You are on page 1of 44

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE 1

1.0. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1. Background of study 1

1.1.1. Waste in Landmark University 1

1.2. Statement of problem 3

1.3. Objectives 4

1.4. Aim 4

1.5. Justification 4

1.6. Scope of study 4

1.7. Method of Study 4

1.8. Expected contribution to knowledge 5

1.9. Recommendation 5

CHAPTER TWO 6

2.0. LITERATURE REVIEW 6

2.1. Concept of Solid wastes management 6

2.2. History of solid wastes 6

2.2.1. From Antiquity to the Eve of the Industrial Revolution 7

2.2.2. 1770s-1860s 10

vii
2.2.2.1. Neo-Hippocratism and Hygienics 10

2.3. Overview 14

2.4. Waste Management in Universities 19

2.5. Commercial & Institutional Waste 21

2.6. List and definitions of materials 22

CHAPTER THREE 30

3.0. METHODOLOGY 30

3.1. Estimate of the daily solid waste generation 30

3.2. Sampling and characterization of the sample 31

3.3. Area of the Study 31

3.4. Instruments for Data Collection 32

3.4.1. Primary data. 32

3.4.2. Secondary data. 33

3.5. Data recording and analysis 33

3.5.1. Equipments for Sampling and sorting Solid Wastes 34

3.6. Primary Data Collection 35

3.7. Secondary Data Collection 37

3.8. SWOT Analysis 38

REFERENCES 39

1
CHAPTER ONE

1.0. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of study

1.1.1. Waste in Landmark University

Landmark University is a private university in Nigeria, commonly referred to as Covenant

University sister because they both have the same, Chancellor. She is situated in Omu-Aran,

Kwara-State, Nigeria. She was founded in the year 2010 by the founder of Living Faith Church

(Winners chapel) who is also the chancellor of the institution.

As a young University, the estimated total number of students as at 2017/2018 academic session is

2,500 from the three colleges in the university. There are 673 employed staffs working on the

campus, and about 60% of them are staying on campus, while the remaining 40% are staying

off-campus. The campus indisputably generates a lot of solid wastes because every human-being

inevitably generates wastes. These solid wastes are swept and tidied by the campus keepers daily.

Disposal, collection, processing, and production of solid waste have become a major concern in

developing countries (Hossain et al. 2013). This is mainly due to a geometric increase in

population and sudden urbanization. Due to the persistent increase in population and urban

expansion, the urban environment is petering severely (Salam et al. 2012). For most of the cities in

developing countries, mass production and disposal of solid waste is an obvious cause for the

environmental degradation (Asraf, 1994). Due to unaware urbanization two-thirds of the world’s

people living in cities by 2025 and urban populations in developing countries grow by more than

150,000 people every day (UNDESA, 2005). The continuous increase in resources consumption

has resulted in a gigantic amount of solid waste from activities both domestic and industrial which

can pose major threats to human health (Frosch, 1996).

2
Landmark University is one of the most beautiful Universities in Nigeria and Africa at large.

Wastes in the institution are collected through bins placed at different locations in the University

and collected by trucks when filled. These wastes are later disposed of in landfills after the

application of some chemicals on the biodegradable ones.

In this work, the University shall be categorized into different zones, namely: The Residential,

Administrative, and the Utility zones which is my case study.

Table 1.1. Zoning of Landmark University for the cause of the present study (Fieldwork) (2017)

Residential Administrative Utility

Staff Quarters College buildings (Laboratories) Cafeteria

Guest house Engineering building University chapel (Banks)

LUSS University Library Bakery

Hostels Senate building Pure water factory

Disposal, generation, and characterization of waste is a matter of great concern in our community.

Wastes are generated daily on campus and are always in large quantities.

3
Figure 1.1.1. Waste bin samples

1.2. Statement of problem

Waste generation on campus is inevitable, if this wastes are not carefully characterized and

managed the whole community will be littered and our environment will begin to deplete. Hence,

there is a need for characterizing and evaluating the quantity of wastes generated successively.

In Landmark University, the common practice of waste management basically involves the

collection of mixed waste materials and subsequent dumping at designated dumpsites. Solid waste

in Landmark University is generated from a wide spectrum of activities ranging from Utility,

Agricultural, Domestic and Construction activities. Solid waste management may well hold the

key to reducing the rate of environmental pollution/degradation while improving development rate

and exposes research gap. We have the problem of effective waste management and challenge of

having appropriate disposal of waste method. We will be losing the value addition from waste i.e.

energy derivation. Problem is caused to disposal site and the people of the environment. In the

4
light of this there is need for appropriate waste classification so that effective waste management

could be recommended.

1.3. Objectives

i. To study existing waste management system.

ii. Grouping of the University into zones based on prevailing activities on campus.

iii. Estimation of waste generation rate.

iv. To collect waste generated by zones and characterize such.

v. To analyse results from characterization and deduce a recommendation for final disposal.

1.4. Aim

The aim of this research work is to study and characterize the solid waste generation in Landmark

University campus.

1.5. Justification

Waste generation increases with population and as the university is growing.

i. Get records of increase in number of staffs and students.

ii. Forecast of population in 10, 20, and 25 ; Hence deduce population rate.

1.6. Scope of study

S​tudy is limited to Residential, Administrative and Utility zones of the University. Medical and

agricultural wastes are excluded. Case study for this work is the Utility zone of the University as

categorised in Table 1.1.

1.7. Method of Study

The method adopted in Solid waste characterization and recycling potential for a university

campus by

Carolina Armijo de Vega ​et al ​(2008) will be adopted in this project work.

5
1.8. Expected contribution to knowledge

Since no work has been done on solid wastes generation in Landmark university, at the end of this

research work the results gotten will contribute to knowledge as it will be a new fact that will be

useful for upcoming researchers.

1.9. Recommendation

​The university should be aware of the potentials of value addition to solid waste generation on

campus and its maximization.

6
CHAPTER TWO

2.0. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Concept of Solid wastes management

A few decades ago wastes were defined as useless, unwanted, unused, or discarded materials

resulting from the normal community activities. But now, because of developments in recycling

and resource recovery technologies, the above definition is no longer completely correct. Some of

what is known previously to be useless and unwanted are now reprocessed into different valuable

products. Prof. Okoli, (2017) Solid Wastes Management. Lecture handout, Civil Engineering,

Landmark University.

2.2. History of solid wastes

Barles, (2008). History of Waste Management and The Social and Cultural Representations of

Waste. Retrieved from http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319091792. Waste and the words

that are used to describe it from history will always go together. Proves from surveys have shown

that different vocabulary words can now be used to describe it.

