International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 9, Issue 9, September 2018, pp. 1071–1082, Article ID: IJCIET_09_09_103

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=9
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

SOLID WASTE GENERATION,

CHARACTERISTICS AND MATERIAL
RECOVERY POTENTIALS FOR LANDMARK
UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
Oladipupo Seun OLADEJO, Adamu Mathew AUTA, Peter Dunsin IBIKUNLE and
Edirin Ken-Wiwa OMAMOFO
Department of Civil Engineering, Landmark University,
PMB 1004, Omu-Aran, Kwara State Nigeria

Oladipupo Seun OLADEJO

Department of Civil Engineering, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology (LAUTECH),
PMB 4000, Ogbomoso, Oyo State, Nigeria

ABSTRACT
Landmark University (LMU) is a private university, with potentials for massive
expansion and growth. The present method of waste collection is the “Stationary
Container System”. The waste generated in Landmark University is presently modest
due to the University current population (about 5000), but with population increase,
appropriate waste management procedures are to be in place. The research was
conducted at Landmark University campus to study the existing waste management
systems, characterization of solid waste, determine the physical composition and
estimate the generation rate. About two tons (1785.4 kg) total solid waste was
generated per day with generation rate of 0.36 kg/person/day. Waste generation from
residential, academic/administrative and utility zones were 1599.8, 103.9 and 81.7
kg/day respectively. Total amount of material recoverable and material re-use to attain
zero-waste, integrated waste management scheme was 1535.4 kg/day (86%) and 250
kg/day (14%) respectively. The solid waste characterization were: paper 12% (208.13
kg/day), food wastes 22% (390.07 kg/day), wood 2% (34.2 kg/day), food pack 5%
(88.81kg/day), plastic bottle 18% (316.3 kg/day), polythene nylon 25% (441.65 kg/day),
metals 10% (179.03 kg/day), glass 0.02% (0.36 kg/day), e-waste 0.7% (12.53 kg/day),
residual ash 3% (56.47 kg/day) and sanitary 3% (57.8 kg/day). Considering the high
recyclability potential, the agrarian focus of the university and the quest for self-
sustainability by the university, it was recommended that the university adopt
sustainable and integrated waste management options of reuse, recycling and waste
reduction.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1071 editor@iaeme.com

Oladipupo Seun OLADEJO, Adamu Mathew AUTA, Peter Dunsin IBIKUNLE and Edirin Ken-Wiwa
OMAMOFO

Keywords: Characteristics, Generation, Integrated Waste Management, Material

Recovery And Solid Waste.
Cite this Article: Oladipupo Seun OLADEJO, Adamu Mathew AUTA, Peter Dunsin
IBIKUNLE and Edirin Ken-Wiwa OMAMOFO, Solid Waste Generation,
Characteristics and Material Recovery Potentials For Landmark University Campus,
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 9(9), 2018, pp. 1071–1082.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=9

1. INTRODUCTION
Rapid population growth and uncontrolled urbanization has been a major cause of increased
generation of solid waste, making disposal of such, a great concern in developing countries
with severe environmental degradation. Advancements in science and technology [1],
increasing consumption of resources has culminated into accumulation of large amounts of
solid waste ranging from domestic to agricultural and up to industrial activities, with increased
toxicity and hazards which have threatened public health [2]. Uncontrolled Population,
community density, consumption habits, standard of living, monthly wages, dwelling
population, percentage of urban population, age, sex, ethnicity, size of housing units,
geographical locations, land use patterns, productive activities and cost of living are some
common factors that have the influence on waste generation, with population being the major
factors influencing unit waste generation rate. Estimation of the quantity of solid waste
generated in a city is very important for proper solid waste management. While most developed
countries regarded their wastes as resources, poor waste management became challenging issue
with governments of developing countries [3], resulting into enormous tasks in terms of
collection and disposal, making solid waste hazardous, in most developing countries. Improper
waste management has become serious concerns for experts from cities in the developing states
[3,4,5,6,7]
Waste management services which involve collection of waste and transportation to final
disposal, is carried out, in most developing countries, by the local authorities, but was stalled
by inadequate financial assistance and human resource capacity. These hindered effective
waste management service [8], amounting to inimical problems that impair human and animal
health and ultimately result into economic, environmental and biological losses [9]. Some
factors affecting effective municipal waste management in Nigeria are poor funding and
uncontrolled population, lack of trained/professional waste managers [10], ineffective
monitoring and control, inadequate maintenance culture towards the environment, lack of
modern technology/lethargy in implementation of efficient waste management methods. In
Landmark University, the common practice of waste management basically involves the
collection of mixed waste materials and subsequent dumping at designated dumpsites. The
Physical Planning Division of the university collect the wastes using the ‘Stationary Container
System’ from 240 liters waste bins which are positioned strategically around the university and
then transferred to a landfill location, where decomposition is attempted. Solid waste
management may well hold the key to reducing the rate of environmental pollution/degradation
while improving development rate. There exists ineffective waste management, inappropriate
waste disposal methods, value addition loss in forms of material recovery, reuse and energy
derivation. Hence this research aimed at study the solid waste generation and characterization
in Landmark University campus, with the view of recommending appropriate waste disposal
methods that support integrated waste management concept.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1072 editor@iaeme.com

