Research article

Estimating emissions from open-burning of uncollected municipal solid
waste in Nigeria

1,
Chukwuebuka C. Okafor \*, Juliet C. Ibekwe1, Chinelo A. Nzekwe2, Charles C. Ajaero1 and
Chiadika M. Ikeotuonye3

1
SHELL Center for Environmental Management and Control, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus,
Enugu, 410001, Nigeria
2
School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University College Cork, Distillery Field

2
School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University College Cork, Distillery Field
Campus, North Mall, Cork T23 TK30, Ireland
3
Department of Estate Management, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University, PMB 02, Uli

3
Department of Estate Management, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University, PMB 02, Uli
Campus, Anambra State, Nigeria

- Correspondence: Email: [ebukao263@gmail.com](mailto:ebukao263@gmail.com); Tel: +2347069713586.

Abstract: Open-burning of municipal solid waste (MSW) is very common in Nigeria. Hence, this
work estimated the emissions (greenhouse gases and others) from open-burning of uncollected MSW
in Nigeria. The parameters (secondary data) used for the estimations were obtained from pertinent
literature of MSW generation rate in Nigeria, level of uncollected MSW subjected to burning in
Nigeria, oxidation/ burning efficiency and others, 80.6% of wastes generated in Nigeria are
combustibles. The National Bureau of Statistics showed that 52% of Nigerians lives in urban areas in
the year 2020. With an annual mean growth rate of 2.62% between 2006–2020 (World Bank data), the
urban population of Nigeria was estimated at 104,885,855 in 2020. The estimation for the year 2020
shows that the MSW generated by the urban population of Nigeria ranges from 16.8–25.3 million tons.
With burning/ oxidation efficiency (𝜂) of 0.58, between 2.4–3.7 million tons of the uncollected wastes
are open-burned. This represents 14.7% of the total MSW generated in Nigeria for the year. IPCC
guidelines show that only fossil-carbon wastes are climate-relevant for CO2 emissions. Our estimation
shows that 14.3% of the MSW generated in Nigeria contain fossil carbon. The total emissions for the
three GHGs–carbon dioxide, methane and nitrogen oxides were between 798 to 1,197 kilotons of CO2-
eq per year. Other emissions associated with open-burning of MSW was also estimated using their
default emission factor. The findings suggest the urgent need for the country to transition to proper waste management system, which will include improved collection and disposal to sanitary landfills,
to protect public health and the environment.

Keywords: open-burning; municipal solid waste; greenhouse gas; emissions; waste collection; waste
management; Nigeria

1. Introduction

Climate change has become a topical global issue, and the phenomenon is highly correlated with
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These GHG and other non-GHG emissions have environmental,
socioeconomic and health implications. Therefore, proper management of municipal solid waste
(MSW) has become a major concern in Nigeria \[1–5\]. Open-burning of MSW is a poorly characterized
and an underestimated source of air pollution in developing countries \[6–8\]. In Nigeria and other
developing countries, MSW are deliberately burned either at generation-source, at an open dump or in
uncontrolled, un-engineered dumpsites \[1,2,9–13\]. Many urban households in Nigeria prefer burning
their wastes, while municipal waste managers incinerate because it is a fast, easy and cheap way to
reduce the volume and size of waste at dumpsites or landfills \[1,3,9,14\], so as to create space for new
batches. There are existing laws against open-burning in many states of the country. Yet, the practice
is very common, which indicates poor enforcement or lack of better alternatives. Other causes are poor
financial resources of local and state governments, unavailability of other appropriate options to
dispose or manage the waste \[3\]. MSW management is a very challenging environmental issues facing
Nigeria. MSW is a category of waste generated from households. It comprises commercial and
industrial wastes, depending on the reporting standard \[15\].
Open-burning (different from controlled burning) is combustion at low temperatures (between

industrial wastes, depending on the reporting standard \[15\].
Open-burning (different from controlled burning) is combustion at low temperatures (between
o
250 and 700 C) in oxygen-deprived setting, without temperature and burning-time control. There is
lack of air pollution control measures, and it results to incomplete combustion \[8,14\]. The practice has
been linked to public health, environmental, and social issues. For example, open-burning of wastes
leads to 270,000 premature deaths per annum, across the globe \[7\]. Its emissions include GHGs such
as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and nitrogen oxide (N2O) \[8,13,16\].
Also, burning of wastes releases highly noxious smoke, foul odor, CO2, particulate matter, heavy
metals (such as cadmium, chromium, copper, zinc, etc.), known carcinogens such as benzene, dioxins,
furans and PAHs, etc. \[1,14,15,17,18\]. This is very serious since waste generation levels of countries
such as Nigeria (experiencing increasing economic and population growth) are expected to triple in
the next 30 years \[19\].

700;^{0}\\mathrm{C})

\\mathrm{(C O\_{2})}

:\\mathrm{(N\_{2}O)}

\ \\mathbf(\\mathrm H\_{4})

\ \\mathrm{C O\_{2}}, from 13 cities in Nigeria; Ipeaiyedea and Falusi \[20\] focused only on two dumpsites at Lagos and
Ibadan, while Fakinle et al \[21\] used secondary data to estimate emissions from solid waste combustion
in Lagos from 2007–2016. The studies highlighted that MSW open-burning is a leading source of
emissions in Nigeria metropolises. However, our study attempts to estimate for the emissions from
burning MSW for the entire urban Nigeria population for the year, 2020. To the best of our knowledge
and relevant search, no such works have been conducted. The need for the study is critical considering
the huge amount of solid wastes generated within the urban areas of Nigeria and the abysmally poor
collection and disposal methods. Thus, the importance of this study. It is expected that waste managers
and policymakers will find useful the data generated by the study, so as to create policies and action
plans for effective and adequate waste management and future emissions control strategy.
In this paper, simplistic estimation was conducted on emissions from open-burning of uncollected