Firstly, terms are associated with the themes of loss and uselessness: déchet coined from the

French word, and from the verb choir which means to fall, refuse and also garbage in English

which means primarily “animal offal”, rifiuti in Italian, residuo in Spanish, Abfall in German. In

the second category,

terms emphasize the dirty or repulsive nature of these particular materials: immondice in French,

immondizia in Italian, coined from the Latin word mundus which means clean; ordure coined

7
from French and from the Latin word horridus, meaning horrible. Conclusively, in the third

category, some terms are used to describe the components that make up the waste: boues in

French, spazzatura in Italian, Müll and Schmutz in German, rubbish in English derived from the

rubble.

The word waste belongs in the first category. From the old French word vastum, which means

empty or desolate, it was firstly used to represent a desolate, ruined or abandoned region. The term

was then used to explain a wasteful expenditure (which made it to have same meaning as déchet in

French). It finally got its current meaning in the 15th century. That the original meaning of waste

having a spatial dimension describing a place, related to spazzatura from the verb spazzare (to

make room, remove clutter), is likely not neutral. Without doubts, it is a subject with the rich

vocabulary, which has been treated lightly here, in describing different types or examples of

wastes as the case may be. Indeed, the issue of waste has long been closely linked to (even

confused with) both the issue of salubrity and sanitizing of urban space and the management of

urban urine and excrement.

After a scan through the period between Antiquity and the eve of the Industrial Revolution, a

period between 1770 and 1860, during which the value of excreta, particularly in the urban area

grew, thanks it was finally converted into manures. Another form of waste which was birthed due

to abandoned junk and materials from the 1870s to the 1960s will be viewed. In conclusion, it

will be shown that since the 1960s and 1970s, the environmental crisis has translated into a waste

crisis for which only imperfect solutions have been found. The story of waste is an international

one, however, the history of waste in Europe and North America was the focus.

2.2.1. From Antiquity to the Eve of the Industrial Revolution

Streets, synonymously open spaces in cities, have inevitably been used as urban wastes dumps:

human and animal urine and excrement, other organic materials from domestic or artisan

8
activities, rubble from demolitions, various mineral debris, etc., such that the composition of these

soils provide an account of a city’s history. Wastes sinking into the soil was particularly

significant because streets and squares were not always coated and could absorb much rainwater

or because urbanized areas were built on low, even marshy, ground.

The need to clean up polluted urban space was at the root of the famous Roman cloaca maxima,

built under Tarquin the Proud (7th- 6th century BC) to drain the Velabrum and the lowlands

located between the Capitoline Hill and Palatine Hill. First through an uncovered canal network,

then with a subsurface sewage system, it collected urban refuse and materials from latrines and

drained them into the Tiber.

Subsidiary lines, such as ditches that comes from houses, resulted to the cloaca maxima and

contributed and greatly helped in cleaning up of Rome. Thus perched on these subterraneous

passages, Rome was described as a “hanging city” (urbs pensilis) by Pliny the Elder. The

maintenance and cleaning of sewers, a job given to convicted criminals, was the basis for the

cloacarium tax. Many cities at that time were equipped with similar community facilities.

The use of these underground pipes to drain and clean urban areas declined in varying degrees

during the Middle-Ages in Europe and was replaced by surface runoff for rainwater and drainage

waters. Urban brooks which can still common till date in France by the name Merdereau or

Merderet, and moats acted as sewers. Many cities diverted, canalized and created networks of

drainage systems in order to allow for the development of their artisan activities (at the time this

water acted mechanically, and later, according to its uniqueness in terms of its composition, acted

as chemical and biological entity). Because these canals contributed to drainage, they were simply

considered sewers; however, they had a much more significant role in that they founded urban

prosperity. In furtherance, the state of human excremental materials changed in space and in time.

Some cities retained a combined sewerage system used since Roman time; many cities adopted,

9
during the Middle Ages or the Renaissance, pit privies, which were at first simple holes and later

underground reservoirs placed under dry latrines. The growing use of these cesspools led to the

development of a new profession: the cesspool emptier (although in some cities local growers did

this job). Moreover, the necessity for salubrity led many cities to prohibit the disposal of human

waste into sewers and rivers - this was the case in Paris where, since the 13th century, the Great

Sewer (“Grand Égout”), a known backwater of the Seine River, drained the Right Bank. Hence,

these barns, as well as possible sweeping and cleaning obligations, were mostly not attended to by

urbanites. In these cities, where only a few streets were paved, where the slope of streets was not

regulated, where both human and animal populations were extremely dense and where cart and

other tipcart traffic contributed to the formation of a putrid mud, a significant elevation of the

ground led to ground floors, even second floors, of houses to become buried.

This sudden unavoidably elevation of the ground level was as a result of an accumulation of

urban waste and rubbish at the surface. It occurred at varying rates and often accelerated following

demolitions in times of conflict. It also happens to increase due to artificial embankment

construction which changed the marshy areas into developable land and to a land where

construction material often was itself a type of waste : excavated material from moats, demolition

rubble and urban mud.

In the Middle Ages, dumps, formed as a result of accumulated refuse and the drainage of pit

privies or through the deployment of street cleaning services, were found everywhere in some

cities. The dumps at the city gate later got surrounded by the growing cities and thereby got

replaced by sites outside of the new urban limits, often grew into real hills. Case study is in Paris

where these mounds have been completely shaped into the urban landscape ; because they are

raised above the general ground level, they can accommodate more efficient windmills (Figure

1.1.1). The labyrinth of the Jardin des Plantes is another example of a historical dumpsite that is

10
still visible today. Other mounds have disappeared : this is the case for themotta papellardorum,

located on the western point of the Île de la Cité and for the Monceau Saint-Gevais, located behind

the city hall (Hôtel de Ville).

Figure 2.2.1. Paris, map of Jacques Gomboust (partial), 1653, (Barles, 2008)

Generally speaking, salubrity levels dropped in European cities from the 15 th to 18th century. It

was during the 18th century that two movements were set in motion that eventually resulted in are

assessment of the management of urban excreta.