 Solid Waste Generation, Characteristics and Material Recovery Potentials For Landmark University
Campus

2. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA

Landmark University Omu-Aran, founded in 2011 by the Living Faith Church Worldwide
(Winners chapel), is located in Kwara State Nigeria approximately on latitudes 8.1239536 and
longitude 5.0811943.It has an estimated land area of 1440 acres, with 96 blocks of students
hostels, 350 staff housing units, 20 academic and administrative buildings. It has a student
strength of 3600 and staff strength of 800. All students in the university reside on campus; 92%
of the secondary school students reside on campus while 35% of staff reside on campus. The
campus has an estimated population of about 5000 on daily basis. Major activities on campus
are administrative, academic, research and community services. In carrying out these functions,
allocated spaces are provided. The campus is developed in such an approach that permanent
buildings are erected for specific activities. No reported or published research has been carried
out at Landmark University to identify solid waste generation, characterization, and material
recovery potentials. Hence, the aim of the present study to search out the quantity, composition
and general characteristics of solid waste generated; existing disposal system, effects on
environment and suggested integrated waste management system adoptable to Landmark
University.

3. METHODOLOGY
The study was conducted in Landmark University campus, with the field work, comprising of
reconnaissance survey to have general overview of solid waste generation areas in the study
area; temporary collection and sorting points to observe the physical conditions regarding
quantity and quality of solid waste of the campus.

A. Selection and sampling of study area

The whole campus was divided into three zones based on prevailing activities on campus
(Table 1), for assessment of daily solid waste generation, separation and waste classification
and their characteristics. These are the residential, academic/administrative and utility zones.

Table 1 Zoning of Landmark University for the cause of the present study

Residential Academic/Administrative Utility

Staff Quarters College buildings (I&II) Cafeteria

Guest house Engineering workshop Multipurpose hall
LUSS University Library Bakery
Hostels Senate building Packaged water factory

B. Collection of the primary data

After securing permissions from appropriate quarters, liaises were made with the university
campus cleaners and waste collection truck operators. Solid wastes generated were obtained
from waste collection containers, on daily basis, for a period of a week for three months
(between December, 2017 and May, 2018). This was from Monday till Friday (five days) at
each zone and wastes materials were weighed, sorted into material types which include paper,
cardboard, plastic bottles, metals, cans, food wastes, polythene bags, polystyrene food pack,
e-wastes, sanitary and ash residuals. Waste categories were weighed to obtain the weight-based
characterizations for the waste components. Sorting into major waste categories was in
accordance with College and University Recycling Council (CURC) grouping system [11],

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1073 editor@iaeme.com

Oladipupo Seun OLADEJO, Adamu Mathew AUTA, Peter Dunsin IBIKUNLE and Edirin Ken-Wiwa
OMAMOFO

with modifications to accommodate peculiar waste stream generated on campus. Thereafter,

wastes were packed and delivered back to the university operated trucks disposal systems, for
usual disposal method. The total waste generated was determined by adding the weight of all
components in area of study. Collected primary data was analyzed using appropriate statistical
tools and techniques.