In this paper, simplistic estimation was conducted on emissions from open-burning of uncollected
MSW. secondary data were used, and were assumed for the entire country. The study is very relevant
considering that climate change is a critical concern facing the globe today. The effect is predicted to
be more severe for developing countries such as Nigeria that lacks technical and adaptation
capacity \[7,22\]. Data on waste management are still at infant stage in Nigeria and while it is assumed
that 44% of the wastes generated in the country are collected, there is no readily available data on their
treatment method. Thus, it becomes difficult to carry out estimation for open-burning of collected
wastes in Nigeria. Disposal methods for uncollected wastes are generally, carelessly disposed to the
environment (land and water) and open-burning \[4,19\].
This study adopted the IPCC guidelines \[12,13,16\] in the estimation Intergovernmental Panel on

This study adopted the IPCC guidelines \[12,13,16\] in the estimation Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) is viewed as the leading global entity for the assessment of climate change \[23\]
(and invariably their forcing factors–greenhouse gas emissions). Accordingly, they have developed a
comprehensive method to standardize the calculation or estimation of GHG emissions at countrywide
level. Their guidelines are also used to inventories for the major emissions defined in the Kyoto
protocol in a particular system such as regional, national and others \[13,16\]. Most studies on the
estimation of emissions from open-burning of wastes or waste management in general employs the
IPCC methodologies, for example \[6–8\]. Limitations were acknowledged in this estimation. This study
assumes default oxidation or burning efficiency, given by the IPCC \[12,13,16\] and also respective
default emission factors of the pollutants \[8,12\]. It was also assumed that open burning takes place
throughout the year. Similarly, the rate of burning for the various waste materials were assumed
uniform. Level of waste recovery (for recycling or reprocessing) was assumed negligible in the
estimation. In the first section, general introduction and brief literature review was discussed; while
the second section explains the methodology adopted. The third section presents and discusses the
results.

MSW is one of the most pressing problems connected with economic growth and urban
population. When it is not treated, it creates damaging and toxic constituents, which spreads into the
environment \[24\]. MSW generation are expected to increase in developing countries such as Nigeria,
where income level and population (both influencing consumption pattern) are rising
steadily \[1,19,24–27\]. Other factors such as urbanization is also influencing the trend. In Nigeria (and
most other places), solid wastes are related more with urban areas since waste generation is normally
lower in rural areas. On the average, rural dwellers earn lower income, and consumes lesser finished

2. Brief literature review consumer goods \[28\]. Economic (and population) growth increases waste generation and the pollution emissions they produce in the process of disposal \[29\]. Although it is widely accepted that Nigeria’s waste generation ranges between 0.44 to 0.66 kg/capita/day, there is marked variation across the different geographical locations and between urban and rural areas \[1\]. For example, the following were reported in some Nigerian cities 0.13 kg/capita/day for Oyo State; 0.25 kg/capita/day for Borno state, 0.60 kg/capita/day for Rivers state \[30\]; 0.71 kg/capita/day at Ekiti State \[25\]; 0.58 kg/capita/day at Ogun State \[9\]; 0.30 kg/capita/day for Kano State \[31\]; 0.31 kg/capita/day for Kaduna metropolis \[32\]; 0.95 kg/capita/day for Lagos\[26\]. Food waste averages 50% of all MSW in Nigeria \[25\]. For the entire Nigeria, waste generation ranges between 0.44–0.66 kg/capita/day \[1\], which encompasses World Bank statistic (0.53 kg/capita/day) for Lower-middle income countries for the period, 2016–2030 \[19\]. Per capita MSW generation in Nigeria is substantially lower than those of developed or high-income countries, but the expected growth in Nigeria (and other developing countries) will increase the generation rate. For example, adopting Toda and Yamamoto approach and Granger tests, there is a bidirectional causal association between per capita GDP and MSW generation \[29\]. This is consistent with economic conception that increased wealth produces higher demand for consumer goods and, consequently, more waste \[19,28\]. Conversely, the provision of proper MSW management services by the municipalities is not increasing correspondingly in the country \[3,4,25.33\]. MSW management consists of collection, storage, transport, treatment, reprocessing, and disposal \[4,28,33,34\]. The practice is very poor in Nigeria, because waste management (which are mostly run by state governments) is poorly funded in Nigeria. Transportation alone accounts for about 33% of waste management \[2\], while the entire activities related to collection accounts for between 60–80% of waste management costs \[35\]. Literature shows that the state agencies responsible for waste management do not have adequate trucks/ vehicles and equipment for waste transportation. Those available are poorly maintained or are non-functional \[28\] for example, Ibikunle et al \[27\] reported that only 43% of collection vehicles are functional or available in Ilorin, Nigeria. In a study, inadequate funding accounts for 28% of the challenges faced by waste management agencies in Nigeria, followed by inadequate vehicles (22%), lack of proper maintenance (21%), distance between the waste disposal sites from residential areas (12%), inadequate workers (9%) and inaccessibility to the residential areas due to lack of urban planning (8%) \[2\]. The result suggests that collection-related issues accounts for about 72% of the problems facing waste management. Non-transportation of waste from designated or sanctioned waste bins have led to overflow of wastes into the streets, rivers; constituting aesthetic nuisance and adverse public health effects \[28\]. Without transportation, waste collection cannot be achieved. Poor waste collection creates a major barrier to advanced waste management value chains such as recycling, waste-to-energy schemes and others. To counter these barriers most state governments in Nigeria have partnered with private enterprises to provide adequate and efficient waste management. Though the populace is satisfied by the improvements private partnership brings to waste management, poverty and unwillingness-to-pay has weakened or affected the model seriously in most states of the country \[26\]. Accordingly, many of the PPP have been cancelled entirely or services rendered reduced significantly. Because of the poor waste management system in Nigeria, most of the urban populace are left with no other option than to use a cheaper way of disposing their wastes which includes open-burning. The burning is carried out in drums, containers, fields, large or empty plots and illegal dumps \[5\]. Figure 1 shows waste disposal method in Nigeria, as sourced from \[4,10,19\].