2.2.2. 1770s-1860s

2.2.2.1. Neo-Hippocratism and Hygienics

Europe, in the 18th century, progressions in Hippocrates theories was used to characterize medical

thinking. In particular, his treatise “Airs, Waters, and Places”, in which he emphasized the primary

role of the environment in health, was frequently referenced. This recommendations was adopted

by many doctors looked to the environment to explain morbidity and mortality. Many of them

11
considered air, and its intimate and frequent contact with the body, a transmission medium for

miasma or sulfurous pollution whose fumes were often considered morbid, even deadly. Their

analysis was confirmed by the high frequency of intermittent fevers in wetlands where a

generalized weakening Eighteenth century doctors paid particular attention to cities whose

statistics – which at that time were being developed extensively– revealed excess mortality: not

only was the natural balance negative (more deaths than births), but the life expectancy of their

residents was lower than in the neighboring countryside. The Environment could only be viewed

by doctors as a thing of norm through this neo-Hippocratic lens and to present them as extreme

and artificial types of marshes. Thus, the belief was that urban excess mortality was due to the

cumulative effects of a contaminated ground saturated with putrefying waste and of the human

and animal density. Priestley and Lavoisier discoveries truly exposed that respiration permanently

infected the air by consuming oxygen and producing C O2 and then called phlogisticated air in a

process characteristic of combustion.

These analyses led the medical establishment and, in large part, the scientific, political and

intellectual communities to establish new requirements to correct and rectify the deleterious

conditions of these cities. Airing cities was then recommended by lowering their putrefaction

through a better ground covering, effective urban excreta management, thorough cleaning and

sweeping and improved distribution of these services. These types of projects were developed

throughout the 19th century, (Table 2.2.2.1).

12
Table 2.2.2.1. World production of paper and cardboard in 1850. (S. Barles, 2008)

Country Production (tons)

England 62,960

Scotland 14,300

Eire 3,310

France 41,680

Zollverein 37,200

Austria 22,320

Denmark 1,680

Sweden 1,530

Belgium 6,132

The Netherlands 4,200

Spain 5,310

Italy 7,992

13
Switzerland 13,000

Turkey 7,992

Animal bones then began to become the next big thing in the industries which were also dominant

in the urban area since butcheries and slaughterhouses are majorly found in cities. Bones were

increasingly needed for their classical use – the manufacture of objects, grease, glue –as well as

for new market opportunities: from the 1820s, phosphorus was used to make matches ignited by

friction; animal charcoal to refine sugar whose consumption was growing; gelatin (identical to

glue except for its use) for food preparation and later for photographic negatives ; and later,

superphosphates for agricultural fertilization (first in England and Germany then in France).

Opportunities were then found by other butchery by-products in the production of candles and

later of stearic candles, Prussian blue, glue, ropes, combs, etc.

14
Figure 2.2.2.1. Life cycle of animal bones, second third of the 19th century. (Barles, 2008)

Urban by-products emerged from these new industrial products and led to other market

opportunities : used paper gave rise to cardboard industries, tin cans to metal toys, town gas that

are obtained from the distillation of coal to tar which was used in the manufacture of numerous

chemical compounds and, soon after, for surfacing sidewalks and later streets. There exists many

other examples of city been a supplier materials for industries and agricultural purposes.

To make profits, markets were sought by manufacturers in creating opportunities in products with

no value, i.e. waste from their primary operation. During the clarification of sugar, charcoals from

animals could not be revived endlessly : it was considered a waste up until 1810 when it was

discovered to be processed as fertilizers (containing a high concentration of phosphorus). In such a

way, used animal charcoal soon became more expensive than unused animal charcoal. Particularly

in Manchester, wastes from cotton began to be used like rags, for papermaking. As late as 1882,

the hygienist Henri Napias summarized the goal : “In industry, there must not be any actual scrap,

and everything must be used either for industry itself or for agriculture [translation]”.

2.3. Overview

(Carolina Armijo de Vega ​et al, ​2008) worked on ​Solid waste characterization and recycling

potential for a university campus. In his work, methods and ways for which wastes can be

categorized were explained. It was explained that the Integrated waste management systems are

one of the greatest challenges for sustainable development. For these systems to be successful, the

first step is to carry out waste characterization studies. Waste characterization study results gotten

were then recorded in the paper. The purpose of this study was to set the basis for ways in which

15
wastes can be implemented and recovered, decreased and recycling management programs in the

university.

Campus Mexicali was found to produce a ton of solid wastes per day; of which more than 65% of

these wastes are recyclable or potentially recyclable. From the results gotten, it is evident that

segregation and recycling programs can be done on the campus in the university. The study also

showed that the local market for recyclable waste, under present conditions – number of recycling

companies and amounts of recyclables accepted – can absorb all of these wastes. Some

alternatives for the potentially recyclables wastes were discussed. Finally strategies for the

reduction of wastes at the source were discussed as well. The study on solid waste in the UABC

Mexicali I Campus consisted of three main stages from the report:

1. Estimate of the daily solid waste generation,

2. Solid waste sampling and characterization of samples, and

3. Data capture and analysis of the amounts and types of wastes generated at the Campus.

No estimated data on solid waste before this study was executed. It can therefore be concluded

this information shall be an estimate. Daily generation estimates was carried out from the weight

of solid waste that is collected by the private company affiliated to UABC. All the waste

generated at campus was collected by the private company. In order to determine the weight of the

solid waste generated within the campus, first the weight of the empty truck had to be known. The

difference between the weight of the full truck and the empty truck provided the weight of the

load. Then, at 45 different occasions, the truck was weighed with the full cargos of municipal

wastes from the campus.

That information was used to calculate the average weight of each load. With the information on

the average weight of the loaded truck and the number of times a week the truck was filled with

16
solid waste, it was possible to estimate the daily generation. The samples were taken from three

different points of generation:

1. Academic and administrative buildings (including laboratories),

2. Gardens and corridors, and

3. The community center which consists of the store, dining room and cafeteria areas.

These three points are the major points of activities on campus. The characterization of the solid

waste was carried out using the modified methodology for the characterization of household waste

proposed by Buenrostro-Delgado (2001). Samples were taken during 14 consecutive days

(excluding Sundays); the samples on the first 2 days were trial samplings. This trial sampling

helped to unify criteria for data collection and for the identification of the solid waste. After 12

days, the results analysed are the ones reported. Format of data collection by sub-products was

used to group data. The steps was structured with the categories that was considered by the

College and University Recycling Council (CURC, 2001) .

The CURC categories were used taking into consideration future comparisons with the results

from similar studies carried out in other universities.

(M.A. Rahman ​et al, 2013) also worked on Solid Waste Generation, Characteristics and Disposal

at Chittagong University Campus, Chittagong, Bangladesh. The study was conducted in

Chittagong University campus, and the methods followed for research work involved a survey

plan in the campus. Field survey was conducted in self settlement areas, staff quarters, residential

area, halls, faculties, offices, and commercial areas. At the outset of the major field work, a

reconnaissance survey was carried out during the early May 2009 to identify the solid waste

generation in the study area; observe the physical condition of the area and get information

regarding quantity and quality of solid waste and different dumping sites of the undertaken by the

local authorities. These services include waste collection (either from households or district

17
collection points) to final disposal. However, the low financial base and human resource capacity

of these local authorities mean that in most cases they are only able to provide a limited service

(Barton et al. 2008). Incapacities in solid waste management in most cities of developing countries

causes impaired in human and animal health and unfortunately result in economic, environmental

and biological losses (Wilson et al. 2006 ; Kapepula et al. 2007; Sharholy et al. 2008).