RESULTS
A. Solid waste generation in residential zone
Table 2 showed that average solid waste generation in the residential zone was 1599.8 kg/day
(89.6 % of campus total solid waste). The highest quantity of total campus solid waste was
generated from this zone, which comprised of students hostels, staff quarters, university
secondary school and guest house. The highest quantity of solid waste from this zone was
generated from the staff quarters with an average value of 818 kg/day; followed by student
hostels with solid waste value of 354 kg/day; management staff quarters with a value of 217
kg/day and university secondary school with a value of 169 kg/day. Polythene bags was the
most generated component of solid waste with an average daily generation of 401.2 kg,
followed by organics, plastic, metals, paper and others with values, 360.2, 289.6, 176.8 and
164.6 respectively. All the categories of waste has material recoverable and reuse values as
such could either be recycled, or processed to organic fertilizer.

B. Solid waste generation in academic/administration zone

Total solid waste generated in academic/administrative zone was 103.9 kg/day (5.8 % of
campus total solid waste). Polythene was the most generated component of solid waste with an
average daily generation of 31.9 kg, followed by paper (31.6 kg/day), plastic (20.3 kg/day),
organic (9.9 kg/day), polystyrene (6.1 kg/day), wood (2.2 kg/day), e-waste (1.2 kg/day) and
metals (0.7 kg/day).The highest quantity of solid waste was generated in second college
building with an average value of 49.8 kg/day; followed by solid waste generated at first college
building with value of 32.0 kg/day; library, 16.4 kg/day and senate building, 5.7 kg/day. Large
quantities of paper were generated due to academic activities in the zone. The paper, polythene
and plastics generated in significant quantities could be recycled.

C. Solid waste generation in utility

From Table 2, cafeteria generates the highest quantity of solid waste with an average value of
65.3 kg/day; followed by multipurpose hall with solid waste value of 9.4 kg/day; water factory
with a value of 5.7 kg/day and bakery with a value of 1.3 kg/day.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1074 editor@iaeme.com

 Solid Waste Generation, Characteristics and Material Recovery Potentials For Landmark University
Campus

Table 2 Solid waste generation from different zones in Landmark University campus
Polythene Sanitary
Organic Polystyrene Metals
Collection points/ waste Plastic Bags Residuals (Diapers, Total
Paper (Food Wood (Food (Can Glass E-waste
types (Kg/day) bottles (Water (Ashes) pads, (Kg/day)
wastes) pack) drinks)
sachets) rags)
Students Residential
22.0 48.2 0.0 45.4 87.4 102.4 34.2 0.0 3.2 0.0 11.2 354.0
Hostel
Management Staff
21.6 45.0 1.8 3.8 43.8 59.4 24.8 0.0 1.0 10.4 5.4 217.0
Quarters
Staff Quarters 1 51.0 105.2 13.8 10.8 57.8 110.2 49.4 0.0 3.4 4.6 15.0 421.2
Staff Quarters 2 45.6 105.8 15.2 10.6 53.0 80.4 54.4 0.0 3.8 10.8 17.2 396.8
LMU Secondary
21.6 43.4 0.0 4.0 39.0 41.2 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 169.0
School
LMU Guest House 2.8 12.6 0.0 0.8 6.6 7.6 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 33.6
Ave daily waste
164.6 360.2 30.8 75.4 287.6 401.2 176.8 0.0 11.4 25.8 57.8 1599.8
(Residential zone)
First College Building 4.4 4.9 0.6 5.6 5.9 10.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0. 0.0 32.0
Second College Building 19.4 3.7 0.9 0.3 12.0 12.4 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 49.8
Library (CLR) 6.2 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.9 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.4
Senate Building 1.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7
Ave daily waste
31.6 9.9 2.2 6.1 20.3 31.9 0.7 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 103.9
(Academic zone)
Cafeteria 6.3 19.2 0.3 5.6 4.1 4.9 1.6 0.4 0.0 22.9 0.0 65.3
Multipurpose Hall 5.5 0.1 0.0 1.4 1.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4
Bakery 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3
Water Factory 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7
Ave daily waste (Utility
11.9 19.5 1.2 7.0 8.4 8.8 1.6 0.4 0.0 22.9 0.0 81.7
zone)
Total waste (Kg/day) 208.13 390.07 34.2 88.81 316.3 441.65 179.03 0.36 12.53 56.47 57.8 1785.4
Total (%) 11.7 21.9 1.9 5.0 17.7 24.7 10.0 0.02 0.7 3.18 3.2 100%
Collection points/ waste Total
types (Kg/day) Paper Organic Wood Polystyrene Plastic Polythene Metals Glass E-waste Residuals Sanitary
(Kg/day)

