Difference in the Percentage of Biodegradable Materials between Nigeria and Italy - Assignment Example

WASTE MANAGEMENT-MSW COMPOSITION By DIFFERENCE in the percentage of biodegradable materials between Nigeria and Italy Biodegradable wastes normally refer to the kind of wastes that can be broken down into its underlying original constituents by the prevailing living microorganisms and other corresponding living things. Biodegradable wastes are commonly municipal wastes arising from household wastes. Moreover, other biodegradables are dead plants and animals whilst household wastes that are biodegradable includes the food waste, papers, green waste, wastes such as wastes from slaughterhouse, manure, sewage, human waste and biodegradable plastics (Choi, 2007, pp112-156). Comparison of the differences in percentages of biodegradable materials amidst Nigeria and Italy depicts Nigeria to be having relatively higher organic waste percentage than corresponding Italy. Nigeria stands at 57% while Italy stands at 29% (Hester & Harrison, 2002. Pp107-178). Moreover, Nigeria is possessed relatively 28% higher in regard to the organic waste. In regard to the paper waste, Italy possesses a percentage of 28% whilst Nigeria has solely 11% thus making Italy have 17% relatively higher in solid waste than Nigeria (Choi, 2007, pp112-156). The underlying variances in regard to percentages are mainly attributed by numerous factors with most of the sources and waste management set up by every country. The main sources of solid wastes emanates from either rural or urban areas. Wastes from rural areas are normally rich in organic and are easily biodegradable whilst urban wastes are mostly determined by the underlying culture and practices of the society. In this case, Nigeria is still developing country where most of her population lives within the rural areas thus making it the main reason for the country having high organic waste (Choi, 2007, pp112-156). Most of organic wastes in Nigeria are from the rural areas. Conversely, Italy is one of the developed countries with most of her population dwelling within the urban areas where wastes is mainly determined by the culture. Italy has a high percentage in paper waste than Nigeria because there are high spending on packaging material and the absence of those who pick rags since Italy is richer than Nigeria. Nigeria as one of the developing country uses old newspapers and other unsoiled papers for packaging foods, while Italy being a developed country puts waste papers and old newspapers into trash rather that keeping them at the section of generation for the purpose of disposing scrap dealers (Choi, 2007, pp112-156). The main reason variation of the waste quantities is due to the differences in composition. Differences in composition are because of the low income individuals normally consume less as compared to the high income individuals (Daven & Klein, 2008, pp234-267). Moreover, another difference is caused by differences in the countries recycle waste at the source where they are generated. The last reason for the difference is mainly the difference within the culture, for instance, Italy has high income utilizes relatively larger quantities of paper for personal hygiene subsequent to utilization of the toilets (Choi, 2007, pp112-156). Using an appropriate equation, evaluate the potential caloric value of the biodegradable fractions in BOTH countries (outline and explain any assumptions made). The equation used to calculate the calorific value is given as E = 0.051 [F + 3.6 (CP)] + 0.352 (PLR) (source: Kiely, 1998) Where: PLR - % plastic and rubber (by wt.) F - % of food CP - % cardboard and paper Calorific value in Italy is given by E= 0.051 {29+3.6(28)} +0.352(5). This gives us a value of 8.3798 MJ/kg. While the calorific value of Nigeria is given by E= 0.051{57+3.6(11)} + 0.352(18) giving us a value of 11.2626 MJ/kg. The underlying assumptions in the calculation is the source of the prevailing wastes are similar implying that both countries utilize identical types of organic and corresponding paper materials thus releasing similar type of wastes (Hosetti, 2006, pp112-198). Moreover, the assumption is mainly based on the comparison of the two countries. Another assumption is that these two countries use same methods of waste recycling, they use same technologies in recycling wastes, hence the results are assumed to be the same. In the computation of the caloric value it is assumed that the instruments utilized in measuring the organic and paper waste are the same and that there is no variance in any of the instruments used (Daven & Klein, 2008, pp234-267). The samples had same moisture contents; their sampling points were also same. The day to day variations in equipment was not taken into consideration. The other assumption is that the moisture content remains in liquid form throughout the heating process (Hester & Harrison, 2002. Pp107-178). The other assumption made is that in both countries biodegradation takes place equally and that the temperatures in both countries are equal. Elaboration of the difference in the two caloric values The difference in two calorific values is mainly attributed to the differences in the fuel values (Hosetti, 2006, pp112-198). Nigeria had its fuel containing mostly hydrogen making the calorific value higher than that in Italy. Another cause in difference, in caloric value is the heating value of the gaseous fuels. Differences in the calorific values are the difference in