Bangladesh, a densely populated country was undergoing rapid urbanization (Salequzzaman,

2000). In Bangladesh 16,380 tons of wastes were produced per day (Anon, 2004).

Chittagong is the second largest city of Bangladesh with a substantial, self- sustaining economic

base (GoB, 2003). The solid wastes generation in urban areas of Chittagong city is increasing

proportionately with the growth of its population, which is posing a serious threat to the solid

waste management and disposal system (Das et al. 2013; Salam et al. 2012; Sujauddin et al.,

2008). The average generation of solid waste in the urban areas of Chittagong city is 1550 tons per

day (Sinha, 2006).

(Okeniyi, Joshua Olusegun and Anwan, Ebietudube Udonwan, J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 3 (2) (2012)

419-424, 2012) also worked in a campus in Nigeria, and there topic is Solid Wastes Generation in

Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria : Characterisation and Implication for Sustainable Waste

Management. The method used was that, the generated solid wastes samples were obtained from

bins and waste disposal sites, before dumping of waste materials to landfills by the trucks disposal

systems in the university, from the residential, commercial, colleges and departmental buildings of

Covenant University. Samples were taken from households in residential buildings, to compute

the data for the specific building types in order to realise a system of source generator-based

study. Wastes materials were classified into different categories. Each of these is then weighed to

obtain the mass-based characterizations for the waste components. Monitoring was carried out

18
over a period of 10 weeks and the average of wastes taken per day, waste generation was never

constant, there were visible irregularities.

(Adeniran ​et al, ​2017) in his work on waste in the University of Lagos also used a method, called

Sampling method. ASTM D5231-92 and Resource Conservation Reservation Authority RCRA

Waste Sampling Draft Technical Guidance methods was used in carrying out sampling and the

ASTM method requirements are stated below.

The ASTM method requires that:

1. Statistical criteria should be used to determine the number of samples;

2. Vehicles sampling should be random and performed over a 5–7-days period and;

3. The initial sample should weigh approximately four times the subsample that will be

sorted (Gidarakos et al., 2005). The RCRA method provided basis for field sampling after

the vehicles had discharged. The number of sample (n) required was determined using the

equation:

* 2
n = ( TEXS ) (1)

where

T * = the student’s t-test corresponding to the desired level of confident,

S = the estimated standard deviation,

E = the desired level of precision, and

X = the estimated mean.

The number of samples to be collected was statistically determined using the student T⁄ value at

90% confidence level and 10% precision level. The standard deviation (S) and mean X was

19
calculated using polythene bags as the governing waste composition. A total of 48 samples were

collected based on Eq. (1) (S = 0.52,X = 0.95). Twelve samples were collected from each zone.

Every month, sampling was carried out three different times. The waste trucks were randomly

selected for sampling based on the waste collection zone. After discharge, samples were collected

at different layers using shovel and polythene bags. The composite sample from each truck is

mixed and weighed. Average sample size is between 30-50 kg . The samples were sorted into each

category of waste manually and the average weights of each component determined. Samples

were collected between October 2014 and September 2015.

2.4. Waste Management in Universities

Higher institutions due to the knowledge they have gathered, the moral and ethics instilled into

them to behave responsibly towards the environment, higher expectations are demanded of them

to lead movements and take moves in protecting and sustaining the environment. Specifically it

would be expected that universities would drive the efforts towards responsible waste

management. Evidently, efficient waste management will even add some potential values which

include financial resources destined to waste management, clean and conducive environment and

other values. Appropriate waste management would bring benefits to the institution such as a

reduction of the financial resources destined to waste management, but, above all, it would set an

example to the students and the community.

In higher education institutions waste management began a long while ago (20 years) in the

industrialized countries and vary from, community, voluntary and local efforts to institutionalized

programs (Armijo et al., 2003). Recycling and waste reduction focused on by some universities

and colleges initiatives have been successful over years.

20
Recycling programs are one of the most popular environmental initiatives ; in the USA, 80% of

the colleges and universities have institutionalized waste programs (Allen, 1999). These programs

are based on waste characterization studies. One characterization study carried out at Brown

University revealed that the 45% of the wastes generated in that institution were recyclables.

Brown University has had a waste management program since 1972 and at present recycles 31%

of its wastes (Brown University, 2004). Other examples are those at Colorado State University and

at the University of Florida which recycle 53% and 30%, respectively (UF Sustainability Task

Force, 2002). Some universities such as Rutgers University and Brown University as a part of

their waste management endeavors organise their foods waste to local farmers who convert it to

food for their domestic animals (UF Sustainability Task Force, 2002). It is made compulsory in

the USA that every learning citadels consider the concept of wastes and its recycling strategies.

A paper amongst others that explains results of waste management programs in universities of

developing countries is the one written by Mbuligwe (2002). This author reported a waste

recovery potential of 71% in three institutions of higher education in Tanzania. Mbuligwe also

mentions that, in an unofficial manner, the institutions studied practice reutilization of food waste

by delivering it to cattle growers who use the waste as animal feed. This practice reduces the

expenses for waste management significantly.

In Mexico, it is known that many universities have waste management programs. The Tecnológico

de Monterrey began a waste program in 1992, and since then variable amounts of aluminum and

paper have been recycled (Tecnológico de Monterrey, 2007), but no reported data exists

concerning the percentage of diverted recyclables from the total waste stream. Other Mexican

institutions such as ITAM, UNAM and the University of Guadalajara are reported to have waste

management programs but no data reported as regard the composition of the waste or the

recycling power in the institutions were seen.

21
A report on solid waste composition of the Research Center of Advanced Studies-Mérida

(CINVESTAV) was the only published report in Mexican Universities which one from

Maldonado result of a characterization study in (2006) . The institution reduced the size or

composition of waste disposed in the landfill by 67% and this represented great savings to the

institution was a fact from a author through a waste segregation program in 2003 (Maldonado,

2006) .

Waste composition was suggested to be researched and documented because of lack of

organization in the Mexican universities so that necessary data to propose better handling and

management alternatives for solid waste will be realised. In this sense, the primary aim of this

paper is to reduce the gap between the need for this type of study and the demands imposed by the

recent Mexican regulations for solid waste. The quantity, quality and recycling potential of waste

generated in one of the four campuses of the universities was the main aim of the study. The data

generated by this research would produce the necessary information to set up an integrated waste

management programs.

