in their gardens. Because organic waste releases methane in landfills, it should never be discarded with normal garbage. Instead, request a green bin from Brisbane City Council, or rent a green skin bin or garden bag for responsible rubbish disposal. (Demirbas,2011).
2.2.5Recyclable waste
The conversion of waste (spent resources) into new, useful items is known as recycling. This is done to prevent the consumption of raw materials that would otherwise be consumed. Waste that has the potential to be recycled is referred to as "recyclable waste." Aluminum (soda, milk, and tomato cans), plastics (grocery shopping bags, plastic bottles), glass (wine and beer bottles, shattered glass), and paper items all fall into this category (used envelopes, newspapers and magazines, cardboard boxes) (Demirbas,2011).
2.3Sources of Waste
Because solid waste is made up of multiple different sorts of waste, it's vital to take a look at the different types and forms of solid waste.
This comprises waste from private residences, schools, offices, markets, restaurants, and other public spaces. Just a few examples include food debris, used plastic bags, drink cans, and plastic water bottles, as well as damaged furniture, grass clippings, product packaging, broken household equipment, and clothing. Municipal solid waste (MSW) is a large waste stream that is also one of the well-studied. According to White et al., MSW has several repercussions (1995). They claim that because garbage is a waste stream that people come into contact with on a regular basis, legislators and local governments consider garbage collection, treatment, and disposal to be an important service. Kaseva & Gupta (1996) describe municipal solid waste as rubbish collected by local governments, which comprises household waste, non-hazardous solids from industry, commercial, institutional, and non-pathogenic hospital waste.
2.3.2Construction Waste
The debris generated during the construction of roads and buildings is known as construction waste. Older buildings and structures are often dismantled to make way for newer ones. This is especially typical in older cities that are undergoing modernization. This is referred to as demolition debris. Concrete debris, timber, dirt, large packaging boxes, and plastics from construction supplies are among the waste products. In many nations, building trash is one of the most common waste sources. Due to Australia's strict landfill restrictions, the large rubbish produced by the construction sector contributes to the cost of development projects, according to Faniran & Caban (1998). Construction operations generate around 15% of all solid waste landfilled in Australia each year, according to a research (Mcdonald & Smithers, 1998). Design/detailing errors, design changes, packaging waste, and unused scrap materials, among other things, constitute the majority of construction waste, according to Faniran & Caban. According to Barros et al. (1998), a substantial amount of construction waste produced in the Netherlands, largely from demolition and re-building activities, is made up of plastics, metal, wood, and stones. Furthermore, Barros and colleagues discovered that, in addition to other building debris, roughly 1 million tons of sand is created as garbage each year, some of which is recycled.
2.3.3Industrial Waste
Since the industrial revolution, the number of industries manufacturing glass, leather, textiles, food, electronics, plastic, and metal objects has increased dramatically, contributing significantly to trash production. Examine your surroundings; everything was most likely created, and garbage was almostcertainly produced as a result. Ngoc & Schnitzer (2009) define industrial waste as waste produced as a result of the processing of raw materials for the development of new items. These could be found in factories, mines, or mills, according to them. According to Ngoc & Schnitzer (2009), numerous sorts of wastes are created by companies, with some of the wastes being toxic and others being non-toxic.
2.3.4Agricultural Solid Waste
The most typical source of this type of garbage is agricultural waste. Horticulture, fruit production, seed manufacturing, animal breeding, market gardens, and seedling nurseries are just a few of the industries involved. Among the waste goods in this category are empty pesticide containers, old silage wrap, outdated medicines and wormers, used tires, surplus milk, cocoa pods, and maize husks.Agricultural wastes, on the other hand, are wastes generated by operations such as animal rearing, plant seeding, and milk production Tchobanoglous (1993).Animal manure, various crop wastes, and silage effluent are all examples of agricultural waste materials, according to Williams (2005). In the energy and industrial industries, agricultural wastes are often recyclable. However, incorrect agricultural waste management, according to Seadi & Holm-Nielsen (2004), can result in environmental dangers such as overapplication of manure on land, which can damage surface and ground water.
2.3.5Commercial Waste
Given the high volume of solid waste generated by this business, commercial trash is a substantial waste stream. Businesses such as stores, restaurants, markets, offices, hotels, motels, print shops, service stations, and vehicle repair shops generate commercial solid wastes, which are solid or semi-solid wastes (Tchobanoglous, 1993). According to the Environment & Heritage Service, commercial and industrial activity in Northern Ireland generated over 1.5 million tonnes of solid waste in 2005. According to the research, commercial activities contributed more than half of the total solid waste created in that year. Commercial rubbish accounted for roughly 11% of all garbage produced in 2002, according to a survey of England's industrial and commercial enterprises (DEFRA, 2009). Consumer electronics, batteries, tires, white goods, paper, cardboard, metal, plastics, food waste, wood, and glass are some of the most common wastes produced by industry (Tchobanoglous, 1993). A complete understanding of the characteristics, origins, and generation rate of solid waste in a given area is critical for long-term solid waste management (Tchobanoglous, 1993). As a result, it's necessary to examine waste from commercial operations individually in order to determine the content, amount, and rate of garbage output from various sorts of organizations.
2.4Waste Management
Waste management (or waste disposal) is the activities and actions required to manage waste from its inception to its final disposal. This involves garbage collection, transportation, treatment, and disposal, as well as waste management process monitoring and control. Solid, liquid, and gaseous wastes all have various disposal and management strategies. Industrial, biological, and domestic garbage are all dealt with via waste management. Waste can, in some situations, be harmful to human health. Human activity, such as the mining and processing of basic resources, produces waste. Waste management aims to minimize waste's negative effects on human health, the environment, and aesthetics. Countries (established and developing), regions (urban and rural), and the residential and industrial sectors all have varied waste management techniques (Davidson and Gary, 2011). Municipal solid waste (MSW) is the bulk of garbage generated by home, industrial, and commercial activity, and it accounts for a large amount of waste management techniques. Waste has always been produced as a result of human interactions with the environment (human activities). However, according to Giusti (2009), trash production and management were not a big issue until people started living in communities.According to Vergara & Tchobanoglous (2012), as the global population and spending power of individuals rises, more commodities are produced to fulfill rising demand, resulting in more waste. According to Basu (2009), the continual dumping of trash to landfill is unsustainable due to the increasing volume of waste. As a result, Basu contends that waste processing is an essential step in protecting public health.
Source: Zaman, 2014.Plate 2.1: The waste management cycle
According to Demirbas (2011), waste management is the process of collecting, transporting, and processing wastes before disposing of any leftovers. Solid waste management, according to Tchobanoglous et al. (1993), is "the proper supervision and handling, storage, collection, transportation, treatment, and disposal of trash in a manner that protects the environment and the public."They also stated that in the day-to-day operation of waste management challenges, solid waste management employs talents and expertise from numerous disciplines such as legal, financial, and administrative, among others. According to Demirbas (2011), the primary goal of waste management is to maintain a safe environment. According to Cheremisinoff (2003), there are various approaches to waste management. He went on to say that waste streams with varied properties might necessitate a different management strategy. Industrial waste, for example, may contain more hazardous compounds than municipal waste streams. As a result, the management of these two waste streams may vary. Although trash management differs by country, Vergara and Tchobanoglous (2012) discovered that waste management must follow some basic processes or routes. These paths are illustrated in Plate 2.1, the study reported thatwastes must be collected and kept by the generator in a certain location. The garbage is collected by municipal authorities or their agents from the point of storage and transported to processing or disposal facilities. According to the report, waste generators in some cases divide garbage into various types, which are then collected for recycling by recycling firms.