_AIMS Environmental Science_ Volume 9, Issue 2, 124–144.

* * *

Disposal method of uncollected MSW in Nigeria

**Figure 1. Disposal method of uncollected MSW in Nigeria.**

The figure above suggests that 17.6% of the entire wastes generated in urban areas of Nigeria are open-burned either at source or at open dumpsite, while 38.4% are carelessly disposed. The practice of open-burning MSW is not limited only to households, municipal waste managers also frequently burn their wastes at the landfills (or at best sanctioned dumpsites) \[3\]. Change in consumption pattern has increased and diversified the composition of waste generated in Nigeria. While organic or decomposable wastes still accounts for most of the waste generated in Nigeria, the composition are changing. Unlike organic wastes, inorganic wastes pose more serious environmental and health risks such as heavy metal pollution of aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Burning of such wastes (plastics, e- wastes, etc.) also releases toxins such as polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) \[36\]. Thus, measures must be put in place to reduce or enforce the ban on waste burning in Nigeria, so as to safeguard the environment and the health of the people. That calls for proper and adequate waste management system. Considering that waste generation are bound to increase because of income and population growth; the finite nature of earth’s resources; a growing concept towards mitigating the trend is circular economy \[24,28\], which is regenerative in nature and decouples economic growth from waste generation. Studies have been carried out on emissions from burning of MSW in Nigeria. \[5,20,21\]. Ipeaiyeda and Falusi \[20\] analyzed for only SO2, NOx and NH3, using air measurement near a dumpsite at Awotan and Lapite dumpsites in Ibadan metropolis, Nigeria. Fakinle et al \[21\] estimated anthropogenic emissions (including open-burning of MSW) for Lagos using secondary data and emission factors. They estimated levels of emission of PM10, carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx) and volatile organic compound (VOC). Okedere et al \[5\] using secondary data on MSW generation and emission factors, estimated emissions of thirteen (13) cities in Nigeria. Both studies \[5, 21\] assumed that 100% of the generated MSW are subject to burning. However, many studies show that a greater level of uncollected wastes in Nigeria are dumped in environment such as on land and into water bodies \[10,28\]. Hence, it is assumed that there is a different “treatment” method for collected and uncollected wastes. Thus, we can safely reason that amount of MSW open-burned in Nigeria is lesser than 100%. Besides, not all waste open-burned are completely burnt. This is related to factors such as amount of combustible wastes, compaction, oxidation or efficiency factor \[12,13,16\]. Thus, the need to conduct Nigeria-wide (urban areas) estimations using IPCC guidelines.

_AIMS Environmental Science_ Volume 9, Issue 2, 124–144.

* * *

3. Methodology

3.1. The study area

The study area, Nigeria, is located in West Africa. The country lies between Latitudes 4.32°N
and 14°N and longitudes 3°E and 15°E. It has a total land area of 910,770km2, while water bodies
are 13,000km2. There are thirty-six (36) states and a Federal Capital Territory (FCT, Abuja) in Nigeria.
The National Population Commission (NPC) census of 2006 recorded the country’s population as
140,431,790. The country’s population great an average of 2.62% between 2006–2020 \[37\]. Nigeria
has a population density of 226 persons per kilometers-squared in 2020 and is the seventh-most
populous country in the world. In the year 2020, 52% and 48% of Nigerian population live in urban
and rural areas, respectively \[38\]. In the same year, per capita GDP of the country is $2,097, which is
higher than the average for sub-Saharan Africa ($1,483.7) \[39\]. Waste generation in Nigeria ranges
between 0.44–0.66 kg/capita/day \[1\], but there is variation across different locations of the country
(see Figure 2).

4.32^{\\circ}\\mathbb{N}

3^{\\circ}\\mathrm{E}

14^{\\circ}\\mathrm{N}

910,,770\\mathrm{k m}^{2}

15^{\\circ}\\mathrm{E}.

13,000\\mathrm{k m}^{2}

Our disaggregated data shows the waste generation rate in southern part of the country is
0.62 kg/capita/day, while it is 0.58 kg/capita/day in the northern part (Supplementary file). South-West
Nigeria has the highest per capita waste generation, while the least, is the North-East. The regional
variation may be related to economic indicators. The southern regions of the country are more
economically advanced than the northern regions. For example, 65.3% and 32.6% of the population in
northern and southern regions, respectively, lives below the poverty level \[40\]. Nigeria has a tropical
climate with varying wet (rainy) and dry season across the geographical regions. Humidity is usually
high in the North and decreases during the harmattan period. Usually, open-burning of solid waste
occurs at two levels–at generators and disposal sites (dumpsites or landfills) \[1,8,12,16,41\]. It is common for rainfall and wind to transport wastes across the environment. Similarly, particulates and
other noxious emissions produced during open-burning spreads, together with its associated health
th
risks. Globally, Nigeria is the 17 largest GHG emitter and second in Africa (after South Africa).
Climate change will have impact Nigeria greatly. For example, lower precipitation will affect food
supply since the country depends heavily on rain-fed agriculture \[22\]., This poses socioeconomic and
political risks.