Industrial waste originates from businesses that are engaged in agriculture, resource extraction, or

manufacturing. Businesses that have Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes ranging from

01

to 40 (at the 2-digit level of detail) are classified as industrial for this purpose. Field Crops, Berries

& Vegetables, Livestock, Mining, Construction, Paper, Logging, Food Manufacturing, Etc...

2.5. Commercial & Institutional Waste

Subsectors of industrial waste include groupings of similar businesses based on SIC code. For

example, one such grouping is the mining sub sector of industry, which is defined to include

businesses with SIC codes starting with the digits 10, 12, 13, or 14. sent to landfill commercially

22
hauled self- hauled disposed in other ways beneficial use, recycling, recovery restaurants

commercially hauled disposed in other ways government facilities retail food stores wholesale

trade retail trade stores medical & health services finance, insurance & real estate construction and

demolition waste (abbreviated as C&D waste) is a subsector of industrial waste that often merits

special attention, even if a waste characterization study is not designed to focus on other sub

sectors of industrial waste. C&D waste is produced during building, remodeling, demolition, and

sometimes Land clearing activities, and it represents a major portion of waste that is disposed at

landfills and through other methods. C&D waste is disposed in high quantities and is composed of

different materials than are found in other types of waste. It often contains materials that are

highly recoverable.

2.6. List and definitions of materials

PAPER

Newspaper: Printed groundwood newsprint, including glossy ads and Sunday edition magazines

that are delivered with the newspaper (unless these are found separately during sorting).

Cardboard: Unwaxed Kraft paper corrugated containers and boxes, unless poly- or foil laminated.

Note that this material includes brown Kraft paper bags.

Other Groundwood: Other products made from groundwood paper, including phone books,

paperback books, and egg cartons.

High-Grade Paper: High-grade white or light-colored bond and copy machine papers and

envelopes, and continuous-feed computer printouts and forms of all types, except multiple-copy

carbonless paper.

Magazines: Magazines, catalogs, and similar products with glossy paper.

23
Mixed / Low-Grade Paper: Low-grade recyclable papers, including colored papers, notebook or

other lined paper, envelopes with plastic windows, non-corrugated paperboard, carbonless copy

paper, poly coated paperboard packaging, and junk mail.

Compostable: Paper cups, pizza boxes and papers that can be composted such as paper towels,

tissues, paper plates, and waxed cardboard. This material includes all paper that is contaminated or

soiled with food or liquid in its normal use.

Residual / Composite Paper: Non-recyclable and non-compostable types of papers such as carbon

paper and hardcover books, and composite materials such as paper packaging with metal or plastic

parts.

Processing Sludges, Other Industrial: Paper-based materials from industrial sources that do not

easily fit into the above materials, such as sludges.

PLASTIC

PET Bottles: Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles, including soda, oil, liquor, and other types

of bottles. No attempt will be made to remove base cups, caps, or wrappers, although these

materials will be categorized separately if received separately. The SPI code for PET is 1.

HDPE Bottles, Clear: High density polyethylene (HDPE) milk and other bottles that are not

colored. The SPI code for HDPE is 2.

A-1 HDPE Bottles, Pigmented: High density polyethylene (HDPE) juice, detergent, and other

bottles that are colored. The SPI code for HDPE is 2.

Film and Bags: All plastic packaging films and bags. To be counted as this material, the material

must be flexible (i.e., can be bent without making a noise).

Bottles Types 3 - 7: All bottles that are not PET or HDPE, where the neck of the container is

narrower than the body. Includes SPI codes 3 - 7.

24
Expanded Polystyrene: Packaging and finished products made of expanded polystyrene. The SPI

code for polystyrene (PS) is 6.

Other Rigid Plastic Packaging: All plastic packaging that is not a bottle and is not film or bag.

Other Plastic Products: Finished plastic products such as toys, toothbrushes, vinyl hose, and

shower curtains. In cases where there is a large amount of a single type of product, the name of the

product should be noted on the data collection form.

Residual / Composite Plastic: Other types of plastic that are not one of the above materials and

items that are composites of plastic and other materials.

ORGANICS

Yard, Garden and Prunings: grass clippings, leaves and weeds, and prunings six inches or less in

diameter.

Food Waste: Food waste and scraps, including bones, rinds, etc., and including the food container

when the container weight is not appreciable compared to the food inside.

Manures: Animal manures and human feces, including kitty litter and any materials contaminated

with manures and feces.

Disposable Diapers: disposable baby diapers and protective undergarments for adults (including

feminine hygiene products).

Carcasses, Offal: Carcasses and pieces of small and large animal, unless the item is the result of

food preparation in a household or commercial setting. For instance, fish or chicken entrails from

food preparation and raw, plucked chickens will typically be classified as food, not as an animal

carcass, unless the material is from an agricultural or industrial source.

Crop Residues: Vegetative materials that are left over from growing crops, and that are treated as

a waste.

Septage: The liquid or semi-liquid material removed from septic tanks.

25
Residual / Composite Organics: Other organics that do not easily fit into the above materials, must

note identity of whatever material is placed in this material.

A-2 WOOD WASTES

Natural Wood: Wood that is not been processed, including stumps of trees and shrubs, with the

adhering soil (if any), and other natural woods, such as logs and branches in excess of six inches

in diameter.

Treated Wood: Wood treated with preservatives such as creosote, CCA and ACQ. This includes

dimensional lumber and posts if treated, but does not include painted or varnished wood. This

material may also include some plywood (especially “marine plywood”), strand board, and other

wood.

Painted Wood: Wood that has been painted, varnished, or coated in similar ways.

Dimensional Lumber: wood commonly used in construction for framing and related uses,

including 2 x 4’s, 2 x 6’s and posts/headers (4x8’s, etc.).

Engineered: Building materials that have been manufactured and that generally include adhesive

as one or more layers. Examples include plywood (sheets of wood built up of two or more veneer

sheets glued or cemented together under pressure), particle board (wood chips pressed together to

form large sheets or boards), fiberboard (like particle board but with fibers), “glulam” beams and

boards (built up from dimensional or smaller lumber), and similar products.

Packaging: Partial or whole pallets, crates, and similar shipping containers.

Other Untreated Wood: Other types of wood products and materials that do not fit into the above

materials, excluding composite materials (See Residual / Composite Wood, below).

Wood Byproducts: Sawdust and shavings, not otherwise identifiable.

Residuals/ Composite Wood: Items that consist primarily of wood but that do not fit into the

above materials, including composite materials that consist primarily (over 50%) of wood.

