analysis of the management of household hazardous … nchedo n… · analysis of the management of...
TRANSCRIPT
ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE IN ENUGU METROPOLIS
BY
UBACHUKWU NCHEDO NNEDINMA
PG/M.SC/06/41004
A project submitted to the Department of Geography. University of Nigeria, Nsukka, in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Geography
October 2010
CERTIFICATION
Miss Ubachukwu Nchedo Nnedinma a Post graduate student in the department of geography,
specializing in Environmental Management has satisfactorily completed the requirements for
course and research work for the degree of Master of Science (M.Sc) in Geography. The work
embodied in this project is original and has not been submitted in part or full for any other
diploma or degree of this or any other University
Dr P.O Phil-Eze Prof.Olusegun Ekande
(Supervisor) (External Examiner)
Dr. P.O Phil-Eze
( Head of Department of Geography)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements … … … … … vii
List of Figures … … … … … viii
List of Tables … … … … … x
List of Plates … … … … … xi
Abstract … … …. … … xii
Acronyms … …. …. …. … … …. …. …. xiii
Chapter One: INTRODUCTION … … … … 1
1.1 Background of study … … … … … 1
1.2 Statement of Research Problem … … … … 3
1.3 Aim and Objectives of the Research … … … 4
1.4 The Study Area … … … … … 6
1.5 Literature Review … … … … … 11
1.6 Research Methodology … … … … 19
1.7 Plan of the Project. … … … … … 25
Chapter Two: IDENTIFICATION PROPERTIES, AND CHARACTERIZATION
OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
IN ENUGU METROPOLIS. … … 26
2.1 Identification of Waste and Their Effects on Health and Environment … 26
2.2 Characterisation of Types of Household Hazardous Waste in Enugu Metropolis 28
2.3 Properties of Household Hazardous Waste … … … 31
Chapter Three: ANAYSIS OF THE AWARENESS OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS
WASTEON ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, & DISPOSAL ISSUES IN
ENUGU METROPOLIS … … 33
3.1 Level of Awareness of Analysis of Household Hazardous Waste in Enugu Metropolis 33
3.2 The Principal Component Analysis of the Level of Awareness of Household Hazardous
Waste in Enugu Metropolis Factor … … … … … … 41
Chapter Four: GENERATION AND SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE IN ENUGUMETROPOLIS …
4.1Spatial Pattern and Distribution of Household Hazardous Waste in the Study Area 47
4.2 Analysis of Frequency of Generation of Household Hazardous Waste in Enugu Metropolis. 59
4.3 Socio-Economic factors influencing Household Hazardous Waste
Generation in EnuguMetropolis … … … … 67
4.4 Temporal Frequency of Generation and Disposal Methods of Household Hazardous …
Waste in Study area. … … … … 73
Chapter Five: MANAGEMENT OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS
WASTE IN ENUGU METROPOLIS … 76
5.1 Current issues on Household Hazardous Waste in Enugu Metropolis … 76
5.2 Problems of Household Hazardous Waste disposal and Handling … 79
Chapter Six: RECOMMENDATIONS, SUMMARY OF FINDINGS,
AND CONCLUSION. … … … …. …. … … 81
6.1 Strategies for Effective Household Hazardous Waste Management … 81
6.2 Summary of Findings … … … … 84
6.3 Conclusion. … … … … 85
REFERENCES … … … … 86
APPENDICES … … … … 93
A. Questionnaire … … … … 93
B. Analysis of Variance … … … … 101
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to the Almighty God my Ever Present Help.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am most thankful to Almighty God for His Inspiration and sustenance and for giving me the
enabling grace and wisdom to execute this research work. I remain grateful and indebted to my
supervisor, Dr. P.O Phil-Eze, for his advice, criticisms, suggestion, encouragement, support and
inspiration kept me steadfast and devoted to complete this work. My profound gratitude to the
management of ESWAMA, Enugu State for their help.
My special thanks go to my entire family especially my parents Engr. And Mrs F.U. Ubachukwu
for their love, prayers, understanding, patience and unreserved support (financially and
otherwise) which made my ambition a reality. My siblings, for their encouragement and prayers I
love you all. Finally to my good friends for their help during the data collection and typing of the
work I remain forever grateful, and to all my friends who in one way or the other have
contributed to make this research work a success God bless you all.
October, 2010. Nchedo Nnedinma Ubachukwu
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1-Map of Enugu State Showing Enugu Metropolis … … … … 7
Fig. 2- Enugu Metropolis … … … … … … … … 21
Fig 3- Enugu metropolis Showing Sampled Layouts … … … … 22
Fig 4- Frequency Distribution of HHW Generated in the Study Area … … 49
Fig 5-Frequency of HHW generation among the study area … … … 49
Fig 6-Spatial Distribution of Paints generation in Enugu Metropolis … 51
Fig 7- Spatial Distribution of Garden Chemicals Generation in Enugu Metropolis 52
Fig 8- Spatial Distribution of Motoring Products Generation in Enugu Metropolis 54
Fig 9-Spatial Distribution of Household Batteries Generation in Enugu Metropolis 55
Fig 10- Spatial Distribution of Electrical/ Electronic Waste Generation in Enugu Metropolis
… …. …. …. …. …. …. …. … … 56
Fig 11- Spatial Distribution of Medical Waste Generation in Enugu Metropolis … 57
Fig 12- Spatial Distribution of Household Glasses Generation in Enugu Metropolis 58
Fig 13-HHW generated in Abakpa … … … … … … … 60
Fig 14-HHW generated in Achara Layout … … … … … 60
Fig 15-HHW generated in Asata … … … … … … … 61
Fig 16-HHW generated in Iva valley … … … … … … 62
Fig 17-HHW generated in Awkunanaw … … … … … … 62
Fig 18-HHW generated in G.R.A. … … … … … … … 63
Fig 19-HHW generated in Independence Layout … … … … … 64
Fig 20- HHW generated in New Haven … … … … … … 64
Fig 21-HHW generated in Ogui … … … … … … … 65
Fig 22- HHW generated in Uwani … … … … … … … 65
Fig 23- Dwelling type in the Study Area. … … … … … … 69
Fig 24- Average Income Levels of Respondents … … … … … … 70
Fig 25- Household Size in the Study Area. … … … … … … 71
Fig 26- Temporal Frequency of generation of HHW … … … … 74
Fig 27- Disposal Methods of HHW … … … … … … … 75
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Household Hazardous Waste Categories in Enugu Metropolis … …. 28
Table 2: Absolute and Relative Frequency Distribution of Reponses on the Level of Public
Awareness of HHW in Enugu Metropolis … … 34
Table 3: Corelation Matrix of Household Hazardous Waste Awareness … … 42
Table 4: PCA of the level of awareness of Household Hazardous Waste.… …. ... 44
Table 5: The Relative Strength of the Underlying Dimension of the attributes that determine
theLevel of Awareness of HHW in Enugu Metropolis. … … … 46
Table 6: Frequency of Quarterly Generation of HHW in Enugu Metropolis … … 48
Table 7: Analysis of Variance of the Extent of HHW Generatedin Enugu Metropolis … 66
Table 8: Relationship between HHW and Dwelling types in Enugu Metropolis … 68
Table 9: Relationship between HHW Generation and Income in the Study Area … 69
Table10: Relationship between HHW and Household Size Distribution in the Study Area 71
Table11: Other Socio- Economic Parameters … … … … 72
Table 12: Temporal Frequency of HHW Generation in Enugu Metropolis… … 73
Table 13: Frequency of Disposal in Enugu Metropolis ….. …. …. 74
Table 14: Problems of HHW Disposal and Handling in Enugu Metropolis … … 80
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1: ESWAMA Dump-stars in Enugu Metropolis … … … … 77
Plate 2: Vehicle conveying Waste to the Landfill site in Enugu Metropolis … … ...77
Plate3: The Ugwuaji Landfill Site for Enugu Metropolis … … … … ..78
Plate4: Recyclable HHW Materials at the landfill site … … … … . 79
ABSTRACT
This study is an analysis of Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) management in Enugu
Metropolis. The properties of HHW was discussed, their dangers to health, and the environment
were examined. The types of HHW generated in Enugu Metropolis were identified. Structured
questionnaires were used to collect data in the households, and oral interviews were conducted in
the Enugu State Waste Management Agency (ESWAMA). The data generated was analyzed
using bar charts, percentages, Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) and Maps. The result of our analysis shows that the level of public awareness on the
effects of improper HHW management in the study area was low. PCA identified four
components that explained the attributes of the level of awareness of HHW in the study area,
which are disposal problems, poor handling, environmental and health problems. ANOVA
indicated the existence of a significant difference in the extent of generation of the different
types of HHW among the different layouts in the study area. From the spatio-temporal analysis
of HHW generation and disposal, it was found that home cleaning products had the highest
frequency of generation of HHW and paints had the least frequency of generation. Maps were
used to depict the spatial distribution of HHW in the study area. We found that HHW was highly
generated in G.R.A which accounted for 13.1% of HHW followed by New Haven (12.7%) and
the least was in Achara Layout(8%), followed by Awkunanaw (8.3%) in the study area.Finally,
based on our findings, we suggested strategies that the government, ESWAMA, and
householders should employ in HHW management in Enugu Metropolis such as; establishing an
agency that will manage HHW; awareness creation on the management of HHW, amnesty
collection, and recycling among others.
ACRONYMS
ANAMCO- Anambra Motor Manufacturing Company
ANOVA- Analysis of Variance
DOC-Drop-Off Centre
ENSEPA- Enugu State Sanitary Landfill
ESWAMA – Enugu State Waste Management Agency
FEPA- Federal Environment Protection Agency
G.R.A- Government Reserved Area
HHW- Household Hazardous Waste
Ind. Layout- Independence Layout
LGA-Local Government Area
MSW- Municipal Solid Waste
NHHF- National Household Hazardous Waste Forum
NPC-National Population Commission
TCA- Trichoroethane
TCE- Trichoroethylene
WEEE-Waste Electrical Electronic Equipment
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) is the discarded, unused or leftover portions of hazardous household
products which are poisonous, toxic, flammable, caustic, corrosive, reactive, explosive, and radioactive or
a combination of these characteristics.
Most homes are extremely overloaded with household hazardous chemicals, most of which
perpetually leak volatile gases and other nasty residues into indoor air. Many of these household chemical
products contain the very same toxic waste components found in the majority of common waste sites. It is
estimated that more than 70,000 chemicals are commonly utilized for a wide variety of purposes
including production of household products (Connell, Lam Richardson, and Wu, 1999). Gatke (2003)
defined HHW as a household waste that is toxic, flammable, reactive or corrosive.
Household Hazardous Waste is a term used to describe hazardous waste entering the municipal waste
stream from homes. It represents a variety of waste types classified together based on the possession of
hazardous properties (Slack, Gronow and Voulvoulis, 2008a). The UK-based National Household
Hazardous Waste Forum (NHHWF) describes HHW as “any material discarded by a household which is
difficult to dispose of, or which puts human health or the environment at risk because of its chemical or
biological nature” (National Household Hazardous Waste Forum, 1999). Slack, Gronow, Voulvoulis
(2004) have described the HHW stream as generally poorly quantified due to a combination of poor
definition (of component wastes) and through a perception that it is too small to be significant .
Household Hazardous Waste has for many years been seen as a waste stream of low significance
compared to other more problematic wastes. However, the changes that have been wrought on the
management of waste in recent years have pushed HHW more into the foreground, exposing many issues
that need to be resolved. In U.K, the separate collection of individual waste streams that comprise
municipal solid waste (MSW), principally paper/card, glass, tins/cans and putrescible waste categories,
have more recently highlighted the presence of potential hazardous wastes in the residual household waste
stream. Also, the withdrawal of a number of chemicals from use in households (e.g. creosote, various
pesticides including dichlorprop and resmethrin, CCA-treated timber, etc) have raised the profile of the
hazardous nature of certain household products and hence generated concern regarding their disposal
(Slack et al.2004).
HHW, such as cleaning products, self care products, medicines, home care products, automotive
maintenance products, electronic equipment and general maintenance products for machinery are
formulated with substances that, by themselves or when reacting with others, produce additional
compounds that when attaining certain concentration levels might be capable of causing severe
environmental and public health damage. In developing countries, one of the problems with daily
household products is that their chemical formulation is largely unknown, both quantitatively and
qualitatively. It is reasonable to expect that the chemical brew produced in a landfill matrix is altogether
difficult to stabilize and able to produce substances with stronger damaging effects. Moreover, in
developing countries, the synergistic effect of mixtures of HHW in the environment occurs without the
awareness of local authorities, since in general, legislation does not consider separate solid waste disposal
(Ejlertsson, Karlson, Lagerkoist, Hjertberg and Suensson, 2003).
As the wastes comprising HHW are not clearly stated, it may not be obvious to the householder what
is, or is not, a potentially hazardous waste. In Nigeria, the households are responsible for selecting the
disposal pathway for their waste. It is important to know their level of management and mismanagement
of HHW.
1.2 Statement of the Research Problem
Nigerian inhabitants are fast becoming more and more sophisticated with respect to their
preferences and appetites and this improvement has its own attendant consequences. It has led to
one of the most intractable problems of HHW generation and management in Nigerian cities.
Poor HHW management is key factor in the spread of potential toxic compounds in the
environment.
When materials such as florescent tubes, batteries, paints, motor oil, detergent, television
sets, computers, pesticides, insecticides, etc. are no longer useable or wanted, they become
HHW. Although the hazardous wastes only make up a small percentage of household waste in
general, they pose a serious problem which ranges from health to environmental problems. These
HHWs are disposed along side other household wastes. Separating the HHW from the main
waste, and treating it separately will prevent the major part of the waste from being contaminated
and thus open up for an easier and less costly handling. The separation will leave a smaller, more
concentrated amount of hazardous waste that could either be disposed of in a safe manner, or
treated by special companies (Gatke, 2003).
HHW when disposed of improperly, pose a threat to sanitation workers and the
environment. HHW discarded in the trash may ignite or explode in the collection truck. Trash
collectors can be injured from fumes and splashing chemicals. In landfills, leachate from the
waste pollutes soil, surface water and groundwater reservoirs. Disposal of HHW in drains can
also pollute drinking water. In septic systems, hazardous waste can kill the organisms that make
the system work. This may cause bulks of untreated waste to drain into the soil and eventually
seep into the groundwater. Sewage treatment plants can be damaged by HHW in the same way
as septic systems (Connell, Lam Richardson, and Wu, 1999).
In Enugu Metropolis, HHW are usually stored in bins or cartons along with other wastes
in individuals’ homes and later deposited into public bins placed on the curbside or thrown inside
built dumps for collection. In the past, the general attitude to HHW disposal in Enugu metropolis
is open dumping of waste into the nearest open space, either on land or surface water without any
environmental consideration. This attitude could explain why there are heaps of wastes at every
corner of the environment and the reluctance of ESWAMA staff to clear the waste because of
potential injury. Tammenagi (1991) recorded that the environmentally hazardous dumps are
unlined, have no leachate control or drainage systems, and the underground water or surface
water unmonitored. In Enugu Metropolis, the co-disposal method of domestic, commercial,
institutional, medical and industrial solid wastes may be cheap and convenient but not
environmentally sound.