2.4.1History of Waste Management
For most of history, the amount of waste generated by individuals was negligible due to low population density and low socioeconomic levels of natural resource exploitation, as well as industrial since a few decades ago. Common garbage in pre-modern times was mostly made up of ashes and human biodegradable waste, which was disposed locally with little environmental damage. Tools made of wood and metal were commonly repurposed or passed down through the generations. On the other hand, some civilizations appear to have been more wasteful than others. The Maya of Central America, for example, conducted a monthly rite in which the community's residents gathered and burned their rubbish in massive mounds. (Barbalace and Roberta, 2003).
Modern era
The rapid deterioration of sanitation and the overall quality of urban life in England resulted from the accumulation of garbage in cities with the advent of industrialization and the ongoing urban growth of large population centers. The streets became filled with filth due to a lack of rubbish collection legislation (Florence Nightingale, 1954). "...as the maintenance of the people's health is of vital significance," Corbyn Morris recommended in London in 1751, "it is advocated that the cleansing of this metropolis, should be put under one uniform public supervision, and all the filth be...conveyed via the Thames to proper distance in the country." (Herbert and Lewis, 2007). However, the first legislation on the subject did not appear until the mid-nineteenth century, in response to more destructive cholera outbreaks and the formation of a public health debate. The social reformer Edwin Chadwick's report The Sanitary Condition of the Laboring Population in 1842 (Chadwick and Edwin, 1842), in which he argued for the importance of adequate waste removal and management facilities to improve the health and wellbeing of the city's population, was highly influential in this new focus. The United Kingdom's Nuisance Removal and Disease Prevention Act of 1846 began off a lengthy and winding process of regulated waste management in London. The Metropolitan Board of Works was the first municipal authority to centralize sanitary management for the rapidly expanding metropolis, and the Public Health Act of 1875 mandated every home to dispose of its weekly rubbish in "movable receptacles"—the first concept for a dustbin (Gandy and Matthew, 1994). The massive increase in rubbish for disposal inspired the development of the first incinerator plants, or "destructors". Manlove, Alliott & Co. Ltd. built the first incinerator in Nottingham in 1874, according to Alfred Fryer's design (Herbert and Lewis, 2007). However, because of the large amounts of ash they created, which drifted over adjacent communities, these were panned (Gandy and Matthew, 1994). Several prominent European and North American cities developed similar municipal rubbish disposal systems around the turn of the twentieth century. In 1895, New York City became the first American city to have a public-sector waste collecting system (Washington, DC2013). Early garbage trucks were just open-body dump trucks pulled by a team of horses. In the early twentieth century, they were mechanized, and in the 1920s, the first closed body trucks with a dumping lever mechanism were invented in the United Kingdom. These were rapidly fitted with 'hopper mechanisms,' which allowed the scooper to be loaded at ground level and then elevated automatically to deposit the waste in the truck. The Garwood Load Packer was the first truck with a hydraulic compactor, introduced in 1938.
2.4.2Method of Waste Management
Different waste management procedures are utilized depending on the deposition and kind of trash. They can differ from person to person, location to location, period to time, and country to country. They are as follows:
Collecting waste from various locations and sorting it into categories based on the nature of the products to be recycled. In the United States, robots are utilized to gather rubbish in the Baltimore River. The recycling procedure is used in Malaysia and Hong Kong to control building waste (Wahi, et.al., 2016). Municipal and construction solid waste were recycled and used to make very environmentally friendly geopolymer composites (Tang, Tam & Xue, 2020).
Organic wastes are isolated from other wastes and allowed to decompose in a pit for a long time by bacteria. The compost is then turned into nutrient-rich manure for the plants. These manures improve the fertility of the soil. The fertility of the soil is improved by composting using biological techniques. The vermicomposting technology has a low environmental impact and improves soil nutrient content (Bhat, et. al., 2020). Vermicomposting is an efficient method for sustaining organic crops while also maintaining a healthy ecosystem (Kaur, 2020). The Black Soldier Fly (Larvae) was employed to achieve a high level of organic waste reduction and a quick composting time. Then the residues were further treated with E. Eugeniae which results in the production of best quality of vermicompost (Bagastyo & Soesanto, 2020).
2.4.2.3Landfilling
Landfilling is the process of dumping waste into the ground. For landfilling, proper procedures should be followed, such as coating the base with a protective layer, selecting a low groundwater level location, and so on. This method necessitates the use of skilled labor. Construction of horizontal wells in landfills carrying municipal solid waste reduces leachate levels in China (Hu, et. al., 2020). A model based on physical, chemical, and biological processes regulates Hg emissions from landfills (Tao, Deng, Li & Chai, 2020). As a result, there is less of an environmental risk to the atmosphere (Sun, et. al., 2020).
2.4.2.4Incineration
The process of burning waste at a high temperature is known as incineration. Filters are used to keep the air clean (which is created by the burning of garbage). For dealing with sludge, direct incineration without anaerobic digestion was proven to be a more sustainable choice (Hao, et. al., 2020). A coal power plant paired with a waste incineration system was deemed a promising solution for conserving fossil fuels and disposing of garbage (Ye, et. al., 2020). Plasma, mechanochemistry, hydrothermal, photocatalytic, and biodegradation methods have proven to have good purifying effects and are considered the best MSWI fly ash resource. (Zhang, Zhang & Liu, 2020).
2.4.2.5Bioremediation
Bioremediation is the process of employing microorganisms and bacteria to remove impurities, toxins, and poisons from soil, water, and other environments. Radioactive waste is emitted by energy power plants, posing a severe threat to the human population. Bioremediation is being employed to minimize these wastes. Bioremediation technologies help to solve the problem of heavy metal pollution and restore soil to its natural state (Saini & Dhania, 2020). Bioremediation is an environmentally beneficial, low-cost, and efficient technology that is promoted for the safe disposal of water from industrial activities (Coelho, 2020).
2.4.2.6Waste-to-energy
Waste-to-energy is the process of transforming waste into energy in the form of electricity or heat. In China, anaerobic digestion is used for energy recovery, and it has also been discovered to be a successful approach to limit the amount of harm caused by GHG emissions during FW treatment (Zhang, et. al., 2020). Waste-to-energy (WtE) technologies such as pyrolysis, gasification, incineration, and bio-methanation can safely and efficiently convert MSW into usable energy (electricity and heat). (Malav, et al., 2020).
2.5Impacts of Waste on Human Health, Animals and Aquatics Life
The environment and human health are both threatened by improper solid waste management. Workers in this industry face the greatest direct health dangers, as they must be kept as far away from waste as possible. Handling waste from hospitals and clinics comes with its own set of issues. The most serious health risks for the general public arise from the development of disease vectors, particularly flies and rats. Human health is jeopardized when hazardous waste from industries mixes with municipal trash. Toxic wastes that have been discharged have the potential to cause road accidents.The relationship between municipal solid wastes and liquid industrial effluents containing heavy metals discharged to a drainage/sewerage system and/or open dumping sites of municipal solid wastes, and the wastes discharged as a result, maintains a vicious cycle that includes these and other types of problems: Moeller D.W (2005).