26
Examples of composites include wood with sheetrock nailed to it or with tiles glued to it (such

that the materials cannot be easily separated).

CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION AND LAND CLEARING (CDL) WASTES

Insulation: Include all pad, roll, or blown-in types of insulation. Do not include expanded

polystyrene.

Asphalt: Asphalt paving material.

Concrete: Cement (mixed or unmixed), concrete blocks, and similar wastes.

Drywall: uSed or new gypsum wallboard, sheetrock or drywall present in recoverable amounts or

pieces (generally any piece larger than two inches square will be recovered from the sample).

Soil, Rocks and Sand: Rock, gravel, soil, sand and similar naturally-occurring materials.

A3 Roofing Waste: Asphalt and fiberglass shingles, tar paper, and similar wastes from demolition

or installation of roofs. Does not include wooden shingle or shakes.

Ceramics: Includes clay, porcelain bricks, and tiles, such as used toilets, sinks, and bricks of

various types and sizes.

Residual / Composite C&D: Other construction and demolition materials that do not fit easily

into the above materials or that are composites made up of two or more different materials.

GLASS

● Clear Beverage Glass

● Green Beverage Glass

Brown Beverage Glass: These are three separate materials for glass beverage bottles and jars that

are clear, green, or brown in color. Note that blue glass will be included with brown glass.

● Other Glass Containers – Clear

● Other Glass Containers – Green

1. Other Glass Containers - Brown: These are three separate materials for glass bottles and

27
jars that are clear, green, or brown in color. Note that blue glass will be included with brown

glass.

Plate Glass: Flat glass products such as windows, mirrors, and flat products.

Residual / Composite Glass: Other types of glass products and scrap that do not fit into the

above materials, including light bulbs, glassware, and non-C&D fiberglass. Note that

ceramics (plates and knickknacks) will not be included here but will be placed in “Non-Glass

Ceramics” below.

Non-glass Ceramics: Ceramics not composed of true glass and not typically used as

building materials. Examples include Pyrex, dishes, etc.

METAL

Aluminum Cans: Aluminum beverage cans.

Aluminum Foil / Containers: Aluminum foil, food trays, and similar items.

Other Aluminum: Aluminum scrap and products that do not fit into the above two materials.

Copper: Copper scrap and products, excluding composites such as electrical wire.

Other Non-Ferrous Metals: Metallic products and pieces that are not aluminum or copper

and not derived from iron (see “other ferrous”) and which are not significantly contaminated

with other metals or materials (see “Residual / Composite Metal”).

A-4 Tin Cans: tin-coated steel food containers. This material includes bi-metal beverage cans,

but not paint cans or other types of cans.

White Goods: Large household appliances or parts thereof. Special note should be taken if

any of these are found still containing refrigerant.

Other Ferrous: Products and pieces made from metal to which a magnet will adhere (but

including stainless steel), and which are not significantly contaminated with other metals or

materials (in the latter case, the item will instead be included under “Residual / Composite

28
Metal”). This material will include paint and other non-food “tin cans”, as well as aerosol

cans.

Residual / Composite Metal: Items made of a mixture of ferrous and non-ferrous or a mixture

of metal and non-metallic materials (as long as these are primarily metal). Examples include

small appliances, motors, and insulated wire.

CONSUMER PRODUCTS

Computers: Computers and parts of computers, including monitors, base units, keyboards, other

accessories, and laptops.

Other Electronics: Other appliances and products that contain circuit boards and other electronic

components (as a significant portion of the product), such as televisions, microwave ovens, and

similar products.

Textiles, Synthetic: Cloth, clothing, and rope made of synthetic materials.

Textiles, Organic: Cloth, clothing, and rope made of 100% cotton, leather, wool, or other

naturally-occurring fibers. Composites of several different naturally-occurring fibers (such as a

wool jacket with a cotton liner) can be included in this material, but not if the item has zippers or

buttons made from a different material. The working guideline for this material should whether

the item could be composted without leaving an identifiable residue or part.

Textiles, Mixed or Unknown: Cloth, clothing, and rope made of unknown fibers or made from

a mixture of synthetic and natural materials, or containing non-textile parts such as metal

zippers or plastic buttons.

Shoes: All shoes and boots, whether made of leather, rubber, other materials, or a

combination thereof.

Tires and Other Rubber: Vehicle tires of all types, including bicycle tires and including the

rims if present, and finished products and scrap materials made of rubber, such as bath

29
mats, inner tubes, rubber hose, and foam rubber (except carpet padding, see below).

Furniture and Mattresses: Furniture and mattresses made of various materials and in any

condition.

Carpet: Pieces of carpet and rugs made of similar material.

Carpet Padding: Foam rubber and other materials used as padding under carpets.

A5 Rejected Products: For industrial samples only, various products that failed internal QA/QC

tests.

Returned Products: For industrial samples only, various products that were returned by the

consumer who purchased the item.

Other Composite: This is a catch-all material for objects consisting of more than onematerial.

RESIDUALS

Ash: Fireplace, burn barrel or fire pit ash, as well as boiler and ash from industrial sources.

Dust: Baghouse and other dusts from industrial sources, as well as bags of vacuum cleaner dust.

Fines / Sorting Residues: Mixed waste that remains on the sorting table after all the materials that

can practicably be removed have been sorted out. This material will consist primarily of small

pieces of various types of paper and plastic, but will also contain small pieces of broken glass and

other materials. May also include material less than one-half inch in diameter that falls through a

bottom screen during sorting, for those using sorting boxes with screens, and if the material cannot

otherwise be identified.

Sludges and Other Special Industrial Wastes: Sludges and other wastes from industrial sources

that cannot easily be fit into any of the above material. Can include liquids and semi-solids but

only if these materials are treated as a solid waste.

30
CHAPTER THREE

3.0. METHODOLOGY

The method adopted in Solid waste characterization and recycling potential for a university

campus by Carolina Armijo de Vega ​et al ​(2008) will be adopted in this project work.

The study on solid waste in the Landmark University Campus consists of three main stages:

1. Estimate of the daily solid waste generation,

2. Solid waste sampling and characterization of samples, and

3. Data capture and analysis of the amounts and types of wastes generated at the Campus.

3.1. Estimate of the daily solid waste generation

Based on the fact that before this study, no data on solid waste generation within the campus had

ever been kept in Landmark University, this information has to be an estimate.