The problem of HHW management is assuming an alarming proportion and calls for
concern. Their disposals are global issues that engage the attention of scholars from various
fields of study. In Enugu Metropolis, the current method of government- sponsored household
waste disposal is bagging of waste and the use of Dump-stars. There are no separate facilities for
collecting HHW. The mixing of HHW with other household wastes does not only pose problems
of disposal but difficulty in monitoring the waste content, or estimating the extent of pollution
risks at dumps.
In Enugu Metropolis, the problem of HHW disposal and management can be adduced to
many factors including the people’s attitude to waste, lack of awareness on HHW, its nature on
the environment as well as ignorance of the effects of improper HHW disposal on human health
and environment, and gross deficiency in the knowledge of proper HHW collection, storage and
disposal. On the other hand, there is no enlightenment programmes designed to sensitize
households in Enugu Metropolis to adopt proper HHW disposal practices. This state of affair
tends to compound the problem of HHW management. Research in Nigerian urban areas has also
tended to ignore the issue of awareness creation as a strategy to improve HHW management.
There is the need to find out the practices the households adopt in managing HHW in the
study area, so as to evolve ways of improving such practices for the purpose of ensuring proper
disposal for sustainable environment.
It is this neglected aspect of environmental management that necessitated this study.
However, this study is considered important because it is necessary to have knowledge of the
types of HHW generated, to examine the level of public awareness concerning HHW, and an
assessment of current management practices of HHW in Enugu Metropolis.
1.3 Aim and Objectives of the Research
The aim of this research is to devise effective management strategies of HHW in Enugu Metropolis,
towards a sustainable and friendly environment. To realize this aim, the objectives of this research are to;
i. identify types of HHW and their characterization in Enugu Metropolis.
ii. evaluate the level of awareness (health, environmental and disposal) of HHW in the study area.
iii. assess the spatio-temporal frequency of HHW generation in the study area.
iv. evaluate current management practices of HHW, in the study area,
v. To suggest environmentally friendly management strategies for HHW disposal in Enugu
Metropolis.
1.4 The Study Area.
1.4.1: Location
Enugu Metropolis is the capital of Enugu State. It is located approximately between latitude 60 30' N and
60 40'N of the equator and longitude 70 20'E and 70 35'E of the Greenwich meridian. It covers an area of
about, 145.8 square kilometres. It is administered by three local authorities namely, Enugu North, Enugu
South, and Enugu East local government authorities. Enugu Metropolis is bounded in the north east by
Isi-Uzo and northwest by Igbo-Etiti local Government Areas, in the east and south by Nkanu East and
Nkanu West L.G.A respectively and in the west by Udi Local Government Area. (Fig.1).
1.4.2: Population
Enugu Metropolis has had a rapid growth. Its population rose from a handful of mineworkers in 1915 to
3,170 inhabitants in 1921. When the first census was taken in 1931, the population had increased fourfold
to 13,000 and in 1953, Enugu Metropolis had a population of 62764 people. In 1963, the population had
increased to 138,457 people (Federal Census Office figure, 1964). The population of Enugu Metropolis in
1991 was 369,373 (NPC, 1991).
In 2006, the population census figure for Enugu Metropolis was given as 722,665(Federal
Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette, 2007).
1.4.3: Geology and Hydrology
The topographical features of Enugu Metropolis can be classified into two: to the west is the escarpment
which is erosional and is continually eroded backward by the east-flowing rivers and to the east are the
Cross River Plains that are generally low and of monotonous relief. Enugu lies at the foot escarpment, of
the Cross River Plains, (Mamman, Oyebanji, and Petters ,2000).
The study area has three geologic formations, the Enugu Shales, the lower coal measure Mamu
Formation (Lower Maastrichtian) and the Ajali Sandstone (Upper Maastrichtian).
The Enugu Shale Outcrops occur in the plains east of the north-south trending Escarpment. This
formation consists of soft grey to dark grey shales and mudstone as well as intercalations of sandstone
and sandy shale. The Mamu consists of fine medium grained sandstones, sandy shale, shale and
mudstones. The Ajali Sandstone which overlies the Mamu formation consists of thick friable poorly
sorted, highly cross-bedded sandstone that is generally white in colour but sometimes is iron stained
(Ezeigbo and Ezeanyim, 1993).
The area is well drained. Both features (the escarpment and the plains) are dissected by streams.
Major Rivers in the study area include Ekulu, Asata, Ogbete, and Nyaba. Most of the smaller streams rise
about 300m above mean sea level and flow through deep v-shaped valleys incised in the soil materials
and the Ajali sandstone. These, however, are often not perennial and dry during the late part of the dry
season (Egboka, 1985).
1.4.4: Climate and Vegetation
The climate of the study area is the tropical wet and dry type according to the Koppen climatic
classification system, and experiences two seasons (wet and dry) both of which are warm. Rainfall
occurrence is high with mean annual totals of 1600mm. The rainy season generally lasts from April to
October, while the dry season lasts from November to March.
Due to its latitudinal location, our study area receives abundant and constant insolation.
Temperatures are high, usually varying between 250-290C, reaching the maximum with the approach of
the rainy season. The mean daily temperature is above 270 C all over the year.
The natural vegetation is tropical rainforest type which has largely changed to Derived Savannah
with fringing forests along the river courses, due to human activities such as farming and other socio-
economic activities (Ezeigbo and Ezeanyim, 1993).
1.4.5: Land Use
The land uses of the study area are mostly commercial, industrial and residential, administrative, and
educational.
Commercial Land Use: In Enugu Metropolis, commercial activities are focused around the markets. The
major main markets include Ogbete, the New Market, Mayor Market, Kenyatta market, Abakpa Market,
Artisan Market, Relief Market, Orie Emene, Garki Market, etc.
Industrial Land Use: Although Enugu Metropolis started as a coal mining settlement, coal mining is no
longer its primary industry. Presently its dominant economic function is administration and commerce
which developed over the years. The banking industries are attracting a lot of people to the city with
almost all the banks in the country having their branch offices at Enugu Metropolis. The Emene industrial
Estate is one of the oldest industrial estates in the south east geopolitical region of Nigeria. Many of the
industries in the estate had since folded their operations, only a few are still functioning and they include
Emenite, Anambra Motor Manufacturing Company (ANAMCO), Eastern Plastics Company, Central
Building Products, (manufacturers of cable products), Sunrise Flourmills, Bending Blocks Industries,
Harbetex Paints etc. In other parts of Enugu Metropolis, industries include bread and confectionaries
industries, soap and detergents, paints and dye manufacturing, disinfectants pharmaceutical companies,
motor manufacturing, ceramics and pottery manufacturing and block molding industries.
Educational Land Use: Educational institutions in Enugu Metropolis have increased in number over the
years. The town has numerous primary schools, secondary schools, and higher institutions. Examples
include University of Nigeria Enugu Campus, Institude of Management and Technology etc. Enugu
Metropolis can lay claim to its well planned nature as a result of its functions as a former capital of the
defunct Eastern Nigeria.
Residential land use: In the study, Enugu Metropolis is divided into layouts. They include Ogbete, Asata,
Uwani, Abakpa Nike, New Haven, Ogui New Layout, Trans –Ekwulu/ GRA, Independence Layout,
Achara Layout/Maryland, and Garki/Akunanaw
1.5 Literature Review
Rasssas (2007) defined HHW as any product that is discarded from a home or a similar source that
contains volatile chemicals and possesses the following attributes;
• Ignitable: capable of burning or causing a fire;
• Corrosive: capable of eating away materials and destroying living tissue when contact occurs;
• Explosive and/or Reactive: capable of causing an explosion or releasing poisonous fumes when
exposed to air, water or other chemicals.
• Toxic: poisonous, either immediately or over a long period of time;
• Radioactive: capable of damaging and destroying cells and chromosomal material.
For the purpose of this work our definition of HHW include household waste that possesses
physical, chemical, biological characteristics which requires special handling and disposal procedures to
avoid risk to health or adverse environmental effects (Agamuthu, 2001).
Some examples of HHW from the literature available to us are used motor oil, oil-based paint,
auto batteries, electronic waste, gasoline and pesticides. These products can be harmful to the
environment if they are not disposed of properly, which means they should not be dumped down the
drain, and empty or partially empty hazardous waste containers should not be thrown in the garbage
(Agamathu, 2001). In addition, Koushki and AL-Humoud (2002) in Kuwait found that toilet cleaners,
chlorine bleach, glass/window cleaners, roach killers, oven cleaners, and drain openers, are the top five
most common consumed hazardous substances at homes in Kuwait. Moreso, Steinwachs (1989) listed
automotive products, solvents and paints, pesticides, electronic wastes, certain cleaning products,
batteries, cosmetics, ammunition, pharmaceuticals, fireworks, and other items found in almost every
home as types of HHW.
Restrepo et al. (1991), Buenrostro, Ojeda, and Marquez (2007) characterized HHW according to
its generation. This characterization is based on the separation of the packages and containers according
to the use of the product contained in them. The characterization included a questionnaire to record the
number of containers or packaging per HHW category. Waste categories were:
1. household cleaning products;
2. automotive products (used oils, gasoline, degreasers, etc.);
3. batteries;
4. medicines;
5. biological-infectious (syringes, dialysis equipment, used bandages, etc.);
6. insecticides;
7. self care products;
8. home maintenance;
9. miscellaneous. The last category included all containers and packaging that could not be
categorized in the other eight.
Many authors have worked on HHW generation in different countries. United States Environment
Protection Agency (2007) observes that Americans generate 1.6 million tonnes of HHW per year. The
average home can accommodate as much as 100 Kilogrammes of HHW in the basement and garage and
in the storage of closets. During the 1980s many communities started special collection days or permanent
collection sites for handling HHW. In 1997, there were more than 3,000 HHW permanent programs and
collection events throughout the United States.
Furthermore, the Cuyahoga County Solid Waste Management Plan (1994) of Ohio estimates that
10 tonnes of household hazardous wastes (HHW) per person are generated annually. Extending that rate
to the seven-county population of 2.8 million gives an estimate of 14,000 tonnes of household hazardous
waste generated annually. Even if all those 14,000 tonnes are taken to special collection programs, the
toxic ingredients still end up in hazardous waste landfills, hazardous waste incinerators or injected deep
under the ground. None of the disposal methods is without environmental risk (Environmental Health
Watch, 1998).
Ademe (2000) observed that the total quantities of HHW generated in France in 1998 amounted
to about 41.4 million tonnes. They include mainly batteries and accumulators, striper, solvents and
thermometer. It is estimated that around 50% of the HHW are discarded annually in France through the
normal waste collection system while the rest is collected through civic amenity centres. Also, Yasuda
and Tanaka (2006), surveyed over 2000 households in Japan to investigate the characteristics of HHW
generation. They found that HHW generated in terms of quantities and types vary with dwelling type in
Japan.
Buenrostro et al. (2007), in Mexico, did a study to determine the amount of HHW generated in
two Mexican regions, the Northern Region (bordering with the USA) and a Central Region. They
examined consumption patterns and HHW generation rates and concluded that the production of HHW
stream in both regions was influenced by income, local climate, migration patterns and marketing
coverage.
Various studies have been carried out by researchers to investigate the method of HHW
management. Some were aimed at HHW disposal, collection facilities, and transportation. Schrab, Brown,
and Donnelly (1993), and Kjeldsen, Barlaz, Rooker, Baun, Ledin, and Christensen (2002) found that
HHW is disposed of at landfill along with general household wastes and the amounts and significance of
this disposal are poorly understood. It is assumed that the amounts of HHW disposed are small and risks
of disposal are negligible, and so disposal information is lacking or at best, unreliable and ambiguous.
More so, the status of HHW waste stream in the U.K contains 100,000 tonnes of HHW, not including the
bulkiest components of HHW, i.e., Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) expected to be
disposed off each year [(Slack et al., 2004), (Slack et al., 2005), (Slack et al., 2007), and (Burnley, Ellis,
Flowerdew, Poll, Prosser, 2007)].
In Enugu Metropolis, there are no trained personnel, no special transport vehicle and any special
HHW drop-off centres for handling HHW compared with cities of developed countries. For instance,
Staple, Peterson, Parkerson and Adams (2005), have observed that in the city of San Antonio, all
collected HHW materials are handled and packaged for disposal by technically trained personnel and
following collection, the transportation of all materials is performed by a licensed hazardous materials
transporter. The method of disposal depends upon the type of material. Approximately 80% of all
materials collected through the City of San Antonio HHW Program are recycled. Materials that cannot be
recycled are disposed of by a licensed hazardous materials treatment, storage and disposal facility The
City of San Antonio's Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Program has a permanent HHW Drop-Off
Centre (DOC) located at 7030 Culebra Road. This service provides an environmentally safe means for
citizens to dispose of HHW.
Also, White, Franke, and Hindle (1995), suggested that HHW may be separated by the
householder and collected from the household either on demand or via yearly or twice yearly collections
or at a civic amenity site. White et al. (1995), showed that once these HHW are sorted, such a
concentration of hazardous waste would be classified as ‘special waste’ and as such would be subject to
the Special Waste Regulations 1996 with its consequent regulation of storage, transport, handling and
treatment.
Hoe (2002), observed in Malaysia that currently, all solid waste collection from households is
allocated to landfills, and since these mainly are open dumps with no secure or comprehensive
environsmental system, the solid waste, and in particularly its content of hazardous waste causes
unwanted pollution of rivers, groundwater and sea, while at the same time contaminating the soil. It can
also pose a health threat to the many waste collectors and workers who handle waste on a daily basis,
including the scavengers who roam the landfills.
Household Hazardous Waste is now recognized as a major environmental issue and health
concern. An increasing number of communities, fearing future pollution problems from these wastes, are
seeking ways to control them. Very little research has measured the long term effects of HHW on human
health, and health officials suspect a growing number of health problems such as cancer, birth defects,
damage to organs or nervous system, and allergies are attributed to chemical exposure (Davidoff, 1989).
Many common household products are hazardous and if these products are handled or disposed of
incorrectly, they can pose a threat to human health, animals and the environment. Trash haulers have been
blinded, seriously burned or overcome with fumes when acids, corrosives or flammables were carelessly
put in the garbage.
Also, improper storage and handling of these materials has resulted in fires, explosions,
accidental poisonings and other injuries (Conn, 1989). Pouring oil and other HHW onto the ground or
thrown in regular trash could potentially harm the solid waste collectors, affect streams, lakes, wild life,
and possibly even drinking water (Staple et al.,2005).
Slack et al.(2008b) reported that most modern UK landfills possess leachate collection and
treatment capability, but it tends not to last the lifespan of the pollution potential of a landfill, which can
be in excess of several thousand years and hence poses a long-term risk to the environment and human
health. Warmer (1995), reported that HHW which is 1% of total domestic waste may represent a
disproportionate risk to human health and environment unless handled correctly.