17^{\\mathrm{t h}}

3.2. Estimation methods

The study adopted the IPCC guidelines \[12,13,16\]. The importance of IPCC guidelines in
emissions model is clearly seen in similar works \[5,21\] done in Nigeria, which assumed that all MSW
generated in Nigeria are open-burned. Though they applied emission factors, there was no specification
of the amounts that were combustibles, the level of oxidation or burning efficiency, amount collected
or subjected to the burning as not all generated MSW are burned. Thus, the result can become an overestimation. IPCC guidelines \[12,13,16\] requires that the above parameters must be included for
national estimation. Data were sourced from literature, and the estimation was conducted for the year
2020\. The year 2020 estimation ofn the population data of Nigeria was conducted using the figure
given Nigerian National Population Commission Census of 2006 (last census conducted in Nigeria).
There is no available data on the amount of waste open-burned at dumpsites/ landfills in Nigeria.
However, the level of open-burning of uncollected MSW were sourced from Adekola et al \[4\] and
Adeniran et al10\]. Therefore, the study focused on open-burning of uncollected MSW. The generally
accepted MSW generation rate 0.44–0.66 kg/capita/day \[1\] was adopted, and encompasses the
0.53 kg/capita/day for sub-Saharan Africa \[19\] for the period between 2016–2030. In open-burning of
MSW, the important GHG to account for are CO2 (normally the most substantial), methane (CH4) and
nitrous oxide (N2O). In this study, these were reported using the Global Warming Potential (GWP),
which quantifies the effect over time (usually 100 years) of a polltant amount, compared to the same
amount of CO2 expressed in CO2-equivalent (CO2-eq) \[7,8,12,13,16\]. The adopted default emission
factors (for the other two GHG–CH4 and N2O) were expressed in kg CO2-eq.

\\mathrm{(C H\_{4})}

\\mathrm{C O\_{2}}

3.2.1. Amount of waste open-burned

\\mathrm{C{\_{{o O O}}}}

Where, 𝑀𝑆𝑊𝐵= amount of MSW open-burned (kg/year); 𝑃𝐶 = urban population (capita). PC =
104,885,855. The estimated total population of Nigeria in year 2020 is 201,703,566, projected with an
annual growth of 2.62% \[37\] from 140,431,790 given by 2006 National Population Commission
census. 52% of Nigerians lives in urban areas \[38\]. 𝑀𝑆𝑊𝑃= per capita MSW generation factor
(kg/capita/day); and 𝑀𝑆𝑊𝑃= 0.44–0.66 kg/capita/day \[1\]. According to \[13\], 𝑃𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑐is population
whose waste is not collected by municipal waste managers but rather are burned at source and opendumps. Only 44% of wastes generated in Nigeria (and sub-Saharan Africa) are collected by municipal
managers, while, 56% are uncollected \[19\]. 20.8% and 10.7% of the uncollected MSW are burned at

M S W\_{B}={\\tt{a m o u n t}}

The adapted IPCC Guidelines for GHG inventories \[12,13,16\], is expressed as:

(1)

\ M{W\_{P}}=0.44{-}0.66

P\_{f r a c}

M S W\_{B}=P C,\\times,M S W\_{P},\\times,P\_{f r a c},\\times,\\delta,\\times,\\eta,\\times,365 source and open-dumps, respectively \[4,10\]. Therefore, 𝑃𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑐= 31.5% of the uncollected MSW (56%).
𝛿 = combustible amount of the total MSW. Combustible constituents of the MSW (𝛿) include food
residue, paper, plastic bottles, textile and clothing, wood, vegetation (green, grass/ garden trimmings),
cartons used for packaging, plastic and polyethylene bags \[27\]. The following studies reported
combustible amount of the MSW as 89.2% \[31\]; 91% (Edo State) and 87% (Lagos) \[42\]; 81% \[43\];
73.4% \[1\]; 72.1–81.1% \[32\], 70% \[27\]. Accordingly, we calculated the average composition of
combustible wastes in Nigeria (𝛿) to be 80.6% (Supplementary file). It compares fairly with 62.6%
reported by Kaza et al \[19\]. 𝜂 = burning/ oxidation efficiency (fraction). 𝜂 is defined as the portion of
waste whose carbon content is oxidized and converted to carbon dioxide. 𝜂 is closer to 1.0 for waste
incinerators (close system). For burning of MSW, 𝜂 is lower, and 0.58 is recommended by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change \[8,12,13,17\].

P\_{f r a c}!=!31.5%

\\eta=\\mathtt{b u r n i n g}/

3.2.2 Emissions produced by open-burning of wastes

Emissions were estimated using the IPCC Guidelines for GHG inventories and \[12\]. The study
adopted default unit emission factor for each pollutant, which expresses the emission per amount of
MSW burned as follows:

E m\_{i}=M S W\_{B},\\times,E F\_{i}

(2)

Where, 𝐸𝑚𝑖= Emission of pollutant i; 𝐸𝐹𝑖= emission factor of pollutant i (g/kg of dry matter
burned or kg-CO2/ton MSW); and 𝑀𝑆𝑊𝐵= amount of MSW burned (kg/year). The EFs are given in
Table 1 below:

E m\_{i}=\ \\mathrm{E m i s s i o}

;E F\_{i}={\\mathrm{e m i s s i o}}

\\mathrm{k g-C O\_{2}/t o n,M S W}}\\end{array,

\ M S W\_{B}=\ \\tt{a m o u n t}

| Species |
| --- |
| Carbon dioxide(CO2) |
| Methane(CH4) |
| N2O |
| NH3 |
| Black carbon(BC) |
| Organic carbon(OC) |
| Sulphur dioxide(SO2) |
| Nitrogen oxides(NOx) |
| Carbon monoxide(CO) |
| Non-methane volatile organic compounds(NMV) |
| Particulate matter10(PM10) |
| Particulate matter2.5(PM2.5) |

|  | Emission factor |
| --- | --- |
| OC) | 801.2kgCO2/tonMSW\* |
| 162.5kgCO2/tonMSW\* |  |
| 44.7kgCO2/tonMSW\* |  |
| 0.94g/kg |  |
| 5.5g/kg |  |
| 5.27g/kg |  |
| 0.5g/kg |  |
| 3g/kg |  |
| 42g/kg |  |
| 15g/kg |  |
| 30g/kg |  |
| 9.8g/kg |  |