Ash was the most generated component of solid waste with an average daily generation of
22.9 kg, followed by organics, paper, polythene bags, plastics, polystyrene, metal, wood and
glass with values, 19.5, 11.9, 8.8, 8.4, 7.0, 1.6, 1.2, 0.4 kg respectively. Ashes and charcoal
were generated from the cafeteria due to cooking activities. Food waste was also generated
majorly from the cafeteria in a significant quantity which can be processed for composting.
Metal waste were majorly from tomato cans, and other canned foods. Total solid waste
generated from utility zone was 81.7 kg/day (4.6 % of campus total solid waste).

DISCUSSION
A. Total solid waste generation by Landmark University campus
Total solid waste generation in Landmark University campus (which comprised of solid wastes
generated from the three zones vis: residential, academic/administrative and utility zones) was
1785.4 kg/day (Table 2), with waste generation rate of 0.36 kg/person/day, considering
estimated daily population of 5000 on campus.
Daily solid waste generation on campus ranged between 1655.34 kg to 1947.32, for
consecutive five (5) day period sampling, with daily average value of 1785.4 kg (Table 3 and
Figure 1). Figures 2 and 3 presented solid waste generated averagely per (in kg and %
respectively), based on the solid waste composition in Landmark University.
Polythene bags appeared the highest (24.7 %) in comparison to other solid wastes. A major
factor responsible for high volume of polythene bags (water sachets) is the water production
factory situated within the campus. [12] reported high volume of polythene bags as being the
second largest waste after organics in some municipals in Nigeria. Desire to have potable water
at reduced cost was also responsible for the high volume of sachet water, according to [13].

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1075 editor@iaeme.com

 Oladipupo Seun OLADEJO, Adamu Mathew AUTA, Peter Dunsin IBIKUNLE and Edirin Ken-Wiwa
OMAMOFO

There may be need for policy to localize the generation of plastic wastes. Such as the use
of water dispenser in cafeterias, commercial areas and offices and strategic placement of plastic
collection bins within the campus.
Organic, food wastes (21.9 %) are the second highest waste generation in the campus. Food
wastes may pose environmental and health challenges with the potential to release greenhouse
gases and attract vectors, if not properly disposed [14]. [15] suggested three uses of organic
wastes as composite production, energy generation and composting for soil nutrient, for
effective organic waste management. [14] reported food waste composting programme at
Camosun College,
Victoria, British Columbia. Anaerobic digestion of food waste has been reported to have
approximately, three times the methane production potential by volume than municipal
wastewater solids [16].
Others were plastic bottles (17.7 %), paper and paper products (11.7 %) and metals (10.0
%). It was also found that the lowest amount (0.02 %) of waste belongs to glass. The low
percentage of paper waste may have been influenced by the University effort to adopt paperless
policy to reduce paper utility. Lecture materials are in soft modules and internet facilities are
been used for official matters. [14] observed high percentages of paper wastes: 29.1% from
University of North British Columbia, Columbia. It was noted that there was no cross
contamination of paper waste from missed waste as against report from [17]. Other solid waste
with lower generation are e-waste (0.7 %), wood (2.0 %), residual ash and sanitary (3.0 %),
and polystyrene, food pack (5.0 %) (Table 2). Residential zone has the highest solid waste
generation, 1599.8 kg/day (89.6 %); followed by administrative zone, 103.9 kg/day, 5.8 % and
utility zone, 81.7 kg/day, 4.6 %, (Figure 4).