Strategies for effective management of household hazardous waste generation and disposal,
include, sorting of the waste at source, legislation on HHW, provisions of adequate and appropriate waste
bins, and public enlightenment programmes (Awo, 2007). Powell, et al. (1995) examined the options of
reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal of HHW in order of EPAs preferred waste management hierarchy
as tools to safely manage HHW in Georgia, US. He observed that 2.4 million households generate more
than 5.1 million tonnes of solid waste each year, approximately, 0.3-0.5% of the waste which may be
hazardous to human health and environment. He used the above - mentioned tools to treat the issue on
how best to manage HHW.
Wikipedia (2007), observed that less HHW is produced by practising the 3Rs: reduce, reuse and
recycle.
Reduce: Waste generation or “source reduction” means consuming and throwing away less. It includes;
• Purchasing durable, long lasting goods;
• Seeking products and packaging that are free of toxins as possible;
• Redesigning products to use fewer raw materials in production, have a longer
life, or are used again after its original use.
Source reduction actually prevents the generation of waste in the first place, so it is the most preferred
method of waste management and goes a long way towards protecting the environment.
Reuse: Reusing items reduce waste, it is better than recycling because the items do not need to be
reprocessed before they can be used again.
Recycle: Recycle turns materials that would otherwise become waste into valuable resources. In addition,
it generates a host of environmental, financial, and social benefits.
Furthermore, the best way to handle HHW is to reduce the amount initially generated by giving
leftover products to someone else to use. Although federal laws in USA allow the disposal of HHW in
trash, many communities have collection programs. For HHW to reduce the potential harm posed, these
programmes ensure the safe disposal of HHW in facilities designed to treat or dispose of hazardous waste.
More than 3,000 HHW collection programs exist in the United States.
From our survey of literature, the study revealed that the level of household awareness of HHW is
generally low in developing countries and is in need of improvement. There is also an under emphasis of
the environmental benefits of recovery, reuse and recycling of HHW. For effective HHW disposal
practices, Virk, Candana, and Sandhu (2004) stressed the need for education of the people regarding
environmental problems of waste. They also emphasized on the need for public enlightenment campaign
on television, radio stations and newspapers to get people educated on the effects of improper waste
disposal practices on health. There is a need to devise measures for engendering more action
environmental awareness and ensuring that it permeates public consciousness, so that the need for
efficient HHW environmental awareness is generally recognized and acceptable.
In developing countries like Nigeria, it is difficult to get control of various waste streams from
households, which makes their proper handling, treatment and disposal a serious problem (Cointreau,
1987). These wastes which are often littered around in huge, unsorted quantities, eventually find there
way into nearby streams and rivers, which subsequently become polluted. Outbreak of diseases and other
health hazards are common (UNEP, 2002). Solutions to the above problem do not seem to be in sight,
especially with ever increasing rural-urban migration, which in sub –Saharan Africa currently stands at
about 4% on the average (Beede and Bloom, 1995; UNPFA, 1999).
In Nigeria, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) in its regulations makes
provisions for the proper management and disposal of locally generated toxic and hazardous substances
(FEPA 1991). Also the National Policy on the Environment (FEPA, 1999a) and Nigeria’s National
Agenda 21 (FEPA, 1999b) both assessed strategies for the management of toxic chemicals.
Sangodoyin and Ipadeola (2000), in their study in south western Nigeria characterized hazardous
waste components, as treatment and disposal systems. They assessed the effectiveness of monitoring
systems and existing regulations. Household units were one of the sources of hazardous waste they
assessed. The household units were further classified into high, medium and low income earner groups
that produced wastes with hazardous components of 5.6%, 4.4%, 4.2% respectively. The investigation
stressed the need to enforce regulations that might require the installation of treatment plants, appropriate
for the types of waste generated; encourage waste reuse and recycling, and intensify public education.
This work is further considered relevant because no such study has been done in Enugu
Metropolis and Nigeria. Most studies in Nigeria are mainly on household solid waste management,
municipal solid waste management, industrial waste management, hazardous waste management, medical
waste management plus problems associated with waste management in a general manner. In previous
studies, little attempt has been made at raising awareness and perception of the HHW problem in order to
find effective management strategies. This work will seek to create this awareness and management with
a view to put forward an environmentally friendly and sustainable strategy for HHW management.
1.6 Research Methodology
In carrying out this research, data were collected from primary and secondary sources.
1.6.1. Primary Data
The primary data for this work were generated through field survey, interviews conducted using
structured questionnaire and field observations.
1.6.1.1. Site Selection for the Survey
Enugu Metropolis has forty one (41) residential layouts (see Fig 2), but for the purpose of this
work, 10 layouts were randomly selected. The criteria for selection of these ten layouts were to
include typologies of layouts, and the diversity of households among the selected layouts. The 10
layouts for this study include, Abakpa, Achara, Asata, Awkunanaw, G.R.A., Independence
layout, Iva-Valley, New Haven, Ogui, and Uwani (see Fig. 3). The sampling framework for this
study was three hundred (300) households comprising thirty (30) households from each of the10
layouts named above.
1.6.1.2. Questionnaire Survey
The study is largely quantitative and utilized data collected through household questionnaire
survey. Questionnaire was administered for the analysis of the management of HHW in Enugu
Metropolis. The questionnaire was detailed and contained close ended questions and a checklist.
It contained information on:
• Socio-economic background and family make-up and
• the products households use that could be HHW;
• the products households had in store that could become HHW and how long they store
them;
• Disposal habits of HHW;
• Awareness of HHW and its potential impacts on health, the environment and its disposal
• Problems of HHW disposal and handling.
A sample of the questionnaire is attached in Appendix A, and 300 copies were distributed.
The data were collected in the months of August and September 2008.
1.6.1.3. Interview and Field Observation
Interview was carried out with ESWAMA officials to provide information of the institutional
framework for HHW management, officials’ attitude and efforts at HHW collection and
management in Enugu Metropolis. The Enugu State Sanitary landfill site, of Enugu State
Environmental Protection Authority (ENSEPA) was visited and workers in the site were
interviewed, and pictures were taken at the site.
1.6.2. Secondary Data
Secondary data used for this research were derived from published articles, library, statistical
data, and the internet. They were used in three stages; before, during and after conducting the
research. Prior to the research, secondary data were used in this study to construct and
substantive data such as population data from National Population Commission, Enugu, Federal
Ministry of Environment, and Enugu State Waste Management Agency (ESWAMA). In
addition, useful publications and documents from the internet and library, helped the researcher
to support the research
1.6.3. Method of Data Analysis
The generated data were subjected to statistical analysis. The data were analyzed using
descriptive and simple statistical analysis i.e. percentages, pie charts and bar graphs were used to
relate the factors affecting HHW generation and also the magnitude of generation of HHW. One
way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the variations of HHW among the
study area. Maps were used to depict the spatial distributions of HHW in the study area. The
checklists method was used and coded with Likert five point response continuum scale with total
of 24 structured questions to evaluate the level of awareness of HHW for this study. Correlation
was used to assess the relationship of the level of awareness attributes of HHW. Principal
component analysis (PCA) was used to extract the major underlying components that determine
the level of HHW awareness in the study area.
1.7 Plan of the Project
The project is made up of six chapters. Chapter one is the introduction. It contains the
background of the study, statement of the research problem, aim and objectives of the research,
study area, literature review, the research methodology and plan of the project.
Chapter two identifies types of HHW in the households and environment, their properties, HHW
categorization, and the dangers of HHW in the study area.
Chapter three examines the awareness of HHW on usage, impact and its disposal. Also it
contains the analysis of level of awareness of HHW in Enugu Metropolis.
Chapter four analyses the spatio-temporal frequency of HHW generation and disposal, details of
the field study and results. The most frequently generated HHW and its location were also
determined, together with socio economic factors influencing HHW generation.
Chapter five examines management of HHW in Enugu Metropolis, Problems of HHW disposal
and handling,
And chapter six strategises for effective management of HHW were suggested. The summary of
findings and conclusion of the research are also contained herein.
Chapter Two
IDENTIFICATION, PROPERTIES, AND CHARACTERIZATION OF HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE IN ENUGU METROPOLIS.
2.1 Identification of Household Hazardous Waste and their Effects on Health and
Environment
Almost every home contains household products that are hazardous, such as cleaning products,
automotive products, paint and lawn and garden chemicals. HHW contain chemicals that can
pose acute and chronic hazards to human health and to the safety of people handling them.
Household hazardous products contain chemicals that can, corrode or dissolve materials by
chemical action and burn or injure skin, ignite or have the ability to burst into flames, explode or
produce deadly vapours, or be poisonous or lethal when ingested, inhaled or absorbed through
the skin. This explains why most of the household hazardous products have warning signs
written on their label for easy identification. The label can say, “combustible; keep away from
heat and flame, or contains petroleum distillate”. Items marked with the symbols below are
hazardous:
Explosive
Containers labelled with this symbol can explode. They may also produce deadly fumes or
vapours when exposed to air or mixed with other materials. All aerosol sprays and containers
should be kept away from sources of heat and should never be punctured.
Flammable
These products may catch fire. Any product that has this symbol on its label must be kept away
from all sources of spark and flame. Some flammable products include: gasoline motor oil, and
other solvents, nail polishes.
Toxic
Products marked with this symbol are poisonous or lethal if swallowed or inhaled, even in small
amounts. Some toxic products around your home include, paint (full or partially full cans),
pesticides, motor oil, over the counter and prescription medicines, cleaners.
Corrosive
A product labelled with this symbol can cause burns to your skin and eyes and can eat away at
other materials. Corrosive products around your home include: Batteries (household and
automotive), drain openers, oven cleaners, acids and photographic solutions.
When HHW is not disposed of responsibly, its effect on the environment can include
damage to drinking water and ground water, septic systems and sewage treatment plants and has
the potential to endanger the health and safety of persons coming into contact with it. It is
important to be concerned about household hazardous waste because the human society has
become dependent upon a wide variety of goods and services that make life easier or more
convenient. Unfortunately, some of the products, or resulting wastes, may pose a risk to human
health or safety, or cause some type of damage to the environment.
2.2 Characterization of Types of Household Hazardous Waste in Enugu Metropolis
For clarity of purpose in this work the HHW generated in Enugu Metropolis were classified into
eight categories as shown in Table 2.1.
Table 1: Composition of Household Hazardous Waste Categories in Enugu Metropolis
Source: Field Work (2010)
Table 1 shows the types of HHW in the study area. We got our 8 major categories from
our HHW generation analysis. In our study, HHW varied among the layouts and all the different
HHW were detected in all the study areas. We got the above 8 major categories of HHW
I Paints and related product
II Garden chemicals
III Spent Motoring products
IV Used Batteries
V Electrical/ Electronic Waste
VI Medical Waste
VII Home cleaning Waste
VIII Glasses/ Others
Strippers Insecticides Brake fluid Torch batteries Spoilt
Computers
Used needle Air
fresheners
Fluorescent
tubes
Thinners Weed killers Old tyres Rechargeable
batteries
Spoilt
Stabilizers
Expired
Tablets
Aerosols
spray
containers
Glasses
Water
based paints
Soil
fertilizers
Used motor
Oils
Used handsets
Expired
Syrup
Soap bars Shoe polish
Solvent
Rat Poisons
Used
Lubricant
Old T.V sets
Used Swabs
Disinfectants Bulbs
Used Brake
oil
Condemned
radio
Blood Stained
cotton
Oven
cleaners
Plastics
E-Waste Nail polish
generation analysis in line with the convention in the U.K, U.S and other developed cities. In the
study area all the different HHW were detected in the entire layout.
Examples of HHW found in Enugu Metropolis with their chemical components and
effects are discussed below.
Used motor oil may contain toxins and when disposed on the ground, into storm drains,
sewers, streams, septic tanks or cesspools, can cause contamination of drinking water and the
ocean. It is one of the main causes of water pollution, and is toxic to aquatic systems.
Motoring products which include a whole range of products such as oil filters, brake and
clutch fluid that are toxic, some products are skin irritants. They can cause water pollution, and is
toxic to aquatic systems. They are not generally recyclable liquids which cause mess and
contaminate recyclables, and collection vehicles. They should not be disposed of in landfill.
Antifreeze has highly toxic ethylene glycol, as the main ingredient. A small amount can
poison a person. Pouring antifreeze down storm drains delivers the ethylene glycol and metal
particles, including lead from the car radiator, into streams and the ocean. Gasoline is flammable
and toxic, and is one of the most dangerous products found in the house, they could develop lung
and central nervous system damage.
Automotive batteries, also known as lead-acid batteries, contain sulfuric acid and lead,
both of which are highly toxic. Lead can contaminate groundwater, and acid can severely burn
skin and cause blindness. Improper disposing of batteries contaminates soil with lead. Children
who play in lead-contaminated soil may have serious brain and central nervous system damage.
Paints are either water-based (latex) or oil-based. Oil-based paints contain solvents that
are flammable and can harm marine life if they get into the ocean. Wet paints are harmful to
health if inhaled (Sabater, 2001). They are harmful to the environment, can pollute water, soil,
air.
Aerosol cans include disinfectants, furniture polishes, hair sprays, oven cleaners,
pesticides, room deodorizers, and tub and tile cleaners. These pressurized containers contain
propellants (usually petroleum distillates). Many aerosol propellants still contribute to air
pollution. Some propellants can cause harm to the heart and central nervous system. The aerosols
cans bear warning signs not to burn after use but largely ignored by the public because of lack of
awareness and if heated, aerosol containers can explode with the force of a bomb.
Thermometers contain mercury which is a highly toxic material. One can be poisoned by
absorbing it through the skin or by inhaling (Ejlertsson et al., 2007).
Fluorescent tube lights and bulbs, often used in garages or work-sheds, in the sitting
rooms, may contain mercury vapours, a highly toxic liquid metal. These vapours can be harmful
if one breathes them in. The bulbs themselves are dangerous since they can explode if you drop
them. Also used thermometers, blood pressure devises and other products used in health care and
the home also contains mercury (Buentrostro, 2007).
Shoe polish contains trichloroethylene (TCE), trichloroethane (TCA), methylene
chloride, nitrobenzene chemicals which cause central nervous system or liver damage if
swallowed or inhaled. Pesticides or insecticides are chemicals that are intended to kill unwanted
animals, plants, or microorganisms. These products may also be toxic to humans and pets when
absorbed by the skin, digestive and respiratory systems but the greater risk is carcinogen and
mutantagen. Their liposoluble nature makes them a serious health problem due to accumulation
they are toxic and poisionous. (Ejlertsson et al., 2007).
Batteries contain heavy metals such as mercury, lead, cadmium and nickel, which can
contaminate the environment when not properly disposed of. When incinerated, certain
hazardous metals may be released into the air. They can corrode and become explosive
(Buentrostro, 2007).
Electronic Waste is highly dangerous for the environment and hence should not be
disposed like regular garbage. Electrical and electronic equipment are made up of a multitude of
components. Some contain toxic substances which produce an adverse impact on human health
and the environment when not handled properly. They should be segregated and disposed of
properly.