2.6Impacts of Waste on Environment
Pollution from waste degradation into constituent chemicals is a regular occurrence in the environment. This is an especially important issue in developing countries. Few existing landfills in the world's poorest countries meet environmental standards that are acceptable in wealthier countries, and few sites will be extensively investigated before being used in the future due to financial constraints. The issues that come with increasing urbanization aggravate the situation. Decomposing trash emits a lot of gas, which is a big problem for the environment. Anaerobic bacteria produce methane as a byproduct of their respiration, and these bacteria thrive in landfills with high moisture levels. Methane concentrations in landfill gas can reach up to 50% when anaerobic decomposition is at its peak (Cointreau-Levine, 1997). A second issue is the contribution of these gases to the enhanced greenhouse gas effect and climate change. Liquid leachate management varies widely amongst landfills in developing nations. Surface and ground water systems in the area are both concerned about leachate.
2.7Preventive Measures for Reduction of Adverse Impact on Environment and Human
Proper solid waste management must be done to ensure that solid waste management does not affect the environment or provide a health concern to the people who live there. Garbage must be separated thoroughly at the household level, and all organic materials must be set aside for composting, which is without a doubt the most efficient way for properly disposing of this type of waste. Indeed, the organic part of the waste produced decomposes more quickly, attracting insects and causing disease. Compostable organic waste can be utilized to fertilize plants. (Goorah, S. et al, 2009).
The following steps can be done to reduce the likelihood of an impact:
2.8Empirical Review of Solid Waste Management
2.8.1Solid Waste Characterization
The process of separating total trash at a particular place into numerous categories/components, each of which is measured independently and aggregated to determine the overall quantity, is known as characterization (Ugwu et al., 2020). Characterization can be done through visualization or by hand sorting, however the latter yields a more accurate result. Identifying the genuine components of various/individual components thrown in a waste stream, such as paper, glass/bottles, food waste, textiles/clothing materials, polythene bags, e-waste, rubber, wood, sanitary, medical, and so on, is also part of waste characterization. Evaluating the composition of solid wastes can be difficult due to their diverse nature. As a result, stringent statistical procedures are difficult to successfully execute. The waste composition data provide reliable information on the generation trend of municipal solid waste (MSW) as well as the specific weights of various waste components. It also provides accurate data for proper decision-making and waste management technique enhancement. Other factors play a role in any successful waste management system, but to properly appreciate them, a qualitative research technique is required. (Taboada-González et al., 2011).
2.8.1.1Solid Waste Characterization Methods
In order to design waste management policy, it is necessary to have reliable patterns of waste quantification, generation, and composition data. The method employed and how it is applied during the sampling procedure can have an impact on the quality of any waste composition data. The materials flow approach and the site-specific approach are the two main methodologies used in assessing the physical properties of a solid waste stream at any level, according to an EPA report (2017). The materials flow approach estimates waste quantity and composition on a national scale, implying that it is better suited to big studies and geographical areas, such as the entire country, rather than small-scale research (Hoang, 2017). In order to estimate the trend, it uses production data such as the weight of the materials. When studying a waste stream on a wider scale, this approach is ideal. However, one of the drawbacks of this method is that product residues connected with other items are frequently left in containers and can be overlooked during counting.Food waste remains in containers, left-over detergent in bottles, dried paint in buckets, insecticide left in a can, and other product residues are examples (EPA, 2015). The sampling, sorting, and measurement of distinct waste components in a waste stream are all part of the site-specific methodology. Prior to the actual disposal exercise, it gives both waste composition and generation information. Because it integrates fluctuations owing to climatic, seasonal, population density, geographical variances, demographic and income status, and other factors, this approach is more reliable in collecting and quantifying a local waste stream. Furthermore, direct sampling and weighing are the best ways to assess some waste components, such as food wastes and grass cuttings (EPA, 2017).
The two main sampling methods used in this methodology are direct sampling at the source of generation and vehicle load characterization (Hoang, 2017). As the name implies, direct sampling at the source entails analyzing solid wastes directly at the source, such as houses, business areas, farms, stores, and classrooms (Curi, 1997). This approach gives you composition information as well as information on the generators. For example, it allows for the collection of geographical data as well as personal data from participating homes, such as demographics, socioeconomic position (single or multiple incomes), educational level, and so on. It also enables comparisons of waste characteristics from various places, socioeconomic position, consumer habits, and so on. Furthermore, this strategy has the unique ability to reduce the hazards and challenges associated with separating some highly degradable waste categories, such as food and vegetables, which can easily contaminate other waste. This can also result in the release of toxic gases into the atmosphere. It also creates a stratified area. The problem of this strategy is that any error introduced during the characterization or sampling activity with a small number of samples will be misleading when the result is magnified to represent a larger population or a complete national estimate over a longer period. Furthermore, if this wide sample strategy is used to get national estimates, which has so far proven to be impractical, it will be extremely costly.
The characterisation of solid wastes received at treatment facilities such as incinerators, disposal sites such as landfills, transfer stations, and other locations is done through vehicle load sampling. This technology saves time, energy, and money by reducing the amount of time, energy, and money spent on waste characterisation and sample processing, making it as simple as it is cost-effective. The vehicle load sample approach, according to Hoang (2017), has several disadvantages, including a lack of understanding regarding waste origins, inconsistencies, inaccuracies, or changes in study results due to water loss, and cross-contamination between waste components. The main difference between the two methods is that sorting at the source provides waste composition details as well as precise location information, whereas vehicle sampling/characterization provides general waste composition data without precise geographical attributes, location details, or generation source types.
2.8.2Socio-Economic and Environmental Factors Affecting Waste Management in Nigeria
The creation, quantification, characterisation, and overall management of solid waste in Nigeria are influenced by a number of socioeconomic and environmental factors. The Nigerian government's lack of consistency in policy, weak environmental laws, poor environmental campaigns and sensitizations, inadequate and poorly maintained facilities, poor funding and insufficient budget allocations, high population growth, people's disposal habits, and rapid urbanization and industrialization are all examples of such factors.
2.8.3Review of Related Works
Waste management is a topic that has piqued the interest of people all around the world. There can be no successful waste management without first determining the physical components, generation rate, and total waste creation of the waste stream. Various studies have used a variety of waste characterization methods. As a result, many research papers were examined in order to better comprehend the various methodologies taken by different authors. These published papers were obtained from a variety of sources, including Science Direct, Engineering Village, Springer Books, and others.
There are a variety of sampling and characterization methods for solid waste due to the lack of an accepted international standard, prompting a review of different approaches used in various studies with the goal of recommending a better approach for Nigerian cities and universities based on the social, economic, and environmental factors unique to Nigerian cities (Dahlen & Lagerkvist, 2007). Several studies have been conducted on this topic by university and research staff, as well as students and intellectuals.
Table 2.1:Thematically describes methods employed in some studies on waste composition analysis.