Physical combinations of solid wastes for recyclability potential and value

addition
Table 4 and Figure 5 showed the zero-waste concept and analysis of value addition to waste
generated in Landmark University campus. About one-third (33.69 %, 598.2 kg) of waste
generated daily were derived from food wastes, paper and paper products and these categories
of waste could be aerobically or anaerobically digested to produce compost (organic fertilizer)
or bio-fuel. This result is in line with findings of [18]; that large portion of solid wastes are
composed of organics (fruit wastes, vegetable and food wastes).
The recyclables (polythene bags, plastic bottles, metal cans and glass) constituted 52.29 %
(928.38 kg) of average daily waste generated in Landmark University campus. This agreed
with studies by [19] and [14] of 34% and 28.2% respectively. It showed that the LMU campus
has a far higher recyclability potential than the others.

Table 3 Daily Solid Waste generation, classification and characteristics within Landmark University
campus
Day Paper Organic Wood Polystyrene Plastic Polythene Metals Glass E-waste Residuals Sanitary Total
1 202 427.6 38.29 87.8 341.6 511.56 155.47 0.75 4.8 114.45 63 1947.32
2 213.49 361.6 41.76 95.81 301.45 511.85 175.97 0 9 26.27 63 1800.2
3 209.52 425.2 28.76 84.44 345.3 405.63 187.43 0 18.18 31.45 47 1782.91
4 211.91 394.26 24.47 82.35 258.1 376.37 201.81 1.05 8.07 43.95 53 1655.34
5 203.72 341.71 33.71 93.66 290.24 402.85 174.46 0 22.62 66.25 63 1692.22
Total 1040.64 1950.37 166.99 444.06 1536.69 2208.26 895.14 1.8 62.67 282.37 289 8877.99
Average 208.13 390.07 34.2 88.81 316.3 441.65 179.03 0.36 12.53 56.47 57.8 1785.4
%
11.7 21.9 1.9 5 17.7 24.7 10 0.02 0.7 3.18 3.2 100
Average

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1076 editor@iaeme.com

 Solid Waste Generation, Characteristics and Material Recovery Potentials For Landmark University
Campus

Table 4 Zero waste concept and analysis of value addition to waste generated in Landmark University
campus
Ave Waste (kg) % waste
Value Addition Waste components
per day per day
Compost and Bio fuel Paper 208.13
Production
Organic (food wastes) 390.07
Sub total 598.20 33.51
Recyclables Plastics (water bottles) 316.30
Polythene (water sachet, nylons) 441.65
Metals (tins, cans bottles) 179.03
Glass (bottles, mirrors) 0.36
Sub total 937.34 52.50
Incineration Polystyrene (food pack) 88.81
Woods 34.20
E- wastes 12.53
Sanitary (diapers, pads, rags) 57.80
Sub total 193.34 10.83
Reuse Residuals (ashes) 56.47 3.16

Total 1785.35 100.00

Figure 1 Total solid waste generated (kg) on daily basis and the average value

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1077 editor@iaeme.com

Oladipupo Seun OLADEJO, Adamu Mathew AUTA, Peter Dunsin IBIKUNLE and Edirin Ken-Wiwa
OMAMOFO

Figure 2 Average solid waste, by composition generated (kg) on daily basis

Figure 3 Percentage solid waste, by composition generated averagely on daily basis

Figure 4 Percentage solid waste generated from three zones at Landmark University campus

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1078 editor@iaeme.com

 Solid Waste Generation, Characteristics and Material Recovery Potentials For Landmark University
Campus

Figure 5 Zero waste concept and analysis (%) for Landmark University solid waste management

