**3. Results**

Table 4 shows the material percentage comparisons in the students' hall of residence, where waste generated from the male and female halls of residence are compared. It can be seen that the female halls of residence have a higher solid waste generation rate per day than that of the male halls of residence.

**Table 4.** Material comparison of waste generated in the students' hall of residence.


Total waste generated in the female halls of residence is 423.63 kg/day, while that of the male halls of residence is 417.5 kg/day. Tables 5 and 6 show a comparison between the wastes generated in the staff's residential areas of the University, while Figure 2 shows a comparison of the percentage of waste generated from the staff's residential areas.


**Table 5.** Material comparison of waste from residential areas for staff.

**Table 6.** Comparison of percentages of waste generated by residential areas for staff.


**Figure 2.** Comparison of percentages of waste generated by residential areas for staff.

Comparing the weight of waste generated in the various areas, it can be observed that the staff's residential areas have a larger composition of food waste. This can be attributed to the fact that staff members cook their food, unlike students who buy food which come in plastic food packs. Students' residential areas have a higher composition of plastic food packs, PET bottles, and nylons due to the frequent buying of food and drinks. It can be said that the number of housing units (i.e., the population) is a major factor affecting the rate of waste generation in the various staff residential areas. The new estate, which has the highest waste generation rate, also has the largest population. Taking an average of four (4) people per household, various estimates for each residential area can be expressed as follows:


Table 7 and Figure 3 compare the percentage of waste generated in the two cafeterias. It can be observed that Cafeteria 1 generated a larger amount of solid waste.


**Table 7.** Total waste generated in both cafeterias 1 and 2.

**Figure 3.** Percentages of waste obtained from the two cafeterias.

The disparity in results can be attributed to the difference in the number of students that visit both cafeterias—Cafeteria 1 generally has more customers, due to factors such as its proximity to the halls of residence. From Table 7 and Figure 3, it can be seen that the composition with the highest percentage in the total waste stream from the selected sites is food waste, followed by PET bottles and plastic food packs, respectively. The high composition of food waste mostly came from the staff's residential areas as they prepared their own food, thus increasing the amount of food waste generated. This corroborates with the assertions of Sridhar [21] and Ogwueleka [7], where they expressed that in Nigeria, 60 to 80 percent of waste is organic in nature. The high percentage of PET bottles and food packs is from the student residential areas, as they purchase food which comes in plastic food packs and drinks in PET bottles. Tin cans and paper were in the lowest percentile in the waste stream, and this may be attributed to the fact that people at the University rarely bought products in tin cans, and paper is also rarely used in the residential areas and cafeterias.

Table 8 and Figure 4 show that the new estate generated the largest weight of 664.68 kg/day, followed by the female halls of residence with 423.63 kg, and male halls of residence with 417.50 kg. This could be due to factors such as consumer habits, population, and others. Although the student residential areas have a higher population than that of the new estate, the heavier weight of waste in the new estate compared to that of the female and male halls of residence could be attributed to the variety of waste generated from the new estate, compared to that of the student residential areas. Because items purchased by students are limited, it reduces the weight of waste generated. Waste which comes from food preparation in the staff's residential areas weighs more than the other components in the waste stream. Table 9 shows that a significant amount of revenue could be generated from recyclable materials, and also presents the real economic values of the recyclable materials, exclusive of any processing. This is based on the sale of any of the materials in the waste stream (market price). The cost value is calculated per day, of which extrapolating to a year can be easily done. However, during the holidays, these values drop since the institution is basically residential as all students would have vacated the campus.

**Table 8.** Total average weight of waste generated in selected sites.


**Figure 4.** Comparison of total weight generated in selected areas.



I. Food Waste: Compost/organic fertilizers can be obtained from food waste by composting, which is an aerobic process where micro-organisms decompose biodegradable waste to produce organic fertilizers in the presence of oxygen. In Covenant University, the main sources of food waste that can be used for composting come from the cafeterias and staff residential areas.

II. Plastic: This includes PET bottles and plastic food packs. Plastic can be recycled or reused, depending on its quality. The recycling process of plastic involves sorting, washing, drying, wet grinding, as well as extrusion, and palletizing. The final product is then packaged and sold to consumers [3]. Some of the products created from recycled plastic include office accessories, fiber for sleeping bags and duvets, polyethylene bin liners and carrier bags, and many others. The major types of recyclable plastics are polyethylene terephthalate (PET), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), polypropylene (PP), and so on. In Covenant University, the main sources of plastic which include PET bottles and plastic food packs are the student halls of residence and the cafeterias.

III. Nylons: Nylons can be reused and also recycled into other forms of nylon, like sachets for water and black bags used for waste disposal.

IV. Tetra Packs: Tetra Pack cartons are primarily made from paper. 75% of the Tetra Pack carton is made from paperboard, 20% from polyethylene, and 5% from aluminum. These three materials are layered together using heat and pressure to form a six-layered armor which protects the contents from light, oxygen, air, dirt, and moisture. Furthermore, Tetra Pack cartons are lightweight, easy to transport, and fully recyclable. The aseptic technology allows the product inside to stay fresh, without the need of any preservatives.

V. Tin Cans: These include drink cans, food cans, and beverage tins. They are smelted in high-temperature furnaces, and the resulting molten metal can be used to manufacture foil that is reintegrated into the manufacturing process, hence saving natural resources, energy, time, and money. Figure 5 shows the comparison of the total weight generated in the selected areas.

**Figure 5.** Comparison of total weight generated in selected areas.

Covenant University currently has some forms of recycling activities, like selling PET bottles which have been turned into pellets, and waste paper being traded in exchange for tissue use. Target marketers are companies in the states of Lagos and Ogun dealing with PET-bottle recycled products, and Chinese companies that use the materials to produce fabrics. This initiative generates income from the project for the university, and the resulting environmental sanitation and sustainability will be at its peak. Figure 6 below shows the storage site of the collected PET bottles.

**Figure 6.** Collection site for all used PET bottles.