Method Description | Characterization Method | Number of components characterized | Study Area | Author(s) |
On a basic surface composed of mild steel, characterization was carried out by hand picking waste samples into their individual fractions. | Vehicle load sampling method based on ASTM D5231 standard
| 19 waste components
| Ilorin, Capital of Kwara State, Nigeria
| Ibikunle et al., 2020
|
By hand sorting the waste samples into specific waste components, I was able to characterize them. | Vehicle load sampling, ASTM D5231 and Resource Conservation Reservation Authority, RCRA draft
| 12 major categories
| University of Lagos, Akoka campus
| Adeniran et al., 2017
|
By hand separating the MSW into discrete components, I was able to quantify and classify it. | Direct characterization method based on the recommendation of the ASTM D5231 standard
| 13 waste components
| University of Nigeria, Nsukka
| Ugwu et al., 2020
|
Characterization by hand sorting based on Bernache-recommendations Perez's | Direct characterization (source generator-based study) method
| 8 waste materials
| Covenant university, Ota campus, Nigeria
| Okeniyi and Anwan, 2012
|
Bernache-Perez (2001) and Oyelola, & Babatunde (2008) characterize the process as manual sorting. | Direct characterization method (before being transported to landfills)
| 8 waste categories
| Covenant University, Ota
| Okeniyi et al., 2012
|
MSW average composition was sampled. | Vehicle load characterization method
| 7 waste categories
| Gaza Strip
| AbdAlqader and Hamad, 2012
|
Seasonal fluctuations are used to characterize the species. Waste was gathered from various sites to represent a variety of socio-cultural contexts and income levels. | Vehicle load characterization method
| 17 waste components
| Kartal district of the province of Istanbul, Turkey
| Ozcan et al., 2016
|
2.8.3.1Summary of Review
Four of the seven publications assessed were conducted in universities, while the rest were conducted in communities and cities. Except for the study at the University of Lagos, all four university investigations used direct sampling/characterization at the source. One of the reasons for their decision to take this strategy is to ensure that different parts of the university are covered uniformly. Stratified sampling was also used in most of the research, which divided the study region into non-overlapping sub-areas with similar features. The stratification strategy makes it easier to see the impact of distinct sub-areas on the overall trash generation trend as well as the relationships between them. Some of the trash might be classified based on their socioeconomic position due to the on-site source sampling method. This research may have used this method since most institutions in the country do not have a consistent waste pickup schedule. As a result, they use sorting at the source to avoid introducing errors in waste characterization. The vehicle load sampling/characterization method was used for the study at the University of Lagos since the university has a well-structured waste collection schedule. All of the benefits of the direct source approach are handled with this well-structured waste collection pattern. Despite the extra expense, this strategy has a number of significant advantages over alternative options. The provisions of the composition as well as the generator information are only a few of the obvious benefits. Geographical data and personal data, such as demographics, socioeconomic position, and educational level, are common examples of this type of data. It also allows stratified sampling for consistent coverage of the entire research region while avoiding the dangers and challenges involved with isolating some highly degradable waste categories like food and vegetables, lowering the amount of hazardous gases emitted into the environment. Furthermore, the stated greater expenses associated with the characterization/sampling technique cannot be weighed against the long-term benefits received from the approach's appropriate and trustworthy data. Finally, direct sampling/characterization gives more comprehensive and trustworthy data for effective and long-term solid waste management. This is the first study of the quantity, trends, and composition of FUTO's solid waste. As a result, this research provides the data needed to improve MSW treatment and management choices in FUTO. And the study achieved this goal by calculating the average daily solid waste generation on campus, categorizing the generated waste into various categories, calculating the recyclable potential of the waste generated on campus, and finally discussing waste management strategies for a safe and healthy environment.
2.9Waste generation in FUTO
Federal University of Technology Owerri (FUTO) is a federal government university located in Owerri, the capital of Imo State, Nigeria. FUTO has nine (9) faculties, six (6) students’ hostels and several administrative, academic and commercial buildings. The campus composes of the School of Agriculture and Agricultural Technology (SAAT), School of Engineering and Engineering Technology (SEET), School of Mechatronics Engineering, School of Physical Sciences (SOPS), School of Biological Science (SOBS), School of Management Technology (SMAT), School of Health (SHOT), School of Environmental Science (SOES), School of Information and Communication Technology (SICT) faculties and a medical center. Wastes are generated from these places. Bins are provided at each building for the collection of the waste generated. The bins are labeled broken bottles, sharp objects, waste paper, degradable and polymeric materials with their respective colors. When the bins are full, they are properly disposed by FUTO waste management board.
2.9.1FUTO Waste Management System
The FUTO Waste Management System is the body in charge of the collection and disposal of waste generated in FUTO. It is an organized system headed by Engr. Prof. K.B. Oyoh, and has a work force of about 360 skilled staffs/workers, administrative staffs, technologists and researchers. The skilled staffs engage in the collection, transfer, transportation and disposal of the waste to prevent waste build up, and solid waste clogging the gutters/polluting the environment thereby enabling a cleaner environment. FUTO Waste Management System has a vehicle (tipper) that enables the easy transportation of the waste from the point of generation to the site of disposal. Wastes are generated in FUTO (campus) on a daily basis. Scheduled activities on campus influence the generation of these wastes. These wastes if not properly managed pollutes the environment because solid wastes unlike liquid waste when not disposedproperly remains at the point of disposal and pollute our environment hence the need to characterize these waste according to their physical composition and dispose them properly or recycle then in order to reduce their pollution potential and their impact on the environment. Waste collection bins are located at all buildings, hostels, and departments in FUTO. These waste bins are labeled broken bottles, sharp objects, waste paper, degradable and polymeric materials. Waste materials are disposed into these bins according to their description but sadly it is not always obeyed. Workers/staff of FUTO waste management service come daily except weekends to carry off and empty these already filled bins into their trucks while the empty bins are returned back to the point where it was collected. The truck now filled with trash/wastes is carried off to the disposal site where they are disposed of (behind polymer laboratory). Very early in the morning, workers engage in sorting of these waste based on their ability to be recycled or not. Recyclable wastes are separated from the rest of the wastes.
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.1APPARATUS USED
Here are the lists of apparatuses used in the course of this experimental work
3.2METHOD
3.2.1Study area
3.2.2The university waste collection system
Waste collection bins are located at all buildings, hostels, and departments in FUTO. These waste bins are labeled broken bottles, sharp objects, waste paper, degradable and polymeric materials. Waste materials are disposed into these bins according to their description. Workers/staff of FUTO waste management service come daily except weekends to carry off and empty these already filled bins into their trucks while the empty bins are returned back to the point where it was collected. The truck now filled with trash/wastes is carried off to the disposal site where they are disposed (behind polymer laboratory).
For the purpose of waste collection, the university campus has a landfill or transfer station at the back of the Polymer and Textile Engineering Laboratory where the wastes are disposed or transferred to and sorting is taken place to sort the waste into several components in which the recyclable wastes are stored for further processing.