Some of the harmful effects that E-wastes produce due to improper disposal are as
follows:
♣ releasing of toxins into the soil, air and groundwater caused by breaking, improper
recycling or disposing of Cathode Ray Tube (CRT);
♣ forming of dioxins induced by burning of wires;
♣ forming alarmingly high dioxins induced by burning of printed circuit boards ;
♣ leaching of mercury caused by improper destruction circuit breakers;
♣ leaching of lead caused by breaking of CRT Glass (E-Waste Removal, 2008).
Most air fresheners interfere with ability to smell by coating your nasal passages with an oil
film, or by releasing a nerve deadening agent. Known toxic chemicals found in an air freshener:
Formaldehyde: Highly toxic, known carcinogen. Phenol: When phenol touches your skin it can
cause it to swell, burn, peel, and break out in hives. Can cause cold sweats, convulsions,
circulatory collapse, coma and even death. Oven cleaner, Sodium Hydroxide (Lye) contains
caustic, strong irritant, burns to both skin and eyes. Inhibits reflexes, will cause severe tissue
damage if swallowed (Alexander, 2007).
Medical wastes have detrimental effects if not used correctly, steroids have been implicated in
growth defects in fish, and loss of fertility in males, used needles can cause injuries.
2.3 Properties of Household Hazardous Waste
HHW possesses the same characteristics with all hazardous wastes, so they both have the same
properties. The definition of properties that render a waste hazardous is given in Annex III of the
EU Hazardous Waste Directive. They include explosives, oxidizing, flammable, irritant, toxic,
corrosive, infectious, teratogenic and mutagenic properties, among others. A centralised system
of classification of hazardous wastes based on the Basel Convention (United Nations, 1989),
identified forty-five categories of hazardous wastes (Y1-Y45) including clinical wastes,
pharmaceutical wastes, used lubrication oils, wood preservatives, wastes from petroleum
refining, drilling waste, waste containing lead, asbestos etc. Appendix IV of this convention
provides for two categories of wastes requiring special consideration and they are Y46 (wastes
collected from households) and Y47 (residues arising from the incineration of household
wastes). These two categories are not specifically labelled “hazardous waste”, but their
hazardous nature is implied.
A comprehensive definition of hazardous waste will include the following properties
(Nzeadibe, 2005):
• Corrosivity i.e. ability to destroy something progressively by chemical actions;
• Explosively i.e. ability to explode;
• Flammability i.e. ability to catch fire;
• Ignitability i.e. tendency to burn;
• Reactivity i.e. tendency to take part in spontaneous chemical reactions;
• Carcinogenicity i.e. capability to induce cancer or increase the incidence of cancer;
• Infectivity i.e. ability to infect or cause infection;
• Irritant properties (allergic responses) i.e. causing irritation especially physical irritation;
• Mutagenicity i.e. ability to induce genetic mutation;
• Toxicity (acute or chronic) i.e. capability to poison a living organism.
• Radioactivity i.e. ability to emit radiation
• Teratogenicity i.e. ability to induce non-hereditary congenial malformations or increase their
sensitization i.e. to induce sensitivity in somebody to a particular substance.
• Agents that damage body organs and tissues such as blood, lungs, eyes or skin, etc.
In summary of this chapter, the types of HHW identified, their characterization and properties
discussed above are also the same with the types of HHW found in Enugu Metropolis.
Chapter Three
ANALYSIS OF THE AWARENESS OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ON
ENVIROMENT, HEALTH, AND DISPOSAL ISSUES IN ENUGU METROPOLIS.
3.1 Analysis of the Level of Awareness of HHW
In this section, the respondents’ level of awareness of HHW on health, environment and disposal
in Enugu Metropolis were analysed. A number of questions were asked about awareness of
HHW issues. Householders were asked about their understanding of the impacts of household
products covered by the survey on their own health when in use, the harm it might cause to the
environment, and if they are a problem when disposed of. The checklist was administered to
thirty households in each layouts which make up of three hundred householders randomly
selected in Enugu metropolis.
Twenty-four checklists were used to analyse the householders to level of awareness of
HHW in Enugu Metropolis. Analysis of the awareness data was based on the frequency values
obtained from our checklists. This enabled us to obtain the mean scores, and the frequency
counts of the response values whose sum total is 15 for each variable. The responses were
assessed on the Likert five point response continuum scale. The Strongly Agree was rated 5,
Agree 4, Undecided 3, Disagree 2, and Strongly Disagree 1. Adding all the ratings together gave
us a total of 15 points. In our interpretation, any mean above 4.5 is very high, 3.5 and above
high, 3.4 -2.5 moderate or uncertain below 2.5 is poor or low. Thus each of the variables was
assessed to determine the degree of the level of awareness of HHW in Enugu Metropolis, as
done elsewhere by (SWAP,2003)
Table 2: Absolute and Relative Frequency Distribution of Reponses on the Level of Public Awareness of HHW in Enugu Metropolis.
5 4 3 2 1 code Attribute of level of Public
Awareness of HHW
Stro
ngly
A
gree
d
Agr
eed
Und
ecid
ed
Dis
agre
e
Stro
ngly
di
sagr
eed
Tot
al
Mea
n
A1 Paints can be harmful to health if not used properly
57 19%
90 30%
40 13.3%
76 25.3%
37 12.3%
300 3.2
A2 Paints can be harmful to the environment
50 16.7%
100 33.3%
32 10.7%
50 16.7%
18 6%
300 2.9
A3 Paints can be a problem to dispose of
47 15.7%
93 31%
50 16.7%
37 12.3%
73 24.3%
300 3.0
B1 Garden chemicals can be harmful to health
31 10.3%
119 39.7%
65 21.7%
66 22%
19 6.3%
300 3.3
B2 Garden chemicals can be Harmful to the environment
87 29%
96 32%
63 21%
40 13.3%
14 4.7%
300 3.8
B3 Garden chemicals can cause problem when disposed of
81 27%
102 34%
36 12%
18 6%
63 21%
300 3.4
C1 Motoring Products can be harmful to health if not used properly
22 7.3%
28 9.3%
50 16.7%
114 38%
86 28.7%
300 2.3
C2 Motoring Products can be harmful to the environment
28 9.3%
18 6%
80 26.7
114 38%
66 22%
300 2.4
C3 Motoring Products can be a problem to dispose of
22 7.3%
20 6.7%
66 22%
80 26.7%
112 37.3%
300 2.2
D1 Batteries can be harmful to health if not used properly
20 6.7%
65 21.7%
80 26.7%
102 34%
33 11%
300 2.7
D2 Batteries can be harmful to the environment
25 8.3%
55 18.3%
65 21.7%
80 26.7.%
35 11.7%
300 2.5
D3 Batteries can be a problem to dispose of
37 12.3%
60 20%
73 24.3%
90 30%
40 13.3%
300 2.9
E1 E-waste can be harmful to health if not used properly
22 7.3%
78 26%
120 40%
50 16.7%
30 10%
300 3.0
E2 E-waste can be harmful to the environment
62 20.7%
73 24.3%
45 15%
24 8%
96 32%
300 2.9
E3 E-waste can be a problem to dispose of
22 7.3%
120 40%
50 16.7%
78 26%
30 10%
300 2.8
F1 Medicines can be harmful to health if not used properly
24 8%
76 25.3%
12 4%
88 29.4%
100 33.3%
300 2.5
F2 Medical waste can be harmful to the environment
54 18%
76 25.3%
45 15%
25 8.3%
100 33.3%
300 2.0
F3 Medical waste can be a problem to dispose of
30 10%
45 15%
50 16.7%
65 21.7%
100 33.3%
300 2.0
G1 Home-cleaning products can be harmful to health if not properly used
20 6.7%
83 27.7%
47 15.7%
40 13.3%
110 36.7%
300 2.5
G2 Home-cleaning products can be harmful to the environment
41 13.7%
94 31.3%
45 15%
45 15%
75 25%
300 3.4
G3 Home-cleaning products can be a problem to dispose of
15 5%
65 21.7%
80 26.7%
100 33.3%
40 13.3%
300 2.9
H1 Glasses can be harmful to health if not used properly
75 25%
100 33.3%
32 10.7%
75 25%
18 6%
300 2.9
H2 Glasses can be harmful to the environment
31 10.3%
119 39.7%
66 22%
19 6.3%
65 21.7%
300 3.1
H3 Glasses can be a problem to dispose of
25 8.3%
55 18.3%
80 26.7%
107 35.7%
33 11%
300 2.8
Source: Field work, 2008
The statistical frequency of the awareness level of HHW is shown in Table 2 above. The
analysis of the obtained results here reflects the awareness of the householders on issues
concerning the potential dangers of HHW to health, environment, disposal and poor handling
problems.
In Table 2, A1 (Paints and their related products can be harmful to health if not used
properly) scored 30% under the Agreed column; 25.3% for Disagree, while 19% and 13.3% for
Strongly agree and Undecided respectively, Strong disagreed scored 12.3%. Although 49%
majority of the respondents agree they are aware that A1 can be a problem to health (e.g irritate
skin, eyes), 37.6% of the respondent are not aware and 13.3% were indeed uncertain and
unwilling to express an opinion on code A1. With a mean of 3.2, we conclude that the level of
awareness for A1 is poor in the study area.
A2 (Paints and their related products can be harmful to the environment), scored 33.3%
under the Agree column, 16.7% for Disagree, while 16.7% and 10.7% for Strongly agreed and
Undecided respectively, Strongly disagree scored 6%. Although 50% majority of the respondent
agree they are aware that used paints can be a problem to the environment (e.g pollution of
water), 36.6% of the respondents are not aware and 16.7% were indeed uncertain and unwilling
to express an opinion. With a mean score of 2.9, we conclude that the level of awareness for
variable A2 is poor in the study area.
A3 (Paints and their related products can be a problem to dispose of) awareness of the
people was moderate. Our analysis returned a mean score of 3.0. This is because the highest
score of 31% for Agree, 24.3% of Strongly disagree, 15.7% on Strongly disagree, 16.7% for
Undecided and 12.3% for Disagree respectively. 46.7% of respondents were aware of problems
in disposal (for example to collection workers, leakage on roads and contamination of
recyclables) 36.6% were unaware and 16.7% were indecisive.
B1 (chemicals can be harmful to health if not used properly), scored 39.7% for Agree;
22% for disagree; 21.7% was registered for undecided. The score of other categories are very
low ranging from 10.3% for Strongly agree and 6.3% for strongly disagree. 50% of the
respondents agree they are aware, ( garden chemicals can be harmful in use when you do not
follow the instructions). It can cause harm (to pets, children, skin irritants etc) if the instructions
about the chemicals proper handling are not followed. More so, 28% were unaware and 21.7%
were indecisive. B1 has a mean score of 3.3, to show that its level of awareness is moderate.
B2 (Garden chemicals can be harmful to the environment) scored 32% on Agree; 29% on
Strongly agree; 21% for undecided; 13.3% for Disagree; and 4.7% for Strongly disagree. 61% of
the respondents agree that B2 can be harmful to the environment. There is a strong consensus
that the level of public awareness of B3 is high because of the mean of 3.8. The households in
the study area are aware.
B3 (Garden chemicals can cause a problem when disposed of), recorded 34% for Agree;
21% for Strongly disagree; 27% for Strongly agree; 12% under undecided; 6% for Disagree.
With a mean of 3.4, the people were aware of the dangers of improper disposal of garden
chemicals (eg they cause liquid mess in dust bins). Therefore, the level of awareness of B3 is
uncertain.
C1 (Motoring products can be harmful to health if not used properly), scored 38% for
Disagree; 28.7% for Strongly disagree; 16.75% on Undecided; 9.3% on Agree and 7.3% for
Strongly agree. There is a strong consensus that 66.7% of respondents are unaware of threats
motoring products can be to their health (they are toxic and some products are skin irritants). It
has a mean score of 2.3 which implies that the level of public awareness is very low.
For C2 (Motoring products can be harmful to the environment), the householders
disagrees with the dangers of this HHW and this implies that their level of awareness is low. Our
analysis returned a mean score of 2.4. This was because the highest score of 60% was recorded
for Disagree; 24.2% for undecided and 15.3% for Agree.
C3 (Motoring products can be a problem to dispose of), recorded scores of 26.7% and
37.3% under Disagree and Strongly Disagree column; 22% for undecided; 7.3% and 6.7% for
Strongly agree and Agree respectively. A total of 64% of respondent disagree, and with a mean
of 2.2, we can conclude that the level of awareness of the dangers of C3 to the public is poor.
D1 (Batteries can be harmful to health), scored 34% for Disagree; 26.7% for undecided,
21.7% for Agree; 11% for Strongly disagree. A high number of respondent 45% disagree with
D1. With a mean score of 2.7, it implies that the people are not fully aware of the dangers of D1.
D2 (batteries can be harmful to the environment), scored 26.7% for Disagree; 21.7% for
undecided; 18.3% for Agree; 11.7%for Strongly disagree; and 8.3 for Strongly agree. A high
number of respondent 38.4% disagree with D2. With a mean score of 2.5, it implies that
respondents’ level of awareness of the dangers of D2 is low.
For D3 (batteries can be a problem to dispose of), a high number of respondents 43.3%
disagrees with it. 33.3% were aware of the dangers of D3; and 24.3% were indecisive, with a
mean score of 2.9, it implies that respondents level of awareness of the dangers of D3 is
moderate.
E1 (E-waste can he harmful to health if not used properly), recorded scores of 40% for
Undecided; 26% for Agree; 16.7% on Disagree; 10% for Strongly Disagree; and 7.3 % on
Strongly agree .40% of the respondents were indecisive, 33.3% are aware and 26.7% are not
aware. With a mean score of 3.0, this implies that the public are indifferent to the dangers of E1.
E2 (E-waste can be harmful to the environment if not used properly) scored 32% for
Strongly Agree; 24.3% for Agree; 20.7% for Strongly agree; 15% for Undecided, and 8% for
Disagree. A mean of 2.9, was recorded. 45% agree, and are aware, 40% disagree and are
unaware and 15% were indecisive. The response of the householders was so diverse but indicates
there is a moderate level of awareness.
E3 (E-waste can be a problem to dispose off) both scored 32% for Strongly Disagree;
24.3% for Agree; 20.7% for Strongly Agree; 15% for Undecided; and 8% for Disagree. 45%
agree, and are aware; 40% disagree and are unaware and 15% were indecisive. It recorded a
mean of 2.9 with response of the public being diverse which indicates there is a moderate level
of awareness.
F1(Medicine can be harmful to health if not properly used), scored 33.3% on Strongly
Disagree, while Strongly Disagree scored 29.4%, to show a low level of awareness. However, a
score of 26% was recorded for Agree, and 7.3% and 4% for Strongly Agree and Undecided
respectively. 66.7% of the respondents are unaware of the dangers of expired medicine to their
health. With a mean of 2.6, this shows that the level of awareness of this variable is moderate.