\ 301.2,\ \\mathrm{k g},\\mathrm{C O}\ \\mathrm{t o n},\\mathrm{M S W},\\mathrm{\ }

(\\mathrm{C O\_{2}})

Limitations: In the estimation, limitations were acknowledged. Because of the way burning of
MSW is carried out in Nigeria, there is no available reliable data \[8,12,14,15\]. Methods for collecting
of data relevant to solid waste management are at infant stage in Nigeria and have extensive
gaps \[4,19,30\]. The study is therefore limited to estimating emissions produced from only openburning of uncollected MSW. The paper assumes the IPCC oxidation/ burning efficiency of 58% or

162.5,\ \\mathrm{k g},\\mathrm{C O},/mathrm{t o n},\\mathrm{M S W},\\mathrm{^{star}}

\\mathrm{N{\_2O}}

\\mathrm{N H\_{3}}

(\\mathrm{S O}{}\_{2})

2.5,(\\mathrm{P M\_{2.5})}

\\mathrm{(P M\_{l10})}

* * *

𝜂=0.58 \[12,13,16\]. Open-burning of wastes is associated with daily MSW generation (kg/cap/day), and is likely to occur seven days a week, with burning events occurring less frequently during the rainy season and more regularly in the dry season \[12\]. The study assumed uniformity, that is, burning occurs throughout the year (365 days). The study assumes the rate of burning for the different MSW materials are homogenous. Emissions from burning of MSW depend in part on factors, such as local weather conditions (for example, ambient temperature, humidity), waste composition (organic and inorganic) and their moisture contents, etc. \[1,12,44\]. Since default emission factors were used, the local weather conditions were assumed negligible \[8,13,16\]. Only the climate-relevant CO2 emissions from fossil- carbon materials were taken into account. The fraction of CO2 considered to be from fossil sources are regarded as climate-relevant. Generally, three waste types consist of non-biogenic (fossil) carbon– plastics, textiles and a mixed group of rubber and leather \[13,16\]. In our study, fossil (non-biogenic) carbon is about 14.3% (plastics and textile/clothing and leather) of the combustible MSW (see Figure 3 and supplementary file). The waste generation was assumed for one-year period, January 1 to December, 30, 2020. Thus, our estimate did not include wastes generated before or after the date. Finally, in the estimations, the rate of waste recycling was assumed to be negligible \[7\].

## 4\. Result and discussion

_4.1. Waste generation and disposal method_ With per capita waste generation ranging between 0.44 to 0.66 kg/capita/day \[1\], the total MSW waste generated by the entire urban population of Nigeria ranges between 16.8 to 25.2 million tons for the year 2020. The waste collected for disposal to dumpsites (or landfills) ranges between 7.4–11.1 million tons, at the 44% collection rate. Fifty-six percent (56%) of the entire wastes generated are not collected, meaning that about 9.4–14.1 million tons of MSW are carelessly disposed to the environment annually. 31.5% of the uncollected wastes (or 17.64% of the entire generated MSW) are open-burned annually. Therefore, between 2.97–4.5 million tons of wastes are subjected to open- burning every year in Nigeria, while between 6.5–9.7 million tons of uncollected MSW are carelessly disposed of in the environment–aquatic and land per annum. This means more wastes are disposed carelessly to Nigerian environments than those disposed to dumpsites/ landfills. This careless disposal method is linked with many ecological problems-flooding (because of blocked drainage), diseases outbreak, leaching of heavy metals and other toxic compounds into groundwater supplies and surface water, emissions of foul odor, fumes, and others \[1,4,33\]. The method therefore poses major challenges to Nigeria, considering that population and consumption are growing, and are leading to higher level of waste generation \[25\]. Per capita waste generation is greatly associated with economic activity expressed in GDP per capita \[15\]. Because of the 2016–2017 recession and COVID-19 pandemic, we can assume that per-capita waste generation may not have increased in the last five years. However, population-effect must have increased the total MSW generated in the country. It is expected that consumption (per-capita) will increase in the nearest future, as the economy grows. Compared to other lower-middle income countries in other regions of the globe, MSW collection efficiency in Nigeria is very poor. For example, South Asia, which have similar waste generation like of that of Nigeria (0.74 kg/cap/day) have relatively better improved waste collection system. Major cities in India have higher MSW collection efficiency. For example, it ranges from 75% for New Delhi to 100% for Greater Mumbai; while Nigeria’s major cities shows the following–Lagos (10%), Ibadan _AIMS Environmental Science_ Volume 9, Issue 2, 124–144.

* * *

(40%) \[19\]. These collection efficiency in major Nigeria cities are substantially lower than the average
for lower-middle income countries (LMICs) (71%). Similar to Nigeria, the wastes are mainly disposed
to the open or un-engineered dumpsites. But, the extensive development of sanitary landfills is growing
in India. Waste management is labor-and capital intensive, and involves transportation, treatment
facilities, disposal, construction and maintenance of sanitary landfills, with their leachate and
emissions control \[9,35\]. MSW management constitutes about 20% of the local governments’ budget
for LMICS, while it is 20–50% for Nigeria \[26,33,35,42\]. In middle-and higher-income countries, it
is 10% and 4%, respectively \[19\]. Between 70 and 85% of the total cost for solid waste management
is spent in collection, and the rest on disposal \[1,35\]. Inadequate funding (for vehicles, personnel and
transportation) constitute 67% of the reasons for the poor collection efficiency in Nigeria \[2\]. For
example, out of 2000 tons of waste generated in Kano city, only 800 tons (40%) were evacuated by
municipal authority \[31\]. Another major factor that causes the lower collection efficiency is the
distance between neighbourhoods and disposal sites, which ranges between 10 to 40 kilometers \[19\].
Additionally, the waste collection is mostly carried out once a week or even more (especially
weekends) \[9\]. Thus, greater number of the populace prefers to dump their wastes in rivers, drainages
or vacant plot. Our calculated amount of combustible wastes (𝛿)-80.6% - is to the same as 80.5%
reported by Kaza et al \[19\] for lower-middle income countries such as Nigeria. From figure 3 below,
“food and green” accounts for the highest composition (61.8%) of MSW in Nigeria (Supplementary
file), which is similar to that reported for Indonesia - 72% \[8\].