Plate 3.1: FUTO Transfer station behind Polymer Engineering Laboratory
3.2.3Waste quantification and characterization in FUTO
This study employed the vehicle load characterization method. Waste collection in FUTO is monitored by the FUTO waste management service. FUTO waste service comes daily to dispose/empty the bins. The estimation was carried out by the use of the waste bin containers in front of each residential areas, departments, faculties, offices etc. it was known that the capacity of the waste bin containers is 240 liters and that 15 containers of waste fill the truck making the volume of the waste for one trip to be 3600 liters. Investigations/sorting were carried out on a weekly basis throughout the period of study. A weighing balance was used to record the weight of each sorted composition. The separate weights were added together at the end of the sorting to acquire the average total weight of the solid waste for one trip. The number of trips made by the truck per day was recorded, and this information was used to calculate the average daily waste generation on campus. After that, the percentage composition of each component was computed.
After obtaining the weight percentage of each individual component, the solid wastes were divided into recyclable and non-recyclable groups. The solid waste recyclability capability was also determined.
Plate 3.2: Five waste bin containers at Chemical Engineering Department
Plate 3.3: Sorting of one load count into its various components
3.2.3.1Description of waste component category
Table 3.1: Description of waste component category
Category | Description |
Paper | Note books, printer paper, text books, glossy paper |
Plastic | PET bottles, HDPE, and other plastics |
Polythene | Polyethylene, packaging bags, sachet water bag, PP bags, nylon |
Organics | Food waste, garden waste ( branches, twigs, leaves, grass) |
Glass/bottle | All glass materials and broken bottle |
Metal | Tin cans, aluminum cans, irons and non aluminum |
Textile/Leather | Cloth wares, wigs, shoes and bags made of leather |
Take-away foil | Those packages used to buy food or fruits from canteen |
Wood | This includes condemned furniture |
Rubber | Boots, rain coats, mattresses, pillows, earplugs etc |
Others | This includes E-waste, medical, sanitary etc. |
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1RESULTS PRESENTATION
The table below shows the results of waste collection in FUTO on daily basis for the period of six (6) months
Table 4.1: Daily collection of waste in FUTO
DATE | DAYS | NO OF TRIPS | QUANTITY (no. of containers) |
03/02/2020 | Monday | 7 | 105 |
04/02/2020 | Tuesday | 8 | 120 |
05/02/2020 | Wednesday | 9 | 135 |
06/02/2020 | Thursday | 7 | 105 |
07/02/2020 | Friday | 8 | 120 |
08/02/2020 | Saturday | No Work | - |
10/02/2020 | Monday | 9 | 135 |
11/02/2020 | Tuesday | 8 | 120 |
12/02/2020 | Wednesday | 8 | 120 |
13/02/2020 | Thursday | 8 | 120 |
14/02/2020 | Friday | 7 | 105 |
15/02/2020 | Saturday | No Work | - |
17/02/2020 | Monday | 7 | 105 |
18/02/2020 | Tuesday | 8 | 120 |
19/02/2020 | Wednesday | 6 | 90 |
20/02/2020 | Thursday | 7 | 105 |
21/02/2020 | Friday | 7 | 105 |
22/02/2020 | Saturday | No Work | - |
24/02/2020 | Monday | 7 | 105 |
25/02/2020 | Tuesday | 8 | 120 |
26/02/2020 | Wednesday | 7 | 105 |
27/02/2020 | Thursday | 7 | 105 |
28/02/2020 | Friday | 6 | 90 |
29/02/2020 | Saturday | No Work | - |
02/03/2020 | Monday | 7 | 105 |
03/03/2020 | Tuesday | 8 | 120 |
04/03/2020 | Wednesday | 6 | 90 |
05/03/2020 | Thursday | 7 | 105 |
06/03/2020 | Friday | 8 | 120 |
07/03/2020 | Saturday | No Work | - |
09/03/2020 | Monday | 7 | 105 |
10/03/2020 | Tuesday | 8 | 120 |
11/03/2020 | Wednesday | 8 | 120 |
12/03/2020 | Thursday | 7 | 105 |
13/03/2020 | Friday | 8 | 120 |
14/03/2020 | Saturday | No Work | - |
16/03/2020 | Monday | 7 | 105 |
17/03/2020 | Tuesday | 8 | 120 |
18/03/2020 | Wednesday | 7 | 105 |
19/03/2020 | Thursday | 7 | 105 |
20/03/2020 | Friday | 8 | 120 |
21/03/2020 | Saturday | No Work | - |
23/03/2020 | Monday | 8 | 120 |
24/03/2020 | Tuesday | 7 | 105 |
25/03/2020 | Wednesday | 6 | 90 |
26/03/2020 | Thursday | 7 | 105 |
27/03/2020 | Friday | 8 | 120 |
28/03/2020 | Saturday | No Work | - |
01/02/2021 | Monday | 8 | 120 |
02/02/2021 | Tuesday | 7 | 105 |
03/02/2021 | Wednesday | 6 | 90 |
04/02/2021 | Thursday | 6 | 90 |
05/02/2021 | Friday | 7 | 105 |
06/02/2021 | Saturday | No Work | - |
08/02/2021 | Monday | 9 | 135 |
09/02/2021 | Tuesday | 7 | 105 |
10/02/2021 | Wednesday | 8 | 120 |
11/02/2021 | Thursday | 6 | 90 |
12/02/2021 | Friday | 7 | 105 |
13/02/2021 | Saturday | No Work | - |
15/02/2021 | Monday | 8 | 120 |
16/02/2021 | Tuesday | 6 | 90 |
17/02/2021 | Wednesday | 7 | 105 |
18/02/2021 | Thursday | 7 | 105 |
19/02/2021 | Friday | 8 | 120 |
20/02/2021 | Saturday | No Work | - |
22/02/2021 | Monday | 7 | 105 |
23/02/2021 | Tuesday | 7 | 105 |
24/02/2021 | Wednesday | 8 | 120 |
25/02/2021 | Thursday | 7 | 105 |
26/02/2021 | Friday | 6 | 90 |
27/02/2021 | Saturday | No Work | - |
01/03/2021 | Monday | 9 | 135 |
02/03/2021 | Tuesday | 8 | 120 |
03/03/2021 | Wednesday | 7 | 105 |
04/03/2021 | Thursday | 6 | 90 |
05/03/2021 | Friday | 7 | 105 |
06/03/2021 | Saturday | No Work | - |