F2 (Medical waste can be harmful to the environment), the positive response of
householders was so low, and as a result the level of awareness is low. This is because our
analysis returned a mean score of 2.0, which implies a poor level of awareness. The highest score
of 41% was recorded for Agree, 43.3% for Disagree and 15% were indecisive. There poor
responses have a slight edge over the high responses, a situation that the people could not readily
perceive its dangers to the environment.
F3 (Medical waste can be a problem to dispose of), the response of the householders was
so low. This is because our analysis returned a mean score of 2.0, which implies a poor level of
awareness. The highest score of 58.4% was recorded for Disagree; 26% for Agree and 16.75
were indecisive.
G1 (Home cleaning products can be harmful to health if not used properly) scored 36.7%
on Strongly Disagree, 27.7% for Agree; 15.7% Undecided; 13.3% on Disagree; 6.7% on
Strongly Agree. 50% of the respondent ticked disagree; 34.1% agree; 15.7% undecided. With a
mean of 2.5, the interpretation is that the awareness of the dangers of G1 on health is moderate.
G2 (Home cleaning products can be harmful to the environment), scored high on Agree;
31.3% and 25% on Strongly Disagree; 15% Undecided and Disagree, and 13.7% on Strongly
Agree. 45% of the respondent ticked that they are aware of the effect of these code to health. A
mean of 3.4 on our 5-point scale of estimation implies that the level of awareness is moderate.
G3 (Home cleaning products can be a problem to dispose of), recorded scores of 33.3%
on Disagree column; 26.7% on Undecided; 21.7% on Agree; 13.3% on Strongly Disagree and,
5% Strongly Agree respectively. 46.7% of the respondents are aware of the effects of this
variable during disposal. With a mean score of 2.7, it shows that the respondents level of
awareness is moderate.
H1 (Household glasses can be harmful to health) scored 33.3% on Agree; 25% on
Strongly Agree and Disagree column, 10% on Undecided, and 6% on Strongly Disagree. 58.3%
of respondents are aware of the effects this variable have to their health if not used properly. A
mean score of 2.9, implies a moderate level of awareness.
H2 (Household glasses can be harmful to your environment) recorded scores of 39.7%
under Agree; 22% under Undecided, 21.7% on Strongly Disagree, 10.3% on Strongly Agree, and
6.3% on Disagree. 48% of the sampled householders are aware of the effect of this code to the
environment. With a mean of 3.1, it shows that the public were indeterminate. The level of
awareness is moderate.
H3 (Household glasses can be a problem to dispose of) scored 35.7% on Disagree, 26.7%
on Undecided; 18.3% on Agree; 11% Strongly Disagree; and 8.3% Strongly Agree. 46.7% are
unaware that H3 can be a problem to dispose of. A mean score of 2.8, it shows that the level of
awareness is moderate in the study area.
From the above analysis we can conclude that the level of awareness of HHW in the
study area is low.
3.2 The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of the Household Hazardous Waste level of
Awareness in Enugu Metropolis
The relationship between the level of awareness attributes of HHW was established using
the Pearson’s correlation techniques/ matrix of interrelation. A correlation matrix of all attributes
used in the analysis is presented in Table 3. This matrix shows that some of the variables are
highly correlated among themselves and contribute nothing significantly. 20 out of 24 variables
had a positive correlation, and are strongly correlated with each other. To reduce the effect of
this inter-correlation, we transformed our attributes into orthogonal values by using PCA.
PCA is a relatively straight forward method of transforming a given set of variables into a
new set of composite variables or principal components that are orthogonal to each other (Nie,
Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner and Bent, 1975). PCA assumes that all the variations in a given
population is contained or explained within the attributes used to define the population.
3.2.1 Extraction and Analysis of the Components.
All 300×24 observations were thus reduced to a symmetrical 24×24 correlation matrix. The
lower diagonal is presented in Table 3. The varimax orthogonal rotation was utilized to
maximise variances and place the component axes in a unique position such that the components
can be interpreted by as large a loading as possible relating to the fewer attributes possible.
After this varimax orthogonalization, 4 components were obtained. The 4 components with their
variable loadings (i.e. correlations between each variable and that factor); their eigen values (i.e.
the sum of the squared loadings); the percentage of total explained variance; the cumulative
percentage explained by each factor; are represented in Table 4.
From Table 4, it is seen that Component I explains 33.182% of the total variance in the
attributes, while Component IV, with a percentage of 17.218%, explains the least. Thus, the 4
components explain 100% of the total variance.
Component I
Component I has an eigen value of 7.964 and explains 33.182% of the total variance.
High positive loadings are found on 6 attributes namely X6 (Garden chemicals can cause a
problem when disposed of), X12 (batteries can be a problem to dispose of), X15(E-waste can be
a problem to dispose of), X18(Medical waste can be a problem to dispose of), X21(Home
cleaning products can be a problem to dispose of), X24 (Household glasses can be a problem to
dispose of). These attributes are describing the general disposal problem of HHW arising from
poor awareness of the harmful effects of HHW. Consequently many people are exposed to the
dangers of improper disposal of HHW in Enugu metropolis. Component I is identified as general
disposal problems.
Table 4: PCA of the attributes of awareness of household hazardous waste. Code Components Attributes of level of awareness of HHW 1 II III IV
X1 Paints can be harmful to health if not used properly .255 .955� .089 .120 X2 Paints can be harmful to the environment .104 -.321 .936* -.198 X3 Paints can be a problem to dispose of -.228 .979* .304 -.009 X4 Garden chemicals can be harmful to health .537 .673 .426 -.277 X5 Garden chemicals can be Harmful to the
environment -.131 .692 .004 -.710
X6 Garden chemicals can cause problem when disposed of
.985* .475 .528 -.251
X7 Motoring Products can be harmful to health if not used properly
.458 .926* -.195 .492
X8 Motoring Products can be harmful to the environment
.630 -.462 -.385 .990�
X9 Motoring Products can be a problem to dispose of .222 -.749 .066 -.621 X10 Batteries can be harmful to health if not used
properly .550 .131 -.087 .082
X11 Batteries can be harmful to the environment -658 .117 .972* .102 X12 Batteries can be a problem to dispose of .965� .136 -.213 .076 X13 E-waste can be harmful to health if not used properly .704 -.142 .301 -.628 X14 E-waste can be harmful to the environment -.698 .193 .979* .120 X15 E-waste can be a problem to dispose of .984* .694 .464 .022 X16 Medicines can be harmful to
health if not used properly .065 .145 .387 .909�
X17 Medical waste can be harmful to the environment -.081 -.209 .964� .187 X18 Medical waste can be a problem to dispose of .989* -.572 .356 .422 X19 Home-cleaning products can be harmful to health if
not properly used -.196 -.239 .422 .937�
X20 Home-cleaning products can be harmful to the environment
.029 .305 .925� .199
X21 Home-cleaning products can be a problem to dispose of
.989� .056 .004 .140
X22 Glasses can be harmful to health if not used properly .047 .991� -.084 -.988 X23 Glasses can be harmful to the environment .021 .229 .926� -.298 X24 Glasses can be a problem to dispose of .959� .066 -.249 .012 Eigen values
7.964 6.044 5.860 4.132
%of explained variance
33.182 25.182 24.417 17.218
Cumulative % variance
33.182 58.365 82.782 100.00
� significant loadings exceeding +/_ 0.9, at 95% confidence level.
Component II
Component II has an eigen value of 6.044 and explains 25.182% of the total variance. Three
attributes have high positive loadings which are X1(Paints and their related products can be
harmful to the health if not used properly), X3 (Paints can be a problem to dispose of)
X7(Motoring Products can be harmful to health if not used properly), X22(Household glasses
can be harmful to health). It is identified as poor handling of HHW associated especially with
paints, used motoring products and glasses. The component II is therefore, identified as poor
handling of HHW.
Component III
Component III has an eigen value of 5.860 and accounts for 24.417% of the total explained
variance. Also this component has high positive loadings on five attributes. X2(Paints can be
harmful to the environment), X11(Batteries can be harmful to the environment), X14(E-waste
can be harmful to the environment), X17(Medical waste can be harmful to the environment),
X20 (Home cleaning products can be harmful to the environment), X23( glasses can be harmful
to the environment).This component is thus, an index of the environmental problems caused by
HHW. This indicator reflects that householders are not aware of the dangers of HHW to their
environment. It is identified as environment hazards.
Component IV
Component IV has an eigen value of 4.132 and explains 17.218% of the total variance. It
has high positive loadings on four attributes. X8(Motoring Products can be harmful to the
environment), X16(Medicine can be harmful to health if not properly used), X19 (Home-
cleaning products can be harmful to health if not properly used), X22(Glasses can be harmful to
health if not used properly). It is identified as the dangers of HHW to health.
We have used the PCA model to identify 4 important components which could be
employed to explain the low level of awareness of HHW in Enugu Metropolis. The model has
successfully transformed 24 attributes to 4 underlying dimensions which are shown in the order
of importance in Table 5.
Table 5: The relative strength of the underlying dimension of the attributes that determine the level of awareness of HHW in Enugu Metropolis. S/N Components Underlying Dimensions Relative Contribution Cummulative
1 I Disposal problems 33.182 33.182
2 II Poor Handling 25.182 58.365
3 III Environmental Hazards 24.417 82.782
4 IV Health Problem 17.218 100.00
Chapter Four
GENERATION AND SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS
WASTE IN ENUGU METROPOLIS
4.1 Spatial Pattern and Distribution of Household Hazardous Waste in the Study Area
In Enugu Metropolis, the different categories of HHW generated include, paints, garden
chemicals, motoring products, batteries, e-waste, medicine, home cleaning products, and
household glasses. Table 6 shows the quarterly frequency of generation of HHW in the study
area in the months of July and September 2008. The table was compiled using the frequency
counts of respondents response in each layout respectively.
From Table 6, home cleaning waste was the most frequently generated HHW in the study
area. It recorded (19%) the highest frequency, it was followed by glasses (17%) and batteries
(14.8%). The others frequently generated include garden chemicals (12.6%), medical waste
(10.5%), E-waste (10.4%), motoring products (8.7%), and paints (7.1%). These HHW generated
are represented on a bar chart as shown in Fig 3.
Table 6: Frequency of Quarterly Generation of HHW in Enugu Metropolis
Source: Field work (2010)
HHW
Aba
kpa
Ach
ara
Asa
ta
Iva-
Val
ley
Aw
kuna
naw
G.R
.A
Inde
pend
enc
Lay
out
New
ha
ven
Ogu
i
Uw
ani
Tot
al
of
HH
W i
n th
e st
udy
area
T
otal
%
Paint Related Products
5 2 12 9 9 12 10 12 18 15 104 7.1
Garden Chemicals
15 26 9 24 12 24 20 24 12 18 184 12.6
Motoring Products
10 10 9 9 9 21 20 15 12 12 127 8.7
Household Batteries
25 20 18 21 21 30 25 24 18 15 217 14.8
E-waste 15 5 12 21 17 24 10 21 12 15 152 10.4
Medical waste
20 7 6 21 6 21 7 24 18 24 154 10.5
Home Cleaning
30 27 27 27 27 30 30 30 30 21 279 19.0
Glasses 25 20 30 24 20 30 25 27 30 18 249 17.0
Total for each layout
145 117 123 156 121 192 147 177 150 138 1466
%Total
Total % 9.9 8.0 8.4 10.6 8.3 13.1 10.0 12.7 10.2 9.4 %Total 100
Fig 4: Frequency distribution of HHW generated in the study area
Also in the study area HHW generation was spatially distributed differently. The area
that generated HHW most the G.R.A 192(13.1%), followed by New Haven 177(12.7%), Iva-
Valley 156(10.6%), Ogui 150(10.2%) and Independence layout 147(10%). HHW was also
generated at Abakpa 145(9.9%), Uwani 138(9.4%), Asata 123(8.4%), Awkananaw 121(8.3%),
and Achara 117(8%). They are represented in bar charts in Fig 4.
Fig 5: Spatial frequency distribution of HHW generation in the study area
Further more the spatial pattern of HHW distribution in the study area is also given in
Figs 6-12. Froms Table 6, HHW that have frequency counts between 1-10 are represented on the
map as being areas with the least generation, while frequency between 11-20 are moderate
generation and between 21-30 as high generation areas.
Paints and other paints related products from Table 6 and Fig 6 generally had a low
frequency of generation among the study areas. They are least generated in Abakpa, Iva-Valley,
Awkunanaw, Achara, and Independence Layout. They are moderately generated in Asata, Ogui,
Uwani and New Haven. In all the layouts, paints contributed 7.1% of all the HHW generated in
Enugu Metropolis, which makes it the least generated HHW in the study area.
Garden chemicals as depicted in Table 6 and Fig 7 were generated in all the layouts but
contributed only 12.6% of all the HHW in the study area. In their spatial distribution, the least
were generated in Asata. They were moderately generated in Abakpa, Ogui, Independence
Layout, Awkunanaw, and Uwani and also highly generated in Iva-Valley, G.R.A, New Haven
and Achara Layout respectively.
In the opinion of respondents, motoring products accounted for 8.7% of all the quarterly
HHW generated in the study area. They are highly generated in G.R.A, moderately generated in
Ogui, Independence Layout, and Uwani, and least generated in Awkunanaw, Abakpa, Iva-
Valley, Asata, and Achara layout respectively as shown in Fig 8.
Fig 9 shows the spatial distribution of used batteries generated in the study area. It could
be easily seen that the highest amount are generated in G.R.A, Abakpa, Iva-Valley, New Haven,
Awkunanaw, and Achara layout. They are moderately generated in Ogui, Asata and Uwani.
Used batteries contributed 14.8% of HHW generated in the study area. In no place are batteries
least generated.
From Fig 10, the spatial distribution of E-waste generated in the study area was shown. It
can be observed that the highest were generated in G.R.A, Iva-Valley and New Haven. They are
moderately generated in Asata, Awkunanaw, Uwani, and Abakpa respectively. They are least
generated in Independence Layout, and Achara Layout. From Table 6, E-waste generated
contributed 10.4% of HHW generated in the study area, within the period of study.
Medical wastes (Fig. 11) were generated in all the layouts in the study area. From their
spatial distribution, it can be concluded that G.R.A, Iva-Valley, New Haven, and Uwani
generated the highest, while in Ogui and Abakpa, they are moderately generated. They are least
generated in Awkunanaw, Achara, Asata and Independence Layout respectively. From Table 6,
they accounted for 10.5% of the HHW generated in the study area.
Home cleaning products from Table 6, were generated in all the study areas. It is the most
generated HHW in the study area. It accounted for 19% of HHW generated in the study area.
Since it is generated in all the study area there was no need for a map.
Glasses were also generated in all the layouts in the study area. It accounted for 17% of
HHW in the study area. The spatial distribution of household glasses was shown in Fig 12 and
was observed that apart from Awkunanaw, Uwani, and Achara Layout where they were
moderately generated; household glasses are highly generated in the other layouts in the study
area.
4.2 Analysis of the frequency of generation of household hazardous waste in different
Layouts in Enugu Metropolis.