technical proficiency with Nigeria lacking human resource at the national and corresponding local levels thus making it to have the technical expertise necessary for solid waste management. Conversely, Italy has human resource with technical expertise explaining the underlying difference in the calorific value. Another factor that leads to differences in calorific value in the two countries is the financial constraints (Choi, 2007, pp112-156). Nigeria has given very little priority in waste management particularly in the rural areas thus leading to the large amount of biodegradable solid waste in Nigeria than Italy where there is finance in waste management. Italy mainly focuses on waste reduction from the source hence having low calorific value, unlike Nigeria that focuses on waste reduction after its production; this increases the waste hence having high calorific value (Daven & Klein, 2008, pp234-267). Nigeria has poorly developed institutions that are mandated to deals with solid wastes. The institutions set up have clear roles and agency that is committed to carrying out the project of waste management. Ineffective legislation in waste management has led to more waste in Nigeria. Italy has well developed institutions that deals with waste management, they also have clear legislation policies, these has enabled them to have low waste levels, as a result of these differences there is difference in calorific values (Hester & Harrison, 2002. Pp107-178) Other factors that cause differences in the calorific value is the level of industrial development and the economic level (Daven & Klein, 2008, pp234-267). Nigeria industries are not fully developed to take care of all the farm produce thus making most of the produce goes to waste hence increasing the amount of solid waste thereby escalating the calorific value. Whilst in Italy the industries are developed and corresponding proper ways of food storage which has resulted to the reduction of the organic waste to a recognizable amount that subsequently leads to low calorific value (Hosetti, 2006, pp112-198). Waste recycling activities in Nigeria are also affected by the small number of industries that can receive and process recycled materials Individuals charged with the management of waste within Nigeria are the low social status than those of the Italy, which has correspondingly impacted negatively within Nigeria. This has subsequently resulted to low working ethics of laborers leading to relatively low quality work performance. With the use of any RELEVANT and NAMED technologies, critically evaluate how best value might be recovered from the biodegradable fractions in BOTH countries Most solid wastes from municipal mainly contain the organic matter, and the presence of the inorganic matter. The energy within the organic waste can be recovered and utilized for gainful purposes when appropriate waste processing and treatment technologies are employed (Daven & Klein, 2008, pp234-267). The main benefits offered by recovering energy from organic wastes entails reduction in total waste quantity by approximately above 60% that mainly depends on the composition of the waste and the adoption of the technology. Additional benefits are escalation of demand for the land within the cities as the prevailing utilized land for purposes of dumping of waste within the form of the landfills is reduced (Choi, 2007, pp112-156). Recovery from biodegradable fractions is the reduction of the transportation cost for the underlying waste to the landfills coupled with the reduction of the environmental pollution. Techniques utilized in the recovery of energy in regard to the organic wastes is undertaken through two main methods namely thermo chemical method and biochemical conversion method (Hester & Harrison, 2002. Pp107-178). Thermo chemical conversion method mainly consists of decomposing the organic matter thermally in the production of either heat energy or fuel gas. Gas of fuel can be utilized in place of the wood fuel that constantly pollutes the environment. Moreover, the produced gas is also clean thus making it environmentally friendly. Biochemical conversion method utilizes the enzymatic decomposition of organic matter through microbial action in the production methane gas and alcohol. Both Italy and Nigeria ought to embrace this technology. Wastes containing a large percentage of organic non-biodegradable matter and small moisture content are mainly reduced using the thermo chemical conversion process, main technological options adopted in this method are: incineration and pyrolysis (Daven & Klein, 2008, pp234-267). The biochemical processes are mainly suitable for wastes with the high percentage of organic biodegradable matter having high moisture content as this increases microbial activity. Technologies used here include anaerobic digestion which can also be called biomethanation. The parameters that are used in the determination of the potential of recovering the energy from wastes are the waste quantity and the quality of the waste encompassing both the physical and chemical characteristics of the wastes. Energy production depends on how the treatment process is employed. The most necessary physical parameters that should be considered in both countries are size of constituents, density, and moisture content (Hester & Harrison, 2002. pp107-178). When the sizes of the constituents are small there is usually faster decomposition of the waste while wastes that are larger in size do not decompose very