Figure 6 Integrated Solid Waste Management concept Adoptable to landmark University campus
Over ten percentage (10.84 %; 192.54 kg) of the total daily wastes could be incinerated.
These were polystyrene, food packs, woods, e-wastes and sanitary, pads, diapers, fabrics and
rags. Thermal energy generated could be converted and reused. Ash produced from
incineration process could be combined with residuals ash from cafeteria and residential, 3.18
% (56.54 kg) of total daily waste generated on campus, and disposed of to landfill or for reuse
as alkaline solution to address soil acidity and other soil enhancement and treatment for
agrarian policy. The total non- recyclable waste generation was only about 14 % (comprised
of ash residuals from cafeteria (3.18 %) and ash product from incinerable solid wastes (10.84
%)). This result deviated from the findings in Dhaka city solid waste generation where non-
recyclable waste is 70-80% [20].
Arising from Table 4, Figure 6 presented an integrated solid waste management concept
adoptable to Landmark University. Zero waste concept of 85.98 % waste material recoverable
(composting, bio-fuel production and recyclables) and 14.02 % material reuse (incineration-
derived ash and residual ash for landfilling or soil enhancement)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1079 editor@iaeme.com

Oladipupo Seun OLADEJO, Adamu Mathew AUTA, Peter Dunsin IBIKUNLE and Edirin Ken-Wiwa
OMAMOFO

CONCLUSION
Landmark University (LMU), a private citadel of learning equipped with necessary facilities
and infrastructures, with potentials for massive expansion and growth. People living both in
and around the institution are on the increase. The present day population in the campus was
about 5000. This large population generates a vast amount of solid waste, with a high recovery
potential. The present method of waste collection is the “Stationary Container System”,
whereby the waste is collected from 240 liters drums positioned around the university campus.
However, the school employs disposal in landfills as the sole mode of disposal of waste. The
waste generated in Landmark University is presently modest due to the University current
population, but with population increase, appropriate waste management procedures are to be
in place.
The present method of solid waste management in Landmark University is adequate but
not sustainable. The university has an adequate mode of storage of waste before collection for
onward disposal, as there are enough waste drums positioned strategically to store the waste
before collection by the physical planning department of the university. The overall collection
of the solid waste in the area and the frequency of collection was regular; the wastes are
collected on a daily basis. The disposal of wastes by open dumps is not effective as it pollutes
the environment and does not explore the full recycling potentials of the university.
Due to the mode of operation of the university, especially the staff quarters and student
residential hostels, polythene and plastics (pure water sachets, nylons and PET bottles) had the
highest quantity as most of the foods consumed were packaged in them. These are recyclable
materials.
Organic wastes which included food, vegetables, fruits and paper wastes were also
generated in high quantity and had compostable potential when combined with other
agricultural wastes gotten from the university farms. The material recovery potential of the
university solid waste for recycling and re-use is very high.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The following measures are recommended for the integrated approach towards waste
management on the university campus:
• Integrated waste management policy drive to ensure reduction, reuse and recycling of waste
materials by the management of the university
• Establishment of Landmark University Waste Sorting Centre (LUWASC), where recyclable
wastes are sorted and packaged for onward transfer to recycling company. Waste separation at
source, to increase efficiency should be encouraged. There should be different types of bins
allocated according to the recycling potential i.e. recyclable (paper, plastic, polythene and
metal), compostable (food, polystyrene and wood) and non-recyclable.
• The university could commence a composting unit to renew commitment to the agrarian vision.
Operators at the university cafeterias and kitchens could be educated on proper food separation
from source. The composite produced will be a valuable asset to farmers. The unit may also
consider food wastes as biomass for biogas production.
• Recycling plants and machineries, such as baling or compacting machines for plastic and can
bottles; grinding and shredding machines for rubber plastics and polythene bags, respectively,
could be installed for processing recyclable waste materials.
• Incineration chambers could also be installed.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1080 editor@iaeme.com

 Solid Waste Generation, Characteristics and Material Recovery Potentials For Landmark University
Campus

The adoption of the above recommendations will open for the following opportunities:
• Economic turnaround: turning waste into high-value marketable products.
• Jobs creation
• Energy recovery