Analysis was done to show the frequency of generation of HHW in the different layouts
in the study area and determined the most, moderately and least frequently HHW generated in
each layout in the study area. Bar charts were used to show the different variations and also
ANOVA was used to determine the variations of HHW generation among the wards in the study
area. In the bar charts, frequencies from 1-10 are least generated, 11-20 moderately generated
and 21-30 highly generated.
In Abakpa, from Table 6 and Fig 13 paints and other paint-related products are the least
HHW generated followed by motoring products, while garden chemicals, E-waste and medicine
are moderately generated. Batteries, household glasses, and home cleaning are highly generated.
Abakpa accounted for 9.9% of HHW frequently generated in the study area.
Fig 13: Frequency of HHW generated quarterly in Abakpa.
In Achara Layout, from Table 6 and Fig 14, paints are the least generated HHW; others
are e-waste, medicine, and motoring products. Batteries and glasses are moderately generated,
while the others are highly generated respectively. Achara Layout accounted for the least (8%) of
the HHW generated in the Study area.
Fig 14: Frequency of HHW generated quarterly in Achara Layout.
Asata contributes 8.4% of HHW generated in the study area in terms of frequency, the
least HHW generated are Medical waste, garden chemicals and motoring products. Paints, E-
waste and batteries are moderately generated, and the others; home cleaning and glasses are the
most generated as shown in Fig 15.
Fig 15: Frequency of HHW generated quarterly in Asata
In Iva-Valley, HHW generated is 10.6%. With the exception of paints and motoring
products which are least generated, the other HHW are highly generated as shown in Fig16.
Fig. 16: Frequency of HHW generated quarterly in Iva-Valley.
In Awkunanaw, medicine, paints and motoring are the least frequently generated, while
garden chemicals E-waste and glasses were moderately generated. Batteries and home cleaning
products were the most generated as shown in Fig17. Awkunanaw accounted for 8.3% of HHW
generated in the study area.
Fig.17: Frequency of HHW generated quarterly in Awkunanaw .
In G.R.A, with the exception of paints which are moderately generated, all other HHW
are highly generated in this layout as shown in Fig 18 G.R.A generated the highest (13.1%)
HHW in the whole study area.
Fig.18: Frequency of HHW generated quarterly in G.R.A .
As shown in Fig19, the least frequently generated HHW are medical waste, paints and e-
waste in Independence Layout. Garden chemicals and motoring products are moderately
generated, while batteries and glasses and home cleaning are the highest HHW generated for the
layout respectively. Independence Layout accounted for 10% of HHW generated in the study
area.
Fig 19: Frequency of HHW generated quarterly in Independence Layout
In New Haven, apart from paints and motoring products that were moderately generated,
the other HHW are most frequently generated as shown in Fig 20. The generation of HHW in
this layout accounted for 12.7% in the study area.
Fig 20: Frequency of HHW generated quarterly in New Haven
In Ogui, with the exception of glasses and home cleaning products that were the most
frequently generated, other HHW showed moderate frequency of generation see (Fig 21). Ogui
accounted for 10.2% of HHW generated in the study area.
Fig 21: Frequency of HHW generated quarterly in Ogui
Finally, in Uwani, with the exception of medical waste and home cleaning products that
were highly generated, the other HHW were moderately generated as shown in Fig 22
respectively. Uwani accounted for 9.4% of HHW generated in the study area.
Fig 22: Frequency of HHW generated quarterly in Uwani .
From the above discussion, we can conclude that HHW is highly generated in G.R.A
13.1%, followed by New Haven 12.7%. Asata 8.4%, Awkunanaw 8.3%, and Achara 8%,
generated the least HHW in the study area.
Furthermore, analysis of variance (ANOVA), was used to determine if there was any
significant difference in the extent of generation of the different types of sampled HHW among
the different layouts in the study area.
Our null hypothesis states that Ho is: “There is no significant difference in the extent of
generation of the different types of sampled HHW among the different layouts in the study area”.
Our alternative hypothesis states that H1 is: “There is a significant difference in the extent of
generation of the different types of sampled HHW among the different layouts in the study area”
Our hypothesis was tested for all the sampled zones. The full calculation for the ANOVA is
shown in Appendix B.
Table 7: Analysis of Variance of the Extent of HHW Generated in Enugu Metropolis
Source of Variation
Sum of Squares
Degrees of Freedom (Df)
Mean sum 0f squares
F
Between the types Of HHW.
2943.7 7 420.5
Within the types Of HHW
-224.5 73 2.8
148.1
Total 276189.2 80 Table value of F = 2.13 2.13< 148.1
From the ANOVA (Table 7), since our calculated value of 148.1 is greater than our
critical value or table value of 2.13, Ho is rejected. This implies that there is a significant
difference in the extent of generation of the different types of sampled HHW in the study area.
4.3 Socio-Economic Factors Influencing Household Hazardous Waste Generation in
Enugu Metropolis
Socio-economic factors were included in the questionnaire to examine their influence and
relationship on the generation of HHW within the study area. These socio-economic factors
include, dwelling type, income, household size, sex, etc. These socio-economic factors are
generated from the frequency counts of respondents in each layout respectively and are
disscussed below. In all the tables below the numbers in bracket are in percentages.
4.3.1: Dwelling Type
The selection of dwellings for the questionnaire survey was designed to enable a representative
sample of dwelling type (i.e. multiple rooms, multiple storey, two bedroom, three bed room, and
duplex/bungalow) in the study area. Table 8 shows the different dwelling types in the study area
and their relationship with HHW generation across the study area.
Table 8: Relationship between HHW and Dwelling types in Enugu Metropolis
Dw
ellin
g ty
pe
Aba
pka
Ach
ara
Iva-
Val
ley
Asa
ta
Aw
kuna
naw
G.R
..A
Ind
layo
ut
New
Hav
en
Ogu
i
Uw
ani
Tot
al%
Multiple Rooms
10 (33.3)
10 (33.3)
9 (26.7)
9 (26.7)
0 (0.0)
3 (10)
1 (3.3)
15 (50)
13 (43.3)
18 (60)
93 (31)
Multiple Storey
5 (16.7)
6 (20)
7 (23.3)
7 (23.3)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (3.3)
3 (10)
0 (0.0)
6 (20)
35 (11.7)
Two Bedroom 0.0 2 (6.7)
6 (20)
3 (10)
16 (53.3)
0.0 0.0 3 (10)
5 (16.7)
3 (10)
35 (11.7)
Three Bedroom
15 (50)
9 (26.7)
3 (10)
7 (23.3)
14 (46.7)
12 (40)
4 (13.3)
7 (23.3)
12 (40)
3 (10)
85 (28.3)
Duplex 0.0 4 (13.3)
0.0 4 (13.3)
0.0 15 (50)
24 (80)
2 (6.7)
0.0 0.0 52 (17.3)
Source: Field Work (2010)
We can deduce that households that live in multiple rooms generated the most HHW
31%, followed by three bedroom flats 28.3% and Duplex 17.3%. While households that live in
multiple storey and two bedroom flats had the generated the least HHW 11.7%. It is represented
in Fig 23.
Fig. 23: Dwelling types in the study area.
4.3.2: Income
Income is a key determinant of any household expenditure such as the purchase of
household hazardous products. As shown in Table 9 the estimated per capita income ranges from
5,000 naira to 250,000 naira and above monthly.
Table 9: Relationship between HHW Generation and Income in the Study Area
Inco
me
Aba
kpa
Ach
ara
Asa
ta
Iva-
Val
ley
Aw
kuna
naw
G.R
.A
Ind.
layo
ut
New
Hav
en
Ogu
i U
wan
i T
otal
5,000-20,000 15 (50)
2 (6.7)
12 (40)
12 (40)
11 (36.7)
3 (10)
0.0 18 (60)
12 (60)
11 (36.7)
102 (34)
21,000-50,000 10 (33.3)
4 (13.3)
6 (20)
12 (40)
9 (30)
9 (30)
4 (13.3)
6 (20)
12 (40)
10 (33.3)
82 (27.3)
51,000-100,000 5 (16.7)
12 (40)
7 (23.3)
3 (10)
7 (23.3)
3 (10)
7 (23.3)
6 (20)
0.0 3 (10)
53 (17.7)
101,000-250,000 0.0 8 (26.7)
5 (16.7)
0.0 3 (10)
9 (30)
4 (13.3)
0.0 0.0 10 (33.3)
32 (10.7)
250,000and above 0.0 4 (13.3)
0.0 3 (10)
0.0 6 (20)
15 (50)
0.0 0.0 11 (36.7)
31 (10.3)
Source: Field Work, 2010
From Table 9 we can deduce that HHW was generated most by those heads of households that
earn between, 5,000 naira-20,000 naira 34%, followed by 21,000-50,000 naira 27.3% and
51,000-100,000 naira 17.7%. While the HHW was least generated by those that earn between
101,000-250,000 10.7% and 250,000 and above 10.3%. This is represented in Fig 24.
Fig. 24: Average Income Levels of Respondents in the study area
4.3.3: Household Size
The impact of household size on HHW generation is such that it determines the rate of
consumption of household hazardous products. The distribution of the number of people living
in a household is shown in Table 10.
Table 10: Relationship between HHW and Household Size Distribution in the Study Area
No of people in the household
Aba
kpa
Ach
ara
Asa
ta
Iva-
Val
ley
Aw
kuna
naw
G R
A
Ind
layo
ut
New
Hav
en
Ogu
i
Uw
ani
Tot
al
One 5 (16.7)
5 (16.7)
3 (10)
6 (20)
4 (13.3)
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26 (7.7)
Two 5 (16.7)
4 (13.3)
3 (10)
3 (10)
0.0 3 (10)
2 (6.7)
3 (10)
5 (16.7)
3 (10)
31 (10.3)
3-4 15 (50)
6 (20)
9 (30)
9 30
8 (26.7)
3 (10)
8 (26.7)
3 (10)
12 (40)
6 (20)
79 (26.3)
Five 0.0 9 (30)
3 (10)
2 (6.7)
8 (26.7)
9 (30)
2 (6.7)
6 (20)
0.0 6 (20)
45 (15)
More than 6 5 (16.7)
6 (20)
12 (40)
10 (33.3)
10 (33.3)
15 (50)
18 (60)
15 (50)
13 (43.3)
15 (50)
119 (40.7)
Source: Field Work (2010)
From Fig 25 and Table 10, households that have more than six people living in their
household generate the highest frequency of HHW 40.7%, followed by 3-4 persons per
household 26.7%. The least HHW were generated by households having one person 7.7%.
Fig.25: Households size in the study area
4.3.4: Other Socio- Economic Parameters
Other socio- economic parameters that influence HHW generation in the study area
include ownership of building the household occupied, if they own cars and gardens and their
gender. They are shown in Table 11.
Table 11: Other Socio- Economic Parameters
0thers
Aba
kpa
Ach
ara
Asa
ta
Iva-
Val
ley
Aw
kana
naw
G R
A
Ind
Lay
out
New
Hav
en
Ogu
i
Uw
ani
Tot
al %
owner occupied
10 (33.3)
13 (43.3)
6 (20)
9 (30)
4 (13.3)
9 (30)
18 (60)
6 (20)
8 (16.7)
10 (33.3)
100 (33.7)
Rented 20 (66.7)
17 (56.7)
18 (60)
21 (70)
26 (86.7)
21 (70)
12 (40)
24 (80)
22 83.3
20 (66.7)
200 (66.7)
Garden 10 (33.3)
6 (20)
12 (40)
12 (40)
15 (50)
18 (60)
14 (46.7)
3 (10)
12 (40)
0.0 102 (34)
Car 10 (33.3)
10 (33.3)
12 (40)
9 (30)
9 (30)
21 (70)
22 (73.3)
6 (20)
12 (40)
12 (40)
123 (41)
Male 15 (50)
16 (53.3)
12 (40)
21 (70)
15 (50)
18 (60)
18 (60)
21 (70)
12 (40)
18 (60)
166 (55.3)
Female 15 14 18 9 15 12 12 9 18 12 134
(50) (46.6) (60) (30) (50) (40) (40) (30) (60) (40) (44.7) Source: Field work (2010)
From Table 11 households sampled that live in rented buildings, generated more HHW
66.7% than 33.7% of households who own the buildings they occupy.
Two of the main groups of HHW i.e. motoring products and household garden chemicals
are largely influenced by the number of households that possess a car and a garden. From Table
11 households that have gardens generated 34% of HHW, while households that have cars
generated 41% of HHW in the study area. Most people that have gardens are located at G.R.A
while most people with cars are found in Independence Layout. These layouts from our spatial
analysis generated the most HHW. Finally 55.3% of the sampled households were males while
the females were 44.7% that generated HHW.
4.4: Analysis of Temporal Frequency of Generation and Disposal Methods of Household
Hazardous Waste in Study Area.
Table 12 shows the temporal frequency of HHW generation among the different layouts
in the study area. We observe from the table that the household generated and disposed HHW
highest in less than three months (79.3%) against more than three months (13%), and unknown
(6.7%).
Table 12: Temporal Frequency of HHW Generation in Enugu Metropolis
Temporal frequency
Aba
kpa
Ach
ara
Asa
ta
Iva-
Val
ley
Aw
kuna
naw
G.R
.A
Ind.
Lay
out
New
Hav
en
Ogu
i
Uw
ani
Tot
al
< 3 months
14 24 30 22 22 24 30 26 20 26 238 (79.3%)
> 3 months
7 2 0 5 6 6 0 3 6 4 39 (13%)
Unknown 9 3 0 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 23 (7.7%)
Source: Field work (2010)
In Fig. 26, bar charts were used to show the temporal frequency of generation of HHW in
the study area. They were plotted against their total.
Fig 26: Temporal Frequency of Generation of HHW in the Study Area
From Fig 26, it is clear that HHW are highly generated in less than three months in the
study area. This implies that the temporal frequency of generation of HHW in the study area is
very high. Therefore there is an urgent need to properly manage HHW in the study area.
The frequency of disposal methods of HHW in Enugu Metropolis were also analysed
and is as shown in Table 13
Table 13: Frequency of Disposal Methods in Enugu Metropolis
Frequency of Disposal Methods A
bakp
a
Ach
ara
Asa
ta
Iva-
Val
ley
Aw
kuna
naw
G
.R.A
Ind.
Lay
out
New
Hav
en
Ogu
i
Uw
ani
Tot
al
Never had any to dispose of 10
5
7
10
8
3
2
10
5
8
68 (22.7%)
Keep Them
0 0 0 2 5 0 1 0 0 0 8 (2.7%)
Throw in dust bin 15 20 20 18 15 25 26 20 20 22 201 (67%)
Pour down sink/drain 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 (2.6%)
Take to landfill site 0 5 0 0 2 2 1 0 5 0 15 (5%)
Source: Field work (2010)
From our analysis, 22.7% of the households indicated that they never had any HHW to
dispose of, 2.7% indicated that they keep them and this can pose a problem to their health and
the environment, 2.6% pour liquid HHW down their sinks or drains, 5% take them to landfill
site, the remaining 67% dispose them in the dust bins. These are represented in Fig 27.