fast, those wastes that have high densities contains high amount of the biodegradable organic matter and moisture (Hosetti, 2006, pp112-198). Wastes with low density include such wastes with high paper, plastics and others that can burn they have the low content of organic matter in them. Biodegradables with high moisture content decompose faster than those which have little or no moisture at all, meaning they are dry; the high moisture content also makes the waste not to be suitable for thermo chemical conversion, while dry wastes ere suitable for thermo chemical conversion (Daven & Klein, 2008, pp234-267). Chemical parameters considered when determining the energy recovery method and the suitability of treatment using any of the two technologies that are the biochemical and the thermo chemical includes volatility of solids, fixed carbon content, inerts, carbon to nitrogen ratio, calorific value, toxicity. The technological options which are employed for recovering energy from municipal solid wastes include: Anaerobic digestion, in this method, the organic wastes are separated and fed to a biogas digester, when subjected to the anaerobic conditions, the organic wastes will undergo biodegradation, and the result will be the production of biogas rich in methane. The volume of biogas produced could be ranging from 50m to 150m3 per tons of wastes that normally rely on the underlying composition of the waste (Daven & Klein, 2008, pp234-267). Biogas produced can be used as fuel in cooking and heating application, it can also be used in electricity generation where the gas is used as a fuel in heating water to form the steam which in turn turns the turbine and produces electricity, the sludge that remains after anaerobic digestion can be used as soil conditioner, or can be used as solid manure (Hester & Harrison, 2002. pp107-178). Anaerobic digestion procedure is segregated into three stages having three distinct physiological groups of microorganisms. The first stage involves bacteria that do fermentation; this includes the anaerobic and facultative microorganisms (Hosetti, 2006, pp112-198). Organic materials having complex structures such as the carbohydrates, lipids and proteins are hydrolyzed and fermented by these bacteria into fatty acids, alcohol, the carbon dioxide ammonia, hydrogen and sulfides. The second stage involves the acetogenig bacteria which will consume the primary products to produce hydrogen, carbon dioxide and acetic acid. The third stage utilizes two separate methanogenic bacteria; the first bacteria reduce carbon dioxide to methane and the second bacteria breaks down the carboxyl groups in acetic acid to methane and carbon dioxide. Energy from waste technologies and corresponding outputs The most common thermal treatment is mainly the incineration and the corresponding less common Advanced Thermal Treatments that includes gasification and pyrolysis. The size and the site normally influence the type of technology that is suitable (Daven & Klein, 2008, pp234-267). Utilization of heat significantly escalates the entire efficiency of the procedure and the environment benefits. Bibliography Bilitewski, B., HäRdtle, G., & Marek, K. (1997). Waste management. New York, Springer. Choi, E. (2007). Piggery waste management: towards a sustainable future. London, IWA Pub. Daven, J. I., & Klein, R. N. (2008). Progress in waste management research. New York, Nova Science Publishers. Dawson, G. W., & Mercer, B. W. (1986). Hazardous waste management. New York, Wiley. Dawson, G. W., & Mercer, B. W. (1986). Hazardous waste management. New York, Wiley. Hester, R. E., & Harrison, R. M. (2002). Environmental and health impact of solid waste management activities. Cambridge, Royal Society of Chemistry. Hester, R. E., & Harrison, R. M. (2009). Electronic waste management. Cambridge, UK, RSC Pub. Hosetti, B. B. (2006). Prospects and perspective of solid waste management. New Delhi, New Age International. Hosetti, B. B. (2006). Prospects and perspective of solid waste management. New Delhi, New Age International. Jacobson, T. C. (1993). Waste management: an American corporate success story. Washington, DC, Gateway Business Books. Kreith, F., & Tchobanoglous, G. (2002). Handbook of solid waste management. New York, McGraw-Hill. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10180089. Kumar, S. (2009). Solid waste management. New Delhi, Northern Book Centre. Lemann, M. F. (2008). Waste management. Bern, Peter Lang. Nemerow, N. L., & Agardy, F. J. (1998). Strategies of industrial and hazardous waste management. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold. Oberlin Solomon, A. (2011). The role of households in solid waste management in East African capital cities. S.l, s.n.]. Ronneau, C. (1997). Biotechnology for waste management and site restoration: technological, educational, business, political aspects ; [proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Utilization of Biotechnologies in the Field of Radioactive and Toxic Wastes Management and Site Restoration, Mol, Belgium, November 28 - December 2, 1994]. Dordrecht [u.a.], Kluwer Uriarte, F. A. (2008). Solid waste management: principles and practices : an introduction to the basic functional elements of solid waste management, with special emphasis on the needs of developing countries. Diliman, Quezon City, University of the Philippines Press. Vaughn, J. (2009). Waste management: a reference handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif, ABC-CLIO. Read More