Characterization of the "combustible" wastes (%)

Figure 3. Characterization of the “combustible” wastes.

Similarly, our calculated paper and textile composition, 7.9% and 3.3%, respectively compares
well with Indonesia’s 7.07% and 2.4%, respectively \[8\]. Our data suggests Nigeria’s plastic
composition is substantially higher than that of Indonesia (3.5%) \[8\]. “Wood” wastes in Nigeria were
also slightly higher than those obtained in Kaza et al \[19\]. Changes in consumption pattern in Nigeria
is occurring, as Nigerians shifts towards finished goods such as packaged food, electronics and others.
Even so, organic wastes are higher in lower-income countries than higher income countries. This is

- Textiles and e-waste were not shown for \[19\], as their categories were not specified. It may
  have been combined with “Others” making it difficult to determine their percentages because consumed goods in higher-income countries are more of paper and plastics than in lowerincome countries. For example, figure 3 shows 74.8% of the wastes in Nigeria are putrescible (food
  and green wastes, paper/ cardboard, textiles and wood), and this is consistent with the range of 50–
  70% obtained in \[34\] for the entire country. Our result is also consistent with \[8\] for Indonesia. Due to
  the high organic and moisture content of wastes generated in lower-middle income countries such as
  Nigeria, the burning method is mostly an incomplete combustion.

4.2. Open-burning of the wastes

Even though between 2.9 to 4.5 million tons/ year of the wastes are subjected to open-burning,
it is not all of the wastes that eventually burns. Between 2,480,481,846 to 3,720,722,769kg (2.4–3.7
million tons) of the MSW generated actually burns every year, in Nigeria. The difference between the
amount subjected to burning and the amount that actually burns is explained by oxidation/ burning
efficiency or incomplete combustion (𝜂=0.58). Often, especially when a significant amount of wastes
in open dumps is burned, a great amount is left un-burnt. The fraction that is compacted usually
burns \[12\]. But waste compaction does not take place at source and open-dumps \[33\]. Therefore, we
can safely argue that a substantial amount of urban wastes in Nigeria dumpsites are not completely
burned or oxidized, because of the higher moisture content. The amount of MSW burn in Nigeria
1
represents a 14.7% of the total MSW generated per annum. Put differently, almost /7th of MSW
generated in Nigeria is open-burned. Estimate shows 41% (620 million tons) of the wastes generated
globally are burned openly, mostly occurring in developing countries \[14\]. Our estimate differs from
Fakinle et al \[5\] and Okedere et al \[21\], which assumes that 100% of MSW generated in the respective
urban areas they studied are burned. Okedere et al \[21\] estimated that 2,2120,248 tons per year (2.2
million tons) produced in thirteen (13) Nigerian cities (with population of 13,125,541) are openburned. The level of wastes burned obtained in Fakinle et al \[21\] is higher than our estimate. Our study
focused only on uncollected MSW. Uncollected MSW are usually burned and or disposed carelessly
in the environment. Additionally, it is not every waste type that burns. Thus, the level of MSW actually
burns in Nigeria must be lesser than 100% adopted by Okeder et al \[5\] and Fakinle et al \[21\].
Our estimated MSW burned represents between 0.3%–0.6% of the total wastes burned globally.

burns in Nigeria must be lesser than 100% adopted by Okeder et al \[5\] and Fakinle et al \[21\].
Our estimated MSW burned represents between 0.3%–0.6% of the total wastes burned globally.
With the high growth in population, urbanization and economic development, occurring in Nigeria and
developing countries, waste generation is increasing at a rapid rate (estimated to grow by 40% by
2050) for incremental incomes than in higher-income countries \[19\]. This shows the importance and
urgency of addressing proper waste management, in connection with climate change and public health
programs. There is more attention on waste collection than waste treatment methods in
Nigeria \[5,10,20,19\]. But both are equally important. Improved collection without corresponding
proper disposal method, will lead to a significant point-source pollution (air, water and soil) and
adverse public health issues.

* * *

environment, and via that way, enter the food chain and human body. 90% of human ingestion of
dioxin and furan is from food. Dioxins, a toxic persistent organic compound and its deadly constituent
2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) causes cancer and neurological impairment, and also
affects reproductive and respiratory systems. Accordingly, burning of plastic wastes increases the risk
of cardiovascular disease, exacerbates respiratory illnesses (for example, asthma and emphysema),
destroys the nervous systems and others. Incomplete oxidation of polyethylene (PE), polypropylene
and polystyrene emit high level of carbon monoxide. Further, the harmful emissions may consist of
bromide and colorants containing heavy metals like chromium, cadmium, lead, copper, cobalt,
selenium, etc. Smoke and ash filtrate from plastic combustion has a high health and environmental
effects as they contain VOCs, particulate matter, PAHs and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs).
Benzene is a known carcinogen \[17,18\]. High level of lead (Pb) and manganese (Mn) beyond their
respective normal range, was reported in those exposed to open-burning of burning e-wastes. It
indicates their high risk of developing neuro-generative disorders \[45\]. Accordingly, those living near
or around dumpsites/ landfills in Nigeria are at high-risk of developing ill-health conditions \[17,18,33\].