Fig..27: Disposal Methods of HHW in the Study Area.
From Fig 27, the result indicates that the awareness and usage of dust bins were the
highest while keeping them was the lowest. Although in Enugu Metropolis there are no facilities
for handling HHW, it is therefore a contributing factor to the low awareness of HHW
management in Enugu Metropolis.
Chapter Five
EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS
WASTE IN ENUGU METROPOLIS
5.1 Current Issues of HHW in Enugu Metropolis
In Enugu, the body charged with the responsibility of management of solid and liquid
waste is the Enugu State Waste Management Agency (ESWAMA). It was established through
Law No 8 of 2004. Its vision is to ensure sustainable waste management in the State (The
Environ Watch, 2005).
Various methods of HHW disposal in developed countries include incineration,
composting, sorting and recycling. However, the best method of HHW disposal that is accepted
world wide is the sanitary landfill and it is not yet practiced effectively in Enugu.
In Enugu Metropolis, the current HHW disposal methods are bagging of wastes, use of
Dump-stars and the landfill. Bagging of waste involves throwing the waste into bags before they
are put into the dump- stars. The dump-stars are big metal buckets with lids and the bagged
wastes are thrown into them, (see Plate 1).
Plate 1: ESWAMA Dump-stars in Enugu Metropolis
Dump-stars are found around major streets and roads in Enugu Metropolis. Areas that are
densely populated usually have more than two dump-stars. ESWAMA has no separate disposal
facilities for handling HHW. ESWAMA collects the HHW together with other household wastes
and throw into the dump-stars. The dump-stars when filled with waste are then emptied into
tippers that would transport them to the landfill and dispose them there (see Plate 2).
Plate 2: Vehicle conveying waste to the landfill site in Enugu Metropolis
Presently, only one municipal solid waste landfill exists in Enugu Metropolis and it is
sited at Ugwuaji, off the Enugu-Port Harcourt expressway (see Plate 3)
Plate 3: The Ugwuaji Landfill Site for Enugu Metropolis
From our study, we found that Enugu State has no hazardous waste landfill. The available
landfill does not possess features of a modern landfill like natural and synthetic liner systems,
monitoring programmes, leachates, etc. At Ugwuaji landfill, the wastes are being sorted and
recyclable materials such as plastics, bottles, metals etc are recovered by scavengers for
recycling, (see Plate 3). They are transported to Lagos, Onitsha and Nnewi towns for recycling.
Egwu (2008) informed us that presently no recycling takes place in Enugu State, although
it is included in ESWAMA’S Agenda for future development of the environmental management
sector. The other wastes that can be recycled in the landfill are being packed together and a
bulldozer is used to compact them,
Plate 4: Recyclable HHW Materials at the landfill site.
5.2 Problems of HHW Disposal and Handling in Enugu Metropolis.
From our survey on problems of improper disposal and handling of HHW, we can deduce
from Table 14, that the major problem that households face is lack of knowledge of HHW
(44.3%). Most people do not even know they are hazardous and need to be handled with care and
not disposed of with other household wastes. Some respondents (24.3%) adduced it to poor
awareness and attitude to HHW; 19.3% blame the problem on the use of inappropriate dustbins,
while 15.3% believe that lack of time to sort out the wastes, is part of the problem.
Table 14: Problems of HHW Disposal and Handling in Enugu Metropolis.
Problems of HHW disposal Total in % Poor awareness and attitude 24.3 Lack of knowledge 44.3 Lack of time to sort 15.3 Inappropriate waste bins 19.3 Source: Field Work, (2010)
The problems that hinder proper HHW management by ESWAMA are many. From the
results of the survey of questionnaires, 33.3% of the respondents think that it is as a result of low
public campaign of HHW; 21.7% of the households think that inappropriate bins for different
kinds of waste are the problem ESWAMA is facing, 16.7% responded to lack of public co-
operation, 15% responded to lack of monitoring and supervision, and 13.3% responded to the
weakness and lapses of the institution and legislation. Egwu (2008) stated that the problem with
management of HHW in Enugu Metropolis can be adduced to low level of public awareness and
co-operation, and lack of recycling activities in the state.
CHAPTER SIX
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION
6.1 Summary of Findings
The HHW generated in Enugu Metropolis were classified into eight, they include paints,
garden chemicals, batteries, motoring products, medicines, home cleaning products, e-waste and
household glasses. From our awareness analysis it was found that the level of householders’
awareness on the dangers of HHW in the Enugu metropolis is low. From our PCA we identified
four indices which include: general disposal problems, health related issues, environmental
problems, and poor handling of HHW, which reflects low awareness of HHW in the study area.
It was found that there is a significant difference in the generation of HHW among the different
layouts in the study area. From the spatial distribution analysis, HHW was most frequently
generated in G.R.A (13.1%), followed by New Haven (12.7%). While Asata (8.4%),
Awkunanaw (8.3%), and Achara Layout (8%), generated the least frequently generated HHW in
the study area. The most frequently generated HHW in the study area are home cleaning
products (19%) and household glasses (17%). The least frequently generated HHW are
motoring products (8.7%) and paints and other paints related products (7.1%),
Similarly, it was found that HHW are frequently generated in less than three months in
the study area. Also, HHW are not properly managed in Enugu Metropolis because there are; no
proper disposal methods for disposing HHW they are disposed alongside with other household
wastes; no recycling of HHW is carried out in the study area; lack of trained personnels, and no
facilities for managing HHW in Enugu Metropolis.
6.2 Strategies for Effective Management of Household Hazardous Waste
In Enugu Metropolis at present, only ESWAMA manages domestic waste from households and
there is no provision for HHW management. No HHW collection takes place in Enugu
Metropolis. From our awareness analysis, the people have a low level of awareness of the
dangers of HHW to their health, environment and improper disposal. For an effective
management of HHW in Enugu Metropolis, we suggest the following strategies to be deployed
by the government, ESWAMA, and householders.
1. Since there are no laws, acts, nor legislation backing up the management of HHW in the
study area, there should be formulation of enabling HHW laws and setting of policies.
Also, there is need to develop and enforce regulations for the management of HHW to
help enforce the HHW laws.
2. From our findings, since ESWAMA does not manage HHW, there should be a creation of
a unit under ESWAMA solely for the management of HHW in Enugu Metropolis. This
unit will be in charge of awareness campaigns on HHW. They will provide facilities for
the collection, disposal and recycling of HHW in Enugu Metropolis. Also, this unit under
ESWAMA should provide facilities for proper disposal of HHW. Since HHW are not
separated from other wastes, it is necessary for it to provide a separate bag for HHW and
distribute them to homes. The people will have to be instructed on how to sort their
wastes and put HHW in the bags provided. ESWAMA should provide HHW disposal
vehicles that will convey these HHW to appropriate landfill site where these wastes will
be handled specially as obtained in developed countries.
3. In the study area, there are no enlightenment programs for HHW management. Therefore,
there is an urgent need for awareness creation on the need for HHW management.
Aggressive HHW enlightenment campaigns should be initiated at the local and state
levels where wastes from households are managed. The campaign measures should
include:
• Educating the public on the need to purchase fewer hazardous products and accept
a greater amount of responsibility when using and discarding any products that
are purchased.
• Highlighting the consequences of improper disposal of HHW.
• Highlighting the most beneficial and closest disposal routes of HHW to the
households.
4. In the study area there are no facilities for disposing HHW, we therefore suggest the
amnesty collection method for disposing HHW. This method is a popular method of
dealing with HHW in other parts of the world particularly in the United States. It usually
involves a public site being designated for a morning, afternoon or weekend and
households are requested to bring their HHW to the site. A staffed vehicle or shipping
container will be on the site to enable identification and collection of the waste. Once
amnesty is completed, the vehicle returns to either a base for consolidation or delivers the
waste to a reprocessing site. The system is intended to operate as a mobile HHW waste
dump by attracting people to the service at advertised intervals. The collection staff will
be trained to identify and advise.
5. Further more, the people should be notified at the point of purchase, or on the packaging,
that certain items contain dangerous or hazardous materials necessitating special handling
and disposal practices. This will reduce the quantity of HHW generation in Enugu
Metropolis.
6. In addition, special collection for recyclables should be introduced. Recycling markets
should be established for household hazardous materials, so that the materials can be
easily diverted from the waste stream through special collection programs. This will
create jobs for scavengers.
7. Also, householders should be involved in HHW management. Strategies to be employed
by households for effective management of HHW include
• Reduction of HHW at source; they should reduce the amount of products with
hazardous components, and use the amount needed.
• Taking the waste to hazardous waste site instead of municipal solid waste site.
• Using and storing of products containing hazardous substances carefully to prevent
any accident at home.
• Adhering to instructions for disposal and use of the products provided on the label of
the hazardous products.
• Regular sorting of wastes according to types
• Avoidance of indiscriminate dumping of HHW.
8. Finally, we recommend that an act similar to Superfund be created (i.e Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act which is a program that deals
with clean up of hazardous waste sites in the U.S) and properly adopted in Enugu
Metropolis. This entails the Federal government becoming a principal participant in the
clean up of hazardous waste sites, clean up of hazardous waste dumps and protect the
public against the dangers of such wastes. More so, Therefore, when strategies for an
effective management of HHW are being developed in Enugu Metropolis in future, areas
that recorded high frequencies of generation such as G.R.A, and Independence Layout
should be provided with more facilities for HHW collection and more awareness
campaigns ought to be done in these areas.
6.3 Conclusion
The management of HHW in Enugu Metropolis with a view towards having a sustainable
and friendly environment have being analyzed. HHW which are generated in Enugu Metropolis
and disposed alongside other household wastes have posed a problem. They are poorly managed
as a result of low level of public awareness concerning HHW in the study area and there are no
facilities or equipments to utilize these wastes. This work has shown the dangers of HHW to the
health, the environment and in disposal. This is because HHW contain chemicals that can pose
acute and chronic hazards to human health and to the safety of people handling them. Also,
HHW can corrode or dissolve materials by chemical action and burn or injure skin, it can ignite
or have the ability to burst into flames, explode or produce deadly vapours, or be poisonous or
lethal when ingested, inhaled or absorbed through the skin.
We have identified the spatio-temporal distribution of HHW in the study area. We also,
discussed the problems of HHW disposal and handling, which is due to low level of awareness.
Finally, based on our findings, we suggested strategies that the government, ESWAMA, and
householders should employ in HHW management in Enugu Metropolis such as; establishing an
agency that will manage HHW; awareness creation on the management of HHW, amnesty
collection, and recycling among others.
References
ADEME (2000) : Atlas des déchets en France. 2eme Edition.
AGAMUTHU, P. (2001): Solid Waste: Principles and Management. Institute of Biological
Sciences, University of Malaya, 2001
AWO, O.K. (2007): Strategies for Enhancing Solid Waste Disposal Practices of Households in
Urban Areas of Kastina State. Unpublished M.Sc. Project, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
BEEDE, D. N and BLOOM, D. E. (1995): “The Economics of Municipal Solid Waste”. The
World Bank Research Observer 10(2). August; 113 -150
BUENROSTRO, O.D., OJEDA, S.B. and MARQUEZ, L.B. (2007): “Comparative Analysis of
Household Hazardous Waste in Two Mexican Regions”. Waste Management Vol 27, pp 792-
801.
BURNLEY, S.J., ELLIS, J C., FLOWERDEW, R., POLL, A.J., and PROSSER, H. (2007):
“Assessing the composition of Municipal Solid Waste in Wales”. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 49,264-283.
COINTREAU, S. J. (1987): Solid Waste Recycling: A case study in Developing countries. The
World Bank, Washington, D.C.
CONN, D.W. (1989): “Managing Household Hazardous Waste”. American Planning,
Association Journal .Spring 1989.
CONNELL, D., LAM, P., RICHARDSON, B. and WU, R. (1999): “Introduction to
Ecotoxicology”. Blackwell Science Limited, United Kingdom, 1999
DAVIDOFF, L. (1989): “Multiple Chemical Sensitivities” Amicus Journal.winter 1989
DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL (2007): Household hazardous Waste.
California Department of Toxic Substance Control. California.
DOUGHERTY, J. (1989); Collection Program Liability. Summary of the Third National
Conference on Household Hazardous Waste Management. Medford, Massachusetts: Centre
for Environmental Management. Tuffs University.
EGBOKA, B.C.E.(1985): “Water Resources Problems in Enugu Area”. In Process of the
Literature, Symponsis on Scientific basis of water Resources Management. Jerusalem (Isreal).
Pp95-106.
EGWU, F. (2009): Personal communication. Public Relations Officer, ESWAMA.
EJLERTSSSON, J., KARLSSON, A., LAGERKVIST, A., HJERTBERG, T.A. and
SUENSSON, B.(2007): “Effects of Co-disposal of Waste Containing Orgranic Pollutants with
Municipal Solid Waste - a Landfill. Simulation reactor study”. Advance in Environmental
Research 7. Pp 949-960.Scopus.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH WATCH. (1998): The Greater Cleveland Environment Book.
“Household Hazardous waste”. Published by EcoCity Cleveland.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (1991): “Council Directive on Hazardous Waste” (91/689/EEC).
Official Journal of the European Communities, Brussels, pp. 20–7
EZEIGBO, H.I., and EZEANYIM, B.N.(1993): “Environmental Pollution from Coal Mining
Activities in Enugu Area, Anambra State, Nigeria”. Mine Water and the Environment, Vol.
12, annual issue. Pp 53-62.
FEDERAL CENSUS OFFICE (1964): Population Census of Nigeria 1963: Eastern Region.
FCO, Lagos. Vol.1.
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (1991): Environmental Impact
Assessment. Decree 86 FEPA, Abuja.
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (1999a): National Policy on the
Environment. FEPA, Abuja.
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (1999b): Nigeria’s National
Agenda 21. FEPA, Abuja.
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA OFFICIAL GAZETTE (2007): Hazardous Waste
Management.Vol. 94, No 24, , Lagos
GATKE, P. (2003): Future Management of Household Hazardous Waste in Petaling Jaya. A
Preliminary Assessment. Dept of Technology, Environment and Social Studies. DUCED-
MUCED I&UA, Roskilde, University Centre.
HOE, B.T. (2002): Impact of Leachate from Open Dumping and Municipal Landfills in the
Environment. A perspective of Policies in Linggi Drainage Basin. Proceedings of
International Conference, Environmental Management: Ten Years after Rio. Article Number
9. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaya and Universiti Purta , Malaya
KJElDSEN, P., BARLAZ, M .A. ROOKER, A. P., BAUN, A. LEDIN, A.and CHRISTENSEN
T. H (2002): “Present and long-term composition of MSW Landfill Leachate; A review”.
Critical Reveiw Environmental Science Technology Vol, 32:297-336.
KOUSHKI, P.A. and AL-HUMOUD, J.M. (2002): “Analysis of Household Hazardous
Substances in Kuwait”. Practical Periodical of Hazardous Toxic and Radioactive Waste
Management. Volume 6, Issue 44, pp. 250- 256.