08/03/2021 | Monday | 7 | 105 |
09/03/2021 | Tuesday | 7 | 105 |
10/03/2021 | Wednesday | 7 | 105 |
11/03/2021 | Thursday | 6 | 90 |
12/03/2021 | Friday | 8 | 120 |
13/03/2021 | Saturday | No Work | - |
15/03/2021 | Monday | 8 | 120 |
16/03/2021 | Tuesday | 7 | 105 |
17/03/2021 | Wednesday | 8 | 120 |
18/03/2021 | Thursday | 6 | 90 |
19/03/2021 | Friday | 7 | 105 |
20/03/2021 | Saturday | No Work | - |
22/03/2021 | Monday | 9 | 135 |
23/03/2021 | Tuesday | 7 | 105 |
24/03/2021 | Wednesday | 7 | 105 |
25/03/2021 | Thursday | 8 | 120 |
26/03/2021 | Friday | 7 | 105 |
27/03/2021 | Saturday | No Work | - |
29/03/2021 | Monday | 8 | 120 |
30/03/2021 | Tuesday | 7 | 105 |
31/03/2021 | Wednesday | 7 | 105 |
01/04/2021 | Thursday | 6 | 90 |
02/04/2021 | Friday | 7 | 105 |
03/04/2021 | Saturday | No Work | - |
05/04/2021 | Monday | 8 | 120 |
06/04/2021 | Tuesday | 7 | 105 |
07/04/2021 | Wednesday | 8 | 120 |
08/04/2021 | Thursday | 7 | 105 |
09/04/2021 | Friday | 9 | 135 |
10/04/2021 | Saturday | No Work | - |
12/04/2021 | Monday | 7 | 105 |
13/04/2021 | Tuesday | 6 | 90 |
14/04/2021 | Wednesday | 7 | 105 |
15/04/2021 | Thursday | 8 | 120 |
16/04/2021 | Friday | 8 | 120 |
17/04/2021 | Saturday | No Work | - |
19/04/2021 | Monday | 8 | 120 |
20/04/2021 | Tuesday | 6 | 90 |
21/04/2021 | Wednesday | 8 | 120 |
22/04/2021 | Thursday | 7 | 105 |
23/04/2021 | Friday | 7 | 105 |
24/04/2021 | Saturday | No Work | - |
26/04/2021 | Monday | 8 | 120 |
27/04/2021 | Tuesday | 7 | 105 |
28/04/2021 | Wednesday | 7 | 105 |
29/04/2021 | Thursday | 9 | 135 |
30/04/2021 | Friday | 7 | 105 |
01/05/2021 | Saturday | No Work | - |
03/05/2021 | Monday | 8 | 120 |
04/05/2021 | Tuesday | 7 | 105 |
05/05/2021 | Wednesday | 7 | 105 |
06/05/2021 | Thursday | 7 | 105 |
07/05/2021 | Friday | 6 | 90 |
08/05/2021 | Saturday | No Work | - |
10/05/2021 | Monday | 8 | 120 |
11/05/2021 | Tuesday | 7 | 105 |
12/05/2021 | Wednesday | 9 | 135 |
13/05/2021 | Thursday | 6 | 90 |
14/05/2021 | Friday | 7 | 105 |
15/05/2021 | Saturday | No Work | - |
17/05/2021 | Monday | 9 | 135 |
18/05/2021 | Tuesday | 7 | 105 |
19/05/2021 | Wednesday | 7 | 105 |
20/05/2021 | Thursday | 6 | 90 |
21/05/2021 | Friday | 7 | 105 |
22/05/2021 | Saturday | No Work | - |
24/05/2021 | Monday | 7 | 105 |
25/05/2021 | Tuesday | 7 | 105 |
26/05/2021 | Wednesday | 6 | 90 |
27/05/2021 | Thursday | 7 | 105 |
28/05/2021 | Friday | 8 | 120 |
29/05/2021 | Saturday | No Work | - |
4.1.2Average weight of waste generated on a daily basis
The average weight of waste generated on a daily basis was calculated by sorting and weighing four (4) different load of waste weekly (i.e for a month) throughout the period of study.
The calculations were performed as follows:
Weight of waste component (W) = W1- W2 ------------ (1)
Where W1= Weight of waste + empty container
W2= Weight of empty container which is 13kg
The table below shows the monthly summary of the average weight of waste components generated in FUTO for period of 6 months
Table 4.2: Average weight of waste components for February 2020
Components | 1st day sorting (Kg) | 2nd day sorting (Kg) | 3rd day sorting (Kg) | 4th day sorting (Kg) | Average (Kg) |
Paper | 49.74 | 51.07 | 49.56 | 47.81 | 49.54 |
Plastic | 76.22 | 78.20 | 82.14 | 76.23 | 78.20 |
Polythene | 82.69 | 78.43 | 85.14 | 83.32 | 81.65 |
Organics | 107.23 | 108.31 | 101.32 | 108.32 | 106.30 |
Glass/bottle | 3.43 | 4.21 | 3.28 | 3.02 | 3.48 |
Metal | 5.91 | 5.52 | 4.89 | 5.72 | 5.51 |
Textile/leather | 9.52 | 8.64 | 9.34 | 9.56 | 9.26 |
Take-away foil | 3.68 | 3.62 | 3.85 | 4.12 | 3.82 |
Wood | 2.90 | 3.43 | 2.83 | 2.59 | 2.94 |
Rubber | 1.00 | 1.08 | 0.98 | 1.14 | 1.05 |
Others | 11.68 | 12.31 | 11.53 | 11.52 | 11.76 |
Total |
| 353.51 | |||
Table 4.3: Average weight of waste components for March 2020
Components | 1st day sorting (Kg) | 2nd day sorting (Kg) | 3rd day sorting (Kg) | 4th day sorting (Kg) | Average (Kg) |
Paper | 39.74 | 61.07 | 45.56 | 57.61 | 51.00 |
Plastic | 75.12 | 74.30 | 84.14 | 72.23 | 76.45 |
Polythene | 84.69 | 75.43 | 88.14 | 82.32 | 82.65 |
Organics | 105.23 | 106.31 | 107.39 | 108.32 | 106.81 |
Glass/bottle | 2.57 | 3.89 | 3.28 | 3.08 | 3.21 |
Metal | 5.71 | 5.42 | 4.69 | 5.92 | 5.44 |
Textile/leather | 9.52 | 7.64 | 9.64 | 10.56 | 9.34 |
Take-away foil | 3.86 | 3.42 | 3.95 | 4.32 | 3.89 |
Wood | 2.90 | 3.58 | 2.72 | 2.48 | 2.92 |
Rubber | 1.12 | 1.23 | 1.06 | 2.05 | 1.37 |
Others | 10.58 | 14.43 | 11.27 | 11.42 | 11.93 |
Total |
| 435.20 | |||
Table 4.4: Average weight of waste components for February 2021
Components | 1st day sorting (Kg) | 2nd day sorting (Kg) | 3rd day sorting (Kg) | 4th day sorting (Kg) | Average (Kg) |
Paper | 39.64 | 53.07 | 37.56 | 51.81 | 45.52 |
Plastic | 69.22 | 78.20 | 82.14 | 89.23 | 79.70 |
Polythene | 81.68 | 78.41 | 83.14 | 81.32 | 81.14 |
Organics | 110.23 | 98.31 | 114.32 | 108.32 | 107.80 |
Glass/bottle | 5.23 | 4.21 | 2.18 | 5.15 | 4.19 |
Metal | 3.91 | 5.52 | 2.99 | 4.72 | 4.29 |
Textile/leather | 8.52 | 6.44 | 9.34 | 7.26 | 7.89 |
Take-away foil | 3.71 | 2.92 | 4.85 | 4.12 | 3.90 |
Wood | 2.90 | 3.43 | 2.83 | 2.59 | 2.94 |
Rubber | 1.07 | 1.18 | 1.98 | 0.98 | 1.30 |
Others | 11.68 | 12.31 | 12.53 | 10.52 | 11.76 |
Total |
| 350.43 | |||
Table 4.5: Average weight of waste components for March 2021