4.3. Emissions from the open-burning

4.3.1. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

Following the IPPC national guidelines for GHG inventories, only combustion of carbon of fossilsource were reported for CO2 emissions in our study. 14.3% of the MSW burned is fossil carbon.
Figure 4 shows calculated GHG emissions from burning of the uncollected waste.

\\mathrm{C O\_{2}}

Figure 4. GHG emissions from burning of uncollected MSW in 2020.

The contributions to GHG emissions established in our study is as follows: between 284.2–426.3
kilotons of CO2; 403–604.6 kiloton of CO2-eq/year for methane (CH4) and between 110.9–166.3
kiloton of CO2-eq/year for nitrous oxide (N2O). Substantial quantity of carbon in the waste is not
oxidized, therefore methane is more substantial in open-burning \[3,10\]. The estimation show overall,
CH4 is the largest emissions per annum, followed by CO2 emissions, and then N2O. The total emissions
for the three GHGs from burning of the MSW ranges between 798 to 1,197 kilotons of CO2-eq (Kt

\\mathrm{C O\_{2}}

\ 0\_{2}\\mathtt{-e q/t}

\\mathrm{C O\_{2}e q/y e a r}

\\mathrm{C O\_{2}}

\\mathrm{C H\_{4}}

\\mathrm{C O}\_{2}\\mathrm\\mathrm{{{-e q}}}

* * *

CO2-eq) per year. Put differently, our obtained GHG emissions (in Kt CO2-eq) is about 0.002–0.003%
of the total GHG emissions (311,450 kt of CO2-eq) reported for Nigeria in 2018 \[46\]. The IPCC shows
that usage of default EF for N2O emissions from open-burning of MSW have a fairly high degree of
improbability \[13\]. Thus, the need for Nigeria to develop country-specific EF, including for other
emissions.
Dividing the emissions by the total urban population of Nigeria (for year 2020), per capita CO2

\ \\mathrm{C O}\_{2}\ \\mathrm{e q})

\\mathrm{K t,C O\_{2}\\mathrm e{\ -e q})}

\\mathrm{C{}0}\_{2}\\mathrm{{}e q})

\\mathrm{N\_{2}O}

Dividing the emissions by the total urban population of Nigeria (for year 2020), per capita CO2
from burning of the uncollected MSW ranges from 0.002 to 0.004 tCO2, which is far below the 0.67
tCO2 (per capita annual CO2 emission profile), reported by the World Bank \[46\] for Nigeria. The
emissions from burning of the MSW may be higher than our estimate. For example, though 44%
collection rate is assumed for Nigeria (and sub-Sahara Africa) \[19\], most of the collected wastes are
disposed to open-dumpsites/ landfills which are usually burn. Further, the uncertainties of data
obtainable in Nigeria supports the assumption that actual collection efficiency may be lower than the
44%. A good example is Lagos, the most cosmopolitan city in Nigeria, which has collection efficiency
of only 10% \[19\].
Climate change will impact developing countries, which generally lack adaptation and mitigation

\\mathrm{C O\_{2}}

0.004;\\mathrm{t C O\_{2}}

\ \\mathrm{t C t\_{2}}

\\mathrm{C O\_{2}}

Climate change will impact developing countries, which generally lack adaptation and mitigation
capacities. Nigeria accounts for 0.97% of the total global GHG emissions. In Nigeria, waste
management accounts for 9% of the emissions, while energy and agriculture sector were 60 and 25%,
respectively. In its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), Nigeria pledged to reduce emissions
by 20% below business-as-usual (BAU) scenario by 2030 \[46\]. Addressing the issue of proper waste
management will assist in reducing emissions. However, burning of MSW cannot be eradicated
without improvement in waste collection and disposal methods. The current practice of open-dumping
has a very high emissions compared to that of sanitary landfill. For example, in \[7\], it was 1000 kgCO2-
eq and 300 kgCO2-eq for open-dumping and sanitary landfill, respectively. Adoption of sanitary
landfill (with emissions control) will lead to meaningful reduction and other benefits such as methane
recovery and utilization.
In another African country, open-burning of MSW produces 20% (568 Gg CO2-eq) of the total

1000,\\mathrm{k g}O\_{2^{-}}

\\mathrm{300\ k g C O\_{2}\ e q}

In another African country, open-burning of MSW produces 20% (568 Gg CO2-eq) of the total
emissions produced from waste management in Mozambique which are mostly open-dumped.
Conversely, transition to semi-aerobic landfill method will reduce their emissions by 40% \[7\]. The
current situation of open-burning is related to poor collection rate and improper disposal method
currently obtained in the country. Thus, it is time to re-assess the entire waste management system in
Nigeria. For example, in \[7\], emissions from open-burning accounted for only 22%, while it is 78%
for decomposition in dumpsites in Mozambique.

568:\\mathrm{G g}:\\mathrm{C O}\_{2}\\mathrm{-e q})

The other emissions which are associated with open-burning of MSW were also estimated, and
presented in Figure 5.

* * *

Figure 5. Other emissions from Open-burning of uncollected MSW (tons) in Nigeria.