MAMMAN, A.B.,OYEBANJI, J.O. and PETTERS, S.W. (2000): Nigeria, A People United, A
Future Assured. Vol. 2 Millennium Ed. Gabumo Publishing Company Ltd, Calabar.
NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE FORUM (1999): Good Practice Guide:
the Definitive Guide to Best Practice in Household Hazardous Waste Management Leeds,
UK, NHHWF/SWAP.
NZEADIBE, T.C. (2005): Geographical Implications of Treatment and Disposal of Hazardous
Waste From the Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas Project (NLNG), Bonny Island, Rivers State.
Unpublished M.Sc Project. University of Nigeria Nsukka.
OGUNDELE, B.O. (2000): “Managing Solid Wastes in Nigeria: Methods, Problems and
Solutions”. Nigeria School Health Journal. 9(1 and 2) 58-64.
OKPALA, J. (1995):” Problems of Solid Waste Disposal in Nigeria: Sorting at Source as the
Starting Point for Solution”. In Okoli, D., Ologe, K. O. and Igbozurike,U. M. (Eds).
Perspectives in Environmental Management. Proceedings of NEST Annual Workshop.
Ibadan: Kraft Books Ltd.
OLOGHOBO, A. (1995): “Strategies for Efficient Waste Disposal in Nigeria”. In Okali, D.
Ologe, K. O. and Igbozurike, U. M. (Eds). Perspectives in Environmental Management.
Proceedings of NEST annual Workshop. Ibadan: Kraft Books Ltd
OYEDIRAN, A.O. (1995): “Waste Generation and Disposal in Nigeria”. In Okali,D.,
Ologe,K.O. and Igbozurike,U.M. (Eds). Perspectives in Environmental Management.
Proceedings of NEST Annual Workshop. Ibadan: Kraft Books Ltd.
POWELL,M,, Kappan, P.D., and Swan, A. J., et.al.(1995): Final Reports of Household
hazardous waste Work Group. Georgia department of Natural Resources. Sept.25.
RASSAS, J. (2007): Earth 911. “What Makes Things Hazardous?” Global Alerts.
RESTREPO, I., BERNACHE, E. and RATHJE, W.(1991): The Demons of consumption,
Garbage and Contamination. Mexico pp 270.
ROBSON, C. (1993): Real World Research. Blackwell Oxford.
SAKURA, K. (1990): Improvement of Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries.
Japan: Institute for International Cooperation, Agency.
SAVE WASTE AND PROSPER SWAP (2003): Priority Waste Stream Project. Household
Hazardous Waste Project, 2003, SWAP LTD. U.K.
SANGODOYIN, .A.Y and IPADEOLA S.F. (2000): “Hazardous Wastes: Assessing the Efficacy
of Structures and Approaches to Management in Nigeria”. Environmental Management and
Health. Vol. 11, issues 1 pg 39- 46.MCB UP Ltd.
SCHRAB, G. E, Brown, K. W. and DONNELLY, K. C. (1993): “Acute and genetic to Toxicity
of Municipal Landfill Leachate”. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 69:99–11.
SLACK, R. J, GRONOW, J. R. and VOULVOULIS,. N. (2004): “Hazardous components of
household waste”. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 2004; 34:
419–45.
SLACK, R. J, GRONOW, J. R, ZERVA, P. and VOULVOULIS, N. (2005): “Assessing
Quantities and Disposal Routes For Household Hazardous Products In the United Kingdom”
Environmental Science & Technology 36, 1912-1919.
SLACK, R. J, BONIN, M., GRONOW, J. R, VAN SANTEN, A. and VOULVOULIS,. N.
(2007): “Household Hazardous Waste Data for the UK By Direct Sampling”. Environmental
Science & Technology41, 2566-2571.
SLACK, R. J, GRONOW, J. R. and VOULVOULIS, N. (2008a): “The Management of
Household Hazardous Waste in the UK”. Journal of Environmental Management. Elsevier
Ltd. Article in Press.
SLACK, R. J, GRONOW, J. R. and VOULVOULIS, N. (2008b): “Household Hazardous Waste
in The UK: An Overview”. Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (CWRM) :The
Journal for Waste and Resource Management Professionals Vol 9(2) pp.69-73.. IWM
Business Services Ltd.
STAPLES, P.M., PETERSON, A. PARKERSON, P. and ADAMS, G. (2005): Household
Hazardous Waste Management Program. City of San Antio, Solid Waste Management
Department.
STEINWACHS, M.A. (1989): “A Report on Household Hazardous Waste Management”.
Resource Recycling, 1989. Springerfield, Missouri.
TAMMEMAGI, H. (1999): The Waste Crisis: Landfills, Incinerators and the Search for a
Sustainable Future. New York: Oxford University Press.
THE ENVIRON WATCH (2005): “Recreating Enugu State” A Publication of Ministry of
Environment and Solid Minerals, Enugu State. Oct-Dec 2005. Vol 1 No.1
UNAMBA, I.M. (2001): Management of Household Solid Waste in Nsukka Urban. Unpublished
B.Sc. Thesis. Department of Geography, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program) (2002): A Report for Global Environmental
Monitoring system. Environmental Data Report 2000/2001. Brazil. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
US FEDERAL CODE. (1976): Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended 1976 Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act: Subtitle D (Solid Waste Program). US Code (Acts of
Congress) Title 42, Chapter 82, Subchapter I (Section 6901).
U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (2007): “Household Hazardous Waste”.
Municipal Solid Waste. Environmental Hazards Management Institute, Durham. August 15.
VIRK, M.K., CANDANA, S. and SANDU, P. (2004): Awareness among Urban Inhabitants
about Waste Management and its Impact on Environment. Journal of Human Ecology 15(2)
97-100.
WARMER BULLETIN 50, (1995): Household hazardous Waste. Journal of the World Resource
Foundation. Tonbridge.
WHITE, P.R., FRANKE, M. and HINDLE, P. (1995): Integrated Solid Waste Management.
Blackie Academic and Professional, London.
WIKIPEDIA (2007): “Hazardous Waste”. Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia.
WILLIAMS, P.T., (1998): Waste Treatment and Disposal. John Wiley and Sons. Chichester,
England.
YASUDA, K. AND TANAKA, M., (2006): “Research on hazardous household waste generation
in Japan”. Waste Management and Research, Vol. 24 No.4, 397-401. 2006 International
Solid Waste Association.
APPENDIX A
LETTER TO RESPONDENT
Department of Geography,
University of Nigeria,
Nsukka, Enugu State.
Date ……………..
Dear Respondent,
Questionnaire on Effective Management of Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) in
Enugu Metropolis, Nigeria.
I am a Post Graduate Student of the above named institution conducting a research work
on the stated title. The study is being carried out with the aim of examining the generation,
disposal and management of household hazardous waste (HHW) and to suggest effective
management strategies in Enugu Metropolis.
Your anonymity and confidentiality will be strictly preserved. Thus, all information
supplied by you will be used strictly for academic purpose and will be treated as such.
Thank you for your anticipated co-operation.
Yours faithfully,
Ubachukwu, N.N.
Questionnaire
Effective Management of Household Hazardous Waste in Enugu, Metropolis Nigeria.
Instruction: please read carefully the following statements, and write down your responses in the
blank spaces provided, where there are alternatives put a check (�) against the response that is
best replicable to you.
SECTION A
Personal data
1. In which part of Enugu is your house located?
2. Sex; Male , Female
3. Age: 20-30 31-40 , 41-50 , 51-60
4. What is your level of education?
None /FSL , WASC , OND , BS.c/ HND , M.Sc /PHD
5. Occupation:
Unskilled Workers / labourer , Artisans , Traders , Student , Clerical and
sales officers Professionals
6. If you are not a civil servant about how much do you earn per month estimate?
5,000-20,000 , 20,000-5,000 , 50,000-100,000
100,000-250,000 , 250,000 and Above
7. What type of building do you occupy?
Multiple rooms buildings , Multiple Storey
Two Bed Room Flat , Three bed Room Flat
Duplex and Bungalow
8. Is the building owner occupied or rented ?
9. Is it only your household that lives in the compound? Yes No
10. How many people are in your household: One , Two 3-4 Five ,
More Than Six
SECTION B
Types of HHW, Frequency of Generation, Handling and Disposal Practices in Enugu
Metropolis.
Please the tick ones related to you.
11. Have you used and disposed any of the following HHW in the last three months?
i. Paints and related products (e.g. Strippers, thinners, oil based paints, water based paints,
solvents)
ii. Garden Chemicals (e.g. insecticides, weed killers, pesticides, soil fertilizers, rat poisons).
iii. Motoring Products (e.g. Antifreeze, Brake fluid, Brake oil, old tyre).
iv. Household Batteries (e.g. Car batteries, torch batteries, rechargeable batteries).
v. Home Appliances (e.g. old T.V sets, computers, stabilizers, handsets, stabilizers ).
vi. Medicines (e.g. expired drugs, injections, surgeries, injection, oral, etc).
vii. Home cleaning (e.g. detergents, Air fresheners, aerosols, soap bars, disinfectants oven
cleaners).
viii. Household Glasses and chemicals (e.g. Fluorescent tubes, shoe polish, bulbs, plastics,
nail polish etc).
12. If you tick others can specify? ___________________________
13. Do you have a garden and a car?
Garden, Yes No
Car, Yes No
14. How long have you had the HHWs you ticked above in store?
Less than 6 months , Less than a year
Less than 1 – 5 years , Don’t know
15. How do you dispose of these HHW ?
Never had any to dispose of
Keep them , Throw in dust bin
Put it down the sink or drain Take to household waste site
Others please specify _______________________________
SECTION C
Awareness on HHW.
16. Have you ever heard of HHW? Yes , No
Please tick whether you strongly agree (SA), agree (A), Strongly disagree (SD), Disagree (D),
Undecided (UD)
17a. Paints and related products can be harmful to your
health, if not used properly.
b. Paints and related products can
be harmful to the environment if not
use properly.
c. Paints and related products can
be a problem to dispose of.
SA A UD D
SD
18a. Garden chemicals can be harmful to your health if
not used properly.
b. Garden Chemicals can be harmful to the environment
c. Garden Chemicals cause a problem to dispose of.
19a. Motoring products can be harmful to your health if
not used properly
b. Motoring products can be harmful to the environment.
c. Motoring products can be a problem to dispose of.
20a. Household batteries can be harmful to your health if
not used properly
b. Household batteries can be harmful to the
environment
c. Household batteries can be a problem to dispose of.
21a. Household appliances can be harmful if not used
properly
b. Household appliances can be harmful to the
environment
c. Household appliances can be a problem to dispose of.
22a. Medicines can be harmful to
your health if not properly used
b. Medicines can be harmful to the
environment
c. Medicines can be a problem to dispose of.
23a. Home cleaning products can be harmful to your
heath if not used properly
b. Home cleaning products can be harmful to the
environment
c. Home cleaning products can be a problem to dispose
of
24a. Household chemical/glasses can be harmful to
health if not used properly.
b. Household chemicals/glasses can be harmful to the
environment
c. Household chemicals/glasses can be a problem to
dispose of
25. Do you think HHW are problems in Enugu Metropolis? Yes No
SECTION D
Problems of HHW Disposal and Handling
26. What problems do you think hinder proper disposal of HHW by householders?
Poor awareness and attitude , Lack of knowledge of HHW
Lack of time to sort HHW Inappropriate waste bins
27. Are you currently paying for any disposal system?
Yes , No
28. What problems do you think hinder proper HHW disposal by
ESWAMA? Inappropriate waste bins for different kinds of waste
Low public enlightenment campaigns Lack of monitoring and supervision
Poor funding of ESWAMA Weakness and lapses of institution and legislation
Lack of public co-operation
Thank you for your time and co-operation.
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE EXTENT OF HHW GENERATED IN
ENUGU METROPOLIS
Locations paints Garden
chemicals
Motoring
products
Household
Batteries
Home
appliances
Medicine Home
cleaning
Household
glasses
Abapka 5 15 10 25 15 20 30 25
Achara 2 26 10 20 5 7 27 20
Asata 12 9 9 18 12 6 27 30
Aria 9 24 9 4 21 21 27 24
Gariki 9 12 9 21 17 6 27 20
G.R.A 12 24 21 30 24 21 30 30
Ind.Layout 10 20 20 25 10 7 30 25
New Haven 12 24 15 24 21 24 30 27
Ogui 18 12 12 18 12 18 30 30
Uwani 15 18 12 15 15 30 21 18
X1 X12 X2 X2
2 X3 X12X3
2 X4 X42 X5 X5
2 X6 X62 X7 X7
2 X8 X82
5 25 15 225 10 100 25 625 15 225 20 400 30 900 25 625
2 4 26 676 10 100 20 400 5 25 7 49 27 729 20 400
12 144 9 81 9 81 18 324 12 144 6 36 27 729 30 900
9 81 24 576 9 81 21 441 21 441 21 441 27 729 24 576
9 81 12 144 9 81 21 441 17 289 6 36 27 729 20 400
12 144 24 576 21 441 30 900 24 576 21 441 30 900 30 900
10 100 20 400 20 400 25 625 10 100 7 49 30 900 25 625
12 144 24 576 15 225 24 576 21 441 24 576 30 900 27 729
18 324 12 144 12 144 18 324 12 144 18 324 30 900 30 900
15 225 18 324 12 144 15 225 15 225 24 576 21 441 18 324
�X1= 104
�X1 2
=127
�X2
=208
� X22
=3722
� X3
=117
� X3 2
=1797
� X4
=237
� X4 2
=4881
� X5
=152
� X52
=2610
� X6
=139
� X62
=2928
� X7
=279
� X62
=7857
� X8
=249
� X82
=6379
X=10.4
X=20.8
X=11.7
X=23.7
X=15.2
X=13.9
X=27..9
X=24.9
Grand mean = 104+208+117+237+152+139+279+249 = 1485= 18.6
80 80
We calculate sum of squares
1272+2722+1797+4881+2610+2928+7857+6329 = 30,396
Total sum of squares
30,396-80(18.6)2
30,396-27,676.8= 2,719.2
Between group of squares
[10(10.4)2+10(20.8)2+10(11.7)2+10(23.7)2+10(15.2)2+10(13.9)2+10(27.9)2+10(24.9)2-
27,676.8]=
[(1081.8+4326.4+1368.9+5616.9+2310.4+1932.1+7784.1+6200.1)-27676.8]+
30620.5-27676.6=2943.7
Within sum of squares
TSS-BSS
2719.2-2943.7= -224.5
N=80 K=8
S2B= BSS/K-1= 2943.7/8-1 =420.5
S2W = WSS/N-K = -224.5/80-1 =2.84
F = SB2/SW2= 420.5/2.84=148.1
Analysis of Variance of the Extent of HHW Generated in Enugu Metropolis
Source of
Variation
Sum of
Squares
Degrees of
Freedom (Df)
Mean sum
0f squares
F
Between the types
Of HHW.
2943.7 7 420.5
Within the types
Of HHW
-224.5 73 2.8
148.1
Total 276189.2 80
Table value of F = 2.13
2.13< 148.1