REFERENCES
[1] Sangodoyin AY, Ipadeol SF. Hazardous wastes: assessing the efficiency of structures and
approaches to management in Nigeria. Environmental Management and Health, 2000, 11,
39-46
[2] Oladejo, O. S. (2011): A Study of Infectious Wastes from Medical Institutions in South-
western Nigeria: Treatment and Disposal Management. Epistemic in Science, Engineering
and Technology, 1(4):155-163.
[3] Hefa Cheng and Yuanan Hu (2010): Municipal Waste Management as a renewable source
of energy: Current and future practices in China. Bioresources Technology. Vol. 101, Issue
11, 3816-3824.
[4] Md. Auhidur Rahman, Md. Lokman Hossain, Ashik Rubaiyat, Shamim Akter Mamun, Md.
Zubayer Alam Khan, Md. Musa Sayem, Mohammed Kamal Hossain. Solid waste
generation, characteristics and disposal at Chittagong university campus, Chittagong,
Bangladesh, Discovery Sci., 2013, 4(11), 25-30,
[5] Zainura Zainon Noor, Rariu Olasunkanmi Yusuf, Ahmad Halilu Abba, Mohd Ariffin Abu
Hassan and Mohd Fadhil Mohd Din (2013): An overview for energy recovery from
municipal solid waste in Malaysia, a scenario. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews.
Vol.20, 378- 384.
[6] Chung SS, Lo CWH. Local waste management constraints and waste administrators in
China. Waste Management, 2008, 28(2), 272–81
[7] Imam A, Mohammed B, Wilson DC, Cheeseman CR. Solid waste management in Abuja,
Nigeria. Waste Management, 2008, 28(2), 468–72
[8] Barton JR, Issias I, Stentiford EI., 2008. Carbon-making the right choice for waste
management in developing countries. Waste Management, 28, 690–8
[9] Sharholy M, Ahmad K, Mahmood G, Trivedi RC. Municipal solid waste management in
Indian cities. Waste Management, 2008, 28(2), 459–67
[10] Okeniyi, J.O., Anwan, E.U., 2012. Solid wastes generation in covenant University, Ota,
Nigeria: characterization and implication for sustainable waste management. J. Mater.
Environ. Sci 3 (2), 419–424.
[11] CURC, College and University Recycling Council, 2001.
http:/www.nrcrecycle.org/Councils/CURC/default.htm (accessed 12.07.15)
[12] Babatunde, B.B., Vincent-Akpu, I.F., Woke, G.N., Atarhinyo, E., Aharanwa, U.C., Green,
A.F., Isaacjoe, O., 2013. Comparative analysis of municipal solid waste (MSW)
composition in three local government areas in River State, Nigeria. Global Science
Research Journals 1, 065-072.
[13] Dada, A.C., 2009. Sachet water phenomenon in Nigeria: Assessment of the potential health
impact. African Journal of Microbiology Research 3, 15-21.
[14] Smyth, D.P., Fredeen, A.L., Booth, A.L., 2010. Reducing solid waste in higher in higher
education: the first step towards ‘greening’ a university a university campus. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 54, 1007-1016.
[15] Westerman, P.W., Bicudo, J.R., 2005. Management considerations for organic waste use
in agriculture. Biores. Technol. 96, 215-221.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1081 editor@iaeme.com

Oladipupo Seun OLADEJO, Adamu Mathew AUTA, Peter Dunsin IBIKUNLE and Edirin Ken-Wiwa
OMAMOFO

[16] A.E. Adeniran, A.T. Nubi, A.O. Adelopo., 2017. "Solid waste generation and
characterization in the University of Lagos for a sustainable waste management", Waste
Management, 2017
[17] Mason, I.G., Brooking, A.K., Oberender, J.M., Harford, P.G., Horsley, A., 2003.
Implementation of a zero waste program at a university campus. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
38, 257-269.
[18] Salam MA, Hossain Md L, Das SR, Wahab R, Hossain MK. Generation and Assessing the
Composition of Household Solid Waste in Commercial Capital City of Bangladesh.
International Journal of Environmental Science, Management and Engineering Research,
2012, 1(4), 160-171
[19] Armijo de Vega, C., Ojeda Benitez, S., Ramirez Barreto, M.E., 2008. Solid waste
characterization and recycling potential for a university campus. Waste Manage. 28 (Suppl.
1), S21–S26
[20] Anon. Country Paper Bangladesh, SAARC Workshop on Solid Waste Management.
Department of Environment (DoE), Waste Concern, ITN-BUET, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
2004, 199

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1082 editor@iaeme.com