The estimate of daily generation will be carried out based on the weight of solid waste collected

by the waste bins placed at different locations on campus. To determine the weight of the solid

waste generated, the total quantity of wastes generated on campus shall be collected and

computed. First the weight of the empty bins/trucks will be known. The difference between the

weight of the full truck and the empty truck will provide the weight of the load. Later, on 45

different occasions, the truck/bin will be weighed with the full cargo of solid waste from the

campus. That information will be used to calculate the average weight of each load. With the

31
information on the average weight of the loaded truck and the number of times a week the truck

was filled with Landmark University’s solid waste, it will be possible to estimate the daily

generation.

3.2. Sampling and characterization of the sample

The samples will be taken from the three different zones of the university:

1. Residential

2. Administrative, and.

3. the Utility zones.

These three zones are representative because they cover all the activities carried out on the

campus. The characterization of the solid waste will be carried out using the modified

methodology for the characterization of household waste proposed by Buenrostro-Delgado (2001).

Samples will be taken during consecutive days (excluding Sundays) ; the samples on the first 2

days will be trial samplings. This trial sampling will help to unify criteria for data collection and

for the identification of the solid waste. The results from the solid waste analyzed during the

following days are the ones that will be reported.

3.3. Area of the Study

This work will be carried out in the Utility zone of the University. And these include, The

University Chapel including Bank area, Cafeteria, Pure water factory and Bakery.

These wastes shall be categorised accordingly.

32
Table 3.3. Zoning of Landmark University for the cause of the present study together with the

wastes type dominant.

Zones Wastes type dominant

University Chapel (Bank Area) Furnitures, Papers and Cardboards

Cafeteria Food wastes, bottles

Pure water factory Nylon

Bakery Food waste and nylons

3.4. Instruments for Data Collection

The instrument for data collection for the study shall be through structured questionnaire and

consistent area visitation. A large waste bin shall be placed at different locations for the time

period of study, these wastes shall be gathered in liaise with the campus cleaners and it will be

separated accordingly. Table 3.3. After separating the wastes, a weighing balance from Civil

Engineering laboratory will be used to weigh the wastes. The weight of the empty bin shall be

taken first (W1), and the weight of waste when placed in bin (W2).

33
3.4.1. Primary data.

Field survey was conducted at the early stage of the study in the residential area (i.e. the student

hostels, staff quarters), utility/commercial area (i.e. the cafeteria, Bakery, Chapel etc.) and the

Administrative area (i.e. college buildings, senate building etc.). This was carried out to identify

the solid waste generation in the study area. Waste generation in the study area was determined by

collecting the daily waste from the buildings in the area, sorting them according to their

components: i) E-waste, ii) glass & ceramics, iii) leather, iv) can, jar, tin & metals, v) polythene,

rubber & plastic vi) organic waste (vegetable & food), vii) paper, books & printed materials, viii)

sanitary waste, ix) textile & rags, x) wood & leaves, xi) dirt & stones (A.E. Adeniran, A.T. Nubi,

A.O. Adelopo, 2017), (Hossain Md L, Das SR, Rubaiyat A, Salam MA, Uddin MdK, Hossain

MK. , 2013), (Salam MA, Hossain Md L, Das SR, Wahab R, Hossain MK., 2012), (Sujauddin M,

Huda SMS, Hoque ATMR., 2008), (Hossain Md L, Das SR, Rubaiyat A, Salam MA, Uddin MdK,

Hossain MK. , 2013), weighing same and recording. The total waste generated can be determined

by adding the weight of all components. This analysis was carried out for 5 days (Monday,

Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday) in the study area. Questionnaires were also

administered.

3.4.2. Secondary data.

The principal sources of the secondary data for this study were obtained through

1. The review of relevant literature, use of resources from text books, website pages and

journals.

2. Relevant official administrative documents of the University were also consulted.

34
3. Interviews with the staffs of the University’s Physical Planning and Development

department and the Corporate Affairs department.

3.5. Data recording and analysis

The weight of each category of waste will be recorded in a database. The database will be

structured with the categories and subcategories. The weight percentage for each subcategory will

be calculated using the following equation:

PS = ( PP TL ) × 100 (2)

where PS (SP) is the subcategory percentage, PL is the amount of subcategory in kg, and PT is the

total weight of sample in kg.

Table 3.5. Weight of Wastes

Solid Wastes Weight (Kg)

Nylons

Bottles

Papers

Cardboards

Vegetables (Food waste)

Furnitures

35
After obtaining the weight and, in order to find out the recycling potential of the waste, each

subcategory will be classified.

3.5.1. Equipments for Sampling and sorting Solid Wastes

1. Laundry baskets Safety glasses

2. Boots Sorting tables

3. Gloves Clipboards

4. Hard hats Hand warmers

5. Orange safety vests Hand wipes

6. Stapler Calculator

7. Duct tape Rain gear

8. Shovels Safety vests

9. Broom 96-gallon toters

10. Scale First aid kit

11. Dust masks 2-way radio to communicate with surveyor.

3.6. Primary Data Collection

Utility zone of Landmark University was selected for the present study. The research is based on

primary as well as secondary data gathered from the respective sources.

Solid Waste Management: In order to understand the status of Solid Waste Management System,

starting from collection to disposal of waste, data were gathered from different zones by making

36
repeated visits to different solid waste collection points. In addition to this, an effort was made to

study the type of solid wastes (both biodegradable and non-degradable) .

A pre-designed format was used for collecting data. The information was sought on:

Solid Waste Management (Primary and Secondary Generation and Management)

I. Collection strategies

II. Treatment

III. Recycling Mechanism, and

IV. SWOT Analysis (Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) .

People’s Perceptions on Solid Waste Management

In order to gather the information on existing household solid waste management practices and

peoples’ perception on the efficacy of present SWM system, household survey was carried out in

twenty-five wards of Shimla city. For evaluating the general attitude of the respondents regarding

the prevailing waste management system and cost effectiveness, a sample size of 250 respondents

was selected from twenty-five words to represent the target population. Ten households were

selected from each ward through non-proportional random sampling. In order to get the

information on residents’ attitude and perception the data collection was done by administering

the semi-structured questionnaire

(Annexure II), personal interviews and Focused Group Discussion (FGD). The questionnaire was

divided into four parts, which sought information with regard to:

Part I: Socio-economic Particulars of the Respondents School of Biological and Environmental

Sciences.

Part II: Attitude of Respondents on Solid Waste Management

Part III: Respondents’ Opinion and Perception on Solid Waste Management System

Part IV: Respondents’ Willingness to Pay for Good Management Practice

37
In order to evaluate the strength of the respondents’ opinion, the questionnaire was prepared

according to the Likert Scale (Uebersax, 2006). The respondents were given several statements on

which they expressed their options as strongly disagree (0), disagree (1), neutral (2), agree (3) and

strongly agree (4). The collected data was then examined using statistical tools for simple

percentages and frequency analysis.