Carbon monoxide (CO) accounted for the largest, ranging between 104.1–156.2 kilotons (Kt),
secondly PM10 (74.4–111.6 kt); NMVOC ranging from 37.2 to 55.8 Kt; PM2.5 (24.3–36.4 Kt), BC
(13.6–20.5 Kt), OC (13.0–19.6 Kt);, followed by NOx ranging from 7.4 to 11.1 Kt, then NH3 (2.3–3.5
Kt) and the least SO2, which is between 1.2–1.8 Kt. The distribution shows the following in order of
magnitude of emissions: CO > PM10 > NMVOC > PM2.5 > BC > OC > NOx > NH3 > SO2. The
magnitude is a function of emission factors. Our result quite differed from the trend observed in
Ipeaiyeda and Falusi \[20\] which analyzed only for SO2, NOx and NH3. Ipeaiyeda and Falusi \[20\]
recorded the magnitude of emissions as follows NH3 > NOx > SO2. However, ours is consistent with
Fakinle et al \[21\] which showed the distribution CO > PM10 > NOx > SO2. It is also consistent with
Okedere et al \[5\] which shows CO > NMVOC > PM > NOx > SO2. The difference with Ipeaiyeda and
Falusi (2018) may be explained by methodology. Fakinle et al \[21\], Okedere et al \[5\] and ours used
emission factors (EF) in the calculation while Ipeaiyeda and Falusi \[20\] used air measurement.
While our study reported 7.4–11.1 Kt / annum for NOx, 11.9 Kt was reported in \[21\].

\\mathrm{P M}\_{10}

\\mathrm{P M}\_{2.5}

(13.6{-}20.5;\\mathrm{K t})

\\mathrm{N H}\_{3}

{sf S0}\_{2}

\ :

\\mathrm{N H\_{3}.}

\\mathrm{{\ }N\ {H} _{3}>N{O}_{2}.S O O\_{2}.}

C0\\triangleright\\tt{P M} _{10}\\triangleright N O x\\triangleright S O_{2}

While our study reported 7.4–11.1 Kt / annum for NOx, 11.9 Kt was reported in \[21\].
Further, \[21\] reported 1.98 Kt/ annum for SO2; 166.6 Kt/ annum for CO and 31.7 Kt/ annum for PM10.
Accordingly, estimated level of emissions from solid waste burning reported by Fakinle et al \[21\] for
Lagos alone was seen to be higher than that for the entire Nigeria reported in our work. While our
study made use of urban population of Nigeria (104,885,855); Fakinle et al \[21\] made use of only
Lagos population. The difference is explained by methodology adopted by both works. Fakinle et
al \[21\] made use of only activity rate multiplied by emission factor of respective pollutants, where
activity rate is 0.5 kg/cap/day. However, our study factored in oxidization/ burning efficiency (𝜂=
0.58), which greatly reduced the amount of MSW that actually burned and their emissions. Further,
our study recognized that not every waste generated by Nigerian urban population is subjected to
burning. We established that only 17.4% of the entire generated MSW are subjected to burning. These
explains the higher results obtained by Fakinle et al \[21\]. Our estimation was conducted according to
IPCC \[13,16\] guidelines for national inventories. Okedere et al \[5\] adopted the same methodology seen in \[21\]. The results obtained in Okedere et al \[5\] for only 13 urban areas of Nigeria was higher than ours conducted for the entire urban population of Nigeria. Both studies assumed that 100% of the wastes generated in their study locations are burned. Conversely that is not the reality. Granted, waste management (including collection) is very poor in Nigeria. But the amount of wastes subjected to burning is only 31.5% of the uncollected wastes \[4,7,19\]. It is therefore over-generalization to assume that all MSW generated in Nigeria are burned. Still, both studies \[5,21\] shows that MSW burning is a serious contributor to emissions in urban areas of Nigeria, and thus poses serious challenges. These pollutants constitute environment and public health issues. The prevalence of CO is related to the incomplete combustion. These emissions have both health implications, while some have climatic effects. Emission from waste disposal (burning and decomposition) is a substantial source of non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs). NMVOCs are a wide group of organic chemicals, that are in some circumstances, clearly harmful to health. Additionally, they usually function as precursors to the formation of ozone and particulate matter. The few harmful ones (for example, benzene, 1,3-butadiene) are lung irritants or cancer-causing agents. They are produced both by fossil and biogenic carbon (including plants and soil) \[47\]. According to World Health Organization, globally, 3.7 million per premature deaths per annum is related to outdoor air pollution. Humans are at risk of the effects of PM because their size allows them to penetrate internal spaces. Also, their half-life in the atmosphere is longer because of their tiny sizes, allowing its spatial- temporal spread. The constituents of PM10 and PM2.5 can be organic (PAH, dioxins, benzene, 1-3 butadiene) in the case of plastics or inorganic (metals, carbon, etc.). They can be soot, smoke, fly ash, heavy dust, etc. Long-term chronic effects of exposures to PM2.5 include nasopharyngitis, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory and impairment of the immune system and infant mortality. They destroy forests and crops, causes water acidity and modifies nutrient balance of aquatic ecosystems. The health symptoms of CO poisoning include headache, faintness, weakness, vomiting and unconsciousness. CO has greater affinity for hemoglobin than oxygen. CO poisoning leads to hypoxia and ischemia. Further, CO alters the climate-relevant GHG, leading to increased soil and marine temperatures, and intense weather conditions/ storms. In a single year (2005), premature deaths from exposure to PM2.5 were- respiratory diseases (773,000), lung cancers (180,000) and cardiovascular diseases (2 million). Reduction in long- term exposure to PM2.5 has been linked with a rise in average life expectancy \[48\]. Estimate shows ambient PM2.5 pollutions is responsible for about 23.8 premature deaths for every 100,000 Nigerians. This is much higher than the average rate for the West African region \[11\]. BC, a solid matter of carbon, is the most potent light absorbing (radiative forcing) constituent of PM, and also reduces the radiation flux of the earth’s surface. It absorbs one million more radiations than CO2. Thus, warming the atmosphere. It is the second largest contributor to climate change after CO2. However, its residence time is only few days to weeks, unlike CO2 that can remain in the atmosphere for up to a thousand years. Similar to all atmospheric particles, BC influences reflectivity, stability and period of clouds and changes precipitation. BC from open