Components | 1st day sorting (Kg) | 2nd day sorting (Kg) | 3rd day sorting (Kg) | 4th day sorting (Kg) | Average (Kg) |
Paper | 20.74 | 15.07 | 30.56 | 49.81 | 29.05 |
Plastic | 35.22 | 29.20 | 41.14 | 37.23 | 35.70 |
Polythene | 60.69 | 75.43 | 53.14 | 35.32 | 56.15 |
Organics | 86.13 | 95.31 | 70.32 | 100.22 | 88.00 |
Glass/bottle | 1.24 | 2.25 | 3.08 | 4.02 | 2.65 |
Metal | 3.61 | 3.82 | 2.69 | 4.72 | 3.71 |
Textile/leather | 4.62 | 6.54 | 8.34 | 5.56 | 6.27 |
Take-away foil | 2.68 | 3.22 | 3.65 | 4.42 | 3.49 |
Wood | 2.04 | 1.83 | 0.68 | 3.09 | 1.91 |
Rubber | 1.06 | 1.01 | 0.95 | 1.08 | 1.03 |
Others | 10.48 | 8.25 | 9.75 | 11.92 | 10.10 |
Total |
| 238.06 | |||
Table 4.6: Average weight of waste components for April 2021
Components | 1st day sorting (Kg) | 2nd day sorting (Kg) | 3rd day sorting (Kg) | 4th day sorting (Kg) | Average (Kg) |
Paper | 56.54 | 50.07 | 49.36 | 47.81 | 50.95 |
Plastic | 75.42 | 74.20 | 72.14 | 78.29 | 75.01 |
Polythene | 82.69 | 78.43 | 85.14 | 83.32 | 81.65 |
Organics | 107.23 | 108.31 | 101.32 | 108.32 | 106.30 |
Glass/bottle | 3.23 | 4.01 | 3.74 | 3.00 | 3.50 |
Metal | 5.71 | 5.42 | 4.79 | 6.92 | 5.71 |
Textile/leather | 9.52 | 8.64 | 9.34 | 9.56 | 9.26 |
Take-away foil | 3.68 | 3.62 | 3.85 | 4.12 | 3.82 |
Wood | 2.79 | 3.43 | 2.83 | 2.29 | 2.84 |
Rubber | 1.00 | 1.08 | 0.98 | 1.14 | 1.05 |
Others | 11.45 | 12.61 | 10.53 | 11.72 | 11.58 |
Total |
| 351.67 | |||
Table 4.7: Average weight of waste components for May 2021
Components | 1st day sorting (Kg) | 2nd day sorting (Kg) | 3rd day sorting (Kg) | 4th day sorting (Kg) | Average (Kg) |
Paper | 37.74 | 50.43 | 43.56 | 57.01 | 47.19 |
Plastic | 77.52 | 96.21 | 82.14 | 76.23 | 83.03 |
Polythene | 82.59 | 76.43 | 79.14 | 63.32 | 75.37 |
Organics | 108.23 | 107.31 | 102.32 | 120.32 | 109.55 |
Glass/bottle | 3.43 | 4.20 | 4.98 | 2.02 | 3.66 |
Metal | 5.81 | 3.72 | 7.26 | 6.86 | 5.91 |
Textile/leather | 9.22 | 8.54 | 6.52 | 7.56 | 7.96 |
Take-away foil | 2.78 | 3.65 | 5.82 | 4.52 | 4.19 |
Wood | 2.90 | 3.43 | 2.83 | 2.59 | 2.94 |
Rubber | 1.05 | 1.13 | 1.55 | 1.34 | 1.27 |
Others | 9.66 | 14.05 | 11.96 | 10.95 | 11.67 |
Total |
| 352.74 | |||
Table 4.8: Summary of the average weight of waste components for 6 months of study
Components | February 2020 (Kg) | March 2020 (Kg) | February 2021 (Kg) | March 2021 (Kg) | April 2021 (Kg) | May 2021 (Kg) | Grand Average (Kg) |
Paper | 49.54 | 51.00 | 45.52 | 29.05 | 50.95 | 47.19 | 45.54 |
Plastic | 78.20 | 76.45 | 79.70 | 35.70 | 75.01 | 83.03 | 71.35 |
Polythene | 81.65 | 82.65 | 81.14 | 56.15 | 81.65 | 75.37 | 76.44 |
Organics | 106.30 | 106.81 | 107.80 | 88.00 | 106.30 | 109.55 | 104.13 |
Glass/bottle | 3.48 | 3.21 | 4.19 | 2.65 | 3.50 | 3.66 | 3.45 |
Metal | 5.51 | 5.44 | 4.29 | 3.71 | 5.71 | 5.91 | 5.10 |
Textile/leather | 9.26 | 9.34 | 7.89 | 6.27 | 9.26 | 7.96 | 8.33 |
Take-away foil | 3.82 | 3.89 | 3.90 | 3.49 | 3.82 | 4.19 | 3.85 |
Wood | 2.94 | 2.92 | 2.94 | 1.91 | 2.84 | 2.94 | 2.75 |
Rubber | 1.05 | 1.37 | 1.30 | 1.03 | 1.05 | 1.27 | 1.18 |
Others | 11.76 | 11.93 | 11.76 | 10.10 | 11.58 | 11.67 | 11.47 |
Total | 353.51 | 435.20 | 350.43 | 238.06 | 351.67 | 352.74 | 346.94 |
In summary
Average trip = 7 Trips per day
Average weight = 2428.58Kg of waste per day
4.1.3Percentage waste composition characterization (w/W%)
Table 4.9: Percentage waste composition
S/No | WASTE COMPONENT | %REPRESENTATION |
1 | Paper | 14.06 |
2 | Plastic | 21.93 |
3 | Polythene | 23.08 |
4 | Organics | 30.12 |
5 | Glass/bottle | 1.04 |
6 | Metal | 1.57 |
7 | Textile/leather | 2.61 |
8 | Take-away foil | 1.10 |
9 | Wood | 0.83 |
10 | Rubber | 0.34 |
11 | Others | 3.32 |
| TOTAL | 100 |
4.2RESULTS DISCUSSION
During the 6 months of the 2019/2020 academic session, the Federal University of Technology, Owerri generated an average of 2428.58Kg by weight of solid waste every day. The amount of waste generated in FUTO varied each day, as shown in table 4.1, which summarizes the daily average waste generation.
4.2.1Waste characterization
The percentage of waste composition by weight of the solid waste created at Federal University of Technology Owerri is shown in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. Organic waste makes up the majority of the MSW generated on campus, accounting for 30.12%t. Polythene comes in second with 23.08%, followed by paper and plastics with 14.06% and 21.93%, respectively, Glass and bottles account for 1.04%, textiles and leather for 2.61%, rubber for 0.34%, wood for 0.83%, takeaway foil for 1.10%, metal waste for 1.57% and others for 3.32%
Figure 4.1: Pie chart representation of Percentage waste composition (w/W%)
Figue 4.2: Bar chart representation of Percentage waste composition (w/W%)
4.2.1.1Organic waste
Organic wastes make up the biggest mass of garbage in every municipal solid waste stream, according to Diaz et al. (1993). Because food waste makes up the majority of organic waste, this is the case. Hostels, restaurants, and other businesses typically generate organic garbage. If not properly disposed of, organic wastes represent a number of environmental and health risks, including the possibility for the production of greenhouse gases and the attraction of vectors. (Smyth et al., 2010).
4.2.1.2Polythene bags
Low density polythene bags are commonly used to package sachet water and other similar things. Low density bags accounted for 23.08% of the total waste generated at FUTO. This is also the most recyclable MSW generation category on the FUTO campus. The desire for water or beverages in a portable form at a low cost led to a growth in the demand for sachet water or drinks, as well as the necessity for packaging nylon for purchased things, all of which contributed to the rise of polythene waste. Polythene tends to be abundant in particular regions of the school environment due to a shortage of pipe-borne water. Due to the availability of pipe-borne water, the use of polythene bags is limited in hostels.
4.2.1.3Plastics
Plastics include polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles, which made up a sizable portion of the MSW stream. Water, liquors, and soft drinks are the most common items packed in them. High-density plastics are also produced mostly from broken and damaged household items such as plastic chairs, buckets, dishes, and other kitchen equipment. FUTO generated 21.93% plastics of the total waste stream.
4.2.1.4Papers
Paper is a waste category that dominates all MSW streams, particularly in universities, where it comes from administrative and academic facilities. Paper waste was for 14.06% of total waste generated at FUTO, which contrasts with the prevalence of paper waste at several universities, particularly in industrialized countries. A study conducted by Adeniran et al. at the University of Lagos' Akoka campus found a similar low paper waste ratio of 15%, confirming a Nigerian university's distinctiveness. This same lowness could be attributed to certain cleaners and administrative personnel selling paper waste straight to informal recyclers. Paper wastes collected in garbage containers are frequently unfit for sale to recyclers due to contamination caused by combining with organic waste. The majority of the paper trash created on the FUTO campus is not made up of newspaper or cardboard materials. The majority of newspapers are purchased by departments and stored as archives for the library for research purposes.
4.2.2Recyclable potential of the solid waste generated
A reasonable proportion of the MSW generated in FUTO campus is recyclable or is potentially recyclable as seen in table 4.10. The research shows that 80% of the waste streams are potentially recyclable. The non-recyclable waste is small compared to recyclable wastes. This implies that the majority of waste generated in FUTO campus can be recycled. Presently, the university is capable of recycling three (3) categories of waste which are plastics, paper and bottle waste.
Fig. 4.10: Recycling Potential of waste components
S/N | Components | Recycling Potential Rating | |
|
| * | + |
1 | Paper | * |
|
2 | Plastic | * |
|
3 | Polythene | * |
|
4 | Organics |
| + |
5 | Glass/bottle | * |
|
6 | Metal | * |
|
7 | Textile/leather |
| + |
8 | Take-away foil |
| + |
9 | Wood |
| + |
10 | Rubber | * |
|
11 | Others |
| + |
Where (*) represents recyclable waste
And (+) represents non-recyclable waste
4.2.3Recommendations for improved solid waste management
The characterization of MSW is the cornerstone of any long-term Solid Waste Management (SWM) strategy. A plan for measures to prevent, minimize, separate, collect, and recycle becomes more successful when the percentage composition of the particular MSW is known. As shown in table 4.10, the solid waste created in FUTO has a high recovery/recyclable potential. Proper and effective waste management will result in the conservation of raw materials, increased electricity output, and a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.Despite the availability of collection sites and transportation systems, and despite the fact that these collection sites and transportation systems need to be more effective, developing treatment and recycling plants will cost FUTO a significant amount of money. The Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle approach should be explored first before any other solid waste management approaches in order for the exercise to be holistic and effective. For an effective Zero Waste Principle, every university waste management policy must focus on preventing some waste categories, such as providing pipe borne water, which will significantly reduce polythene waste; reducing waste at the source through well-planned reduction, reuse of resources; recycling of some wastes, such as transforming broken plastics for use in FUTO Table Water and then recovering; and recycling of some wastes, such as transforming broken plastics for use in FUTO Table Water and then recovering.
4.2.3.1Organic wastes
Organic wastes make up the largest category of waste in every MSW stream, according to Diaz et al. (1993), and so have the highest disposal costs or the potential to emit the most greenhouse gases. Uncontrolled biological digestion reaction occurs due to insufficient management of most Nigerian dumpsites and landfills, posing alarming hazards to the immediate environment through the discharge of landfill gases. GHGs are produced by landfill gas, which is composed of 45–60 percent CH4, 40–55 percent CO2, and trace components (Ezudu et al., 2019). The organic waste potential of the case study university (743.75kg daily) is sufficient to fit into the agricultural methods specified by the federal government. The compost could be an important resource for the university's farms as well as those in the surrounding area. When organic wastes at the university decompose, they can be used as feedstock for biogas production, which is a valuable source of renewable energy for on-campus use.
4.2.3.2Polythene
Individuals' desire for water in a portable form at a low cost prompted a spike in demand for "sachet water," which is offered in practically every corner of the institution, and is responsible for the large number of polythene bags. Another important concern is the usage of "waterproof" polythene bags for packaging things from cafeterias and commercial places. Polythene bags, according to Yildiz et al. (2012), are a significant environmental risk because most developing nations have increased polythene bag trash creation with no or limited recycling facilities. The university must provide clean pipe-borne water in strategic areas such as cafeterias/canteens, commercial areas, hostels, residential areas, and offices, as well as propose and maintain constructive policies encouraging and promoting the use of water dispensers in some of the previously mentioned areas. This will lower MSW collection costs and manpower overall, as well as discourage increased litter of sachet water and associated bags across campus.
4.2.3.3Plastic
PET bottles for packaging water and soft drinks, as well as high-density plastics created mostly from broken and damaged household goods like buckets and bowls, are examples of plastics. This waste category accounted for 532.59kg, or 21.93%, of the daily waste generated on campus. Plastic waste is best managed by collecting it separately and repurposing it for water packaging at the University. It might also be sold to local markets in FUTO/Owerri for bottling locally created beverage drinks such Zobo, Soya beans, and Qunu. According to Espinosa et al. (2008), some colleges have established reuse or recycling programs for recyclable plastics.
4.2.3.4Paper
The University's endeavor to reduce paper usage with the establishment of a paperless policy may be linked to the low volume of paper trash disposed (14.06%). The majority of registration and record keeping takes place over the internet. Employees are encouraged to utilize the internet for official purposes, and lecture notes are more likely to be softcopies. However, there is currently no information on the number of papers that have been suppressed as a result of the policy. Unofficial paper recycling occurs in some departments, where staff sell paper waste to a recycling agent directly. Paper reduction will demand a deeper commitment from staff and students to the paperless policy, as well as increased paper recycling.
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1Conclusion
The daily waste generation at the Federal University of Technology, Owerri campus is estimated to be at 2428.58 kg, with organic waste accounting for 30.12% of total waste (i.e the largest). University waste has a significant potential for recycling (80%). Composite creation or interaction with the sewage system could be used to control the organic waste generated. Strategic policies and community participation are essential for waste source reduction and increased recycling.
5.2Recommendations
In order to ensure a sustainable and efficient waste management practices, the following recommendations are made:
No comments:
Post a Comment