In order to evaluate the general attitude of the respondents regarding waste collection, disposal

and efficacy of the present SWM system adopted by SMC, questions were grouped as follows:

Group (1): People’s perception regarding the collection and disposal of solid waste.

Group (2): Willingness to pay for the services provided by SMC.

On the point scale, the ratings given to each group is as follows: - strongly disagree (0), disagree

(1), neutral (2), agree (3) and strongly agree (4). For the ease of elucidation, each rating was given

denotation as: Strongly disagree (SD) Disagree (D) Neutral (N) Agree (A) Strongly Agree (SA).

E. Analysis of MSW Samples for Composition and Characteristics

In order to characterize the solid waste generated in Shimla city, detailed survey ofarea under

Municipal Corporation was undertaken for three consecutive years, i.e. 2011 to 2013. Solid waste

was collected from different zones, i.e., residential, commercial and mixed zone. The total

quantity of waste so collected, was thoroughly mixed and reduced by the method of quartering till

a sample of reasonable size was obtained, which could be easily handled in a laboratory. The

sample so obtained was subjected to physical and chemical analysis. Samples collected for

physical and chemical analysis were packed in plastic bags, sealed and taken to the laboratory for

analysis. The various physical and chemical parameters, which were analyzed, are:

I. Physical Characterization: In order to determine the physical characteristic of Municipal Solid

Waste, samples were collected from said zones. The samples were collected by taking ten grab

samples of roughly one kilogram each from different depths of the dumps. The grab samples were

38
then mixed thoroughly. The mixed sample was then physically analyzed for its composition such

as paper, plastic, glass, and metals and expressed as % of total sample weight.

II. Chemical Characterization: Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) generated varies in quality as well

as in quantity depending on different parameters like- lifestyles of community, locality, climatic

conditions, etc. The chemical characteristics of solid waste also show seasonal variation.

3.7. Secondary Data Collection

The secondary data was collected from relevant published and unpublished literature by visiting

different libraries, Internet, government departments, academic and research institutions. Other

secondary sources include journals, reports, for instance, School of Biological and Environmental

Sciences.

The 2011 census survey was used for certain indicators, including the demographic profile. In

order to collect the secondary sources visits were made to the institutional libraries. The data

collected from various sources used in the study have been duly acknowledged.

3.8. SWOT Analysis

SWOT analysis has been carried out to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, threats and

opportunities linked with Solid Waste Management carried out in Landmark University.

The assistance of Project Planning Development was sought for conduction of SWOT analysis.

39
REFERENCES

A.E. Adeniran ​et al, ​(2017), Solid waste generation and characterization in the University of

Lagos for a sustainable waste management.

Ahmed MF, Rahman MM. Solid Waste Management: Water Supply & Sanitation - Rural and low

Income Urban Communities. ITN-Bangladesh, Centre for Water Supply and Waste

Management, BUET, Dhaka, Bangladesh with contribution from IRC, International

Water and Sanitation Centre, Delft, The Netherlands, 2000

Armijo et al., (2003), (cited in Solid waste characterization and recycling potential for a university

campus).

Anon. Urbanization. In: Rahman, A., Ali, M.A and Chowdhury, F. (eds). People’s report on

Bangladesh Environment. The University Press Limited, Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh. 2001,

PP. 195-220.

Asraf, (1994), (cited in Hossain et al. (2013), Solid waste generation, characteristics and disposal

at Chittagong university campus, Chittagong, Bangladesh).

Barton et al. (2008), (cited in Hossain et al. (2013) Solid waste generation, characteristics and

disposal at Chittagong university campus, Chittagong, Bangladesh).

40
Brown University, 2004. Brown Recycling Program. Brown is Green.

<​http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Brown_Is_Green/waste/recysum.html​>.

Buenrostro-Delgado, (2001), (cited in Solid waste characterization and recycling potential for a

university campus).

Carolina Armijo de Vega ​et al, ​(2008) Solid waste characterization and recycling potential for a

university campus.

Culler, W.W., 2003. State Agencies, Colleges and Universities Waste Reduction, Recycling and

Buy Recycled. 2002 Annual Report. SC Department of Health and Environmental

Control. Office of Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling. South Carolina, USA.

Frosch, (1996), (cited in Hossain et al. (2013), Solid waste generation, characteristics and disposal

at Chittagong university campus, Chittagong, Bangladesh).

Hossain et al. (2013), Solid waste generation, characteristics and disposal at Chittagong

university campus, Chittagong, Bangladesh.

M.A. Rahman ​et al, (2013), Solid Waste Generation, Characteristics and Disposal at Chittagong

University Campus, Chittagong, Bangladesh.

Maldonado, (2006), (cited in Solid waste characterization and recycling potential for a university

campus).

Moghadam MRA, Mokhtarani N, Mokhtarani B. Municipal solid waste management in Rasht

City, Iran. Waste Management, 2009, 29(1), 485–9

Okeniyi, Joshua Olusegun and Anwan, Ebietudube Udonwan, J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 3 (2) (2012)

419-424, (2012), Solid Wastes Generation in Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria.

Prof. Okoli, (2017) Solid Wastes Management. Lecture handout, Civil Engineering, Landmark

University.

41
Salam et al. (2012), (cited in Hossain et al. (2013), Solid waste generation, characteristics and

disposal at Chittagong university campus, Chittagong, Bangladesh).

SECOFI, 1985. Official Mexican Standards approved by the Committee of Environmental

Protection, México.

SEMARNAT, 2003. General Law for Waste Prevention and Integrated Management. Diario

Oficial de la Federación, Mexico.

S. Barles, (2008) World Environmental History (undated), ​History of Waste Management and The

Social and Cultural Representations of Waste​. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems

(EOLSS).

Shah, K.L., 2000. Basics of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Technology. Prentice Hall,

Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.

Tecnológico de Monterrey, 2007. Sustainable Campus. Campus Operations. Wastes and

Recycling. <http://campus-sostenible.mty.itesm.mx/ingles/operacion/residuos.html>.

UF (University of Florida) Sustainability Task Force, 2002. Final Report. UF Office of

Sustainability, USA. <www.sustainable.ufl.edu>.

UNDESA. Agenda 21- Chapter 21 Environmentally Sound Management of Solid Waste and

Sewage- related Issue, Division for Sustainable Development, United Nations

Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2005.

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda​ 21/index.htm.

Wilson et al. 2006 ; Kapepula et al. (2007); Sharholy et al. (2008), from Solid waste generation,

characteristics and disposal at Chittagong university campus, Chittagong, Bangladesh.

World Bank What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia, Washington DC, USA. 1999, 43

42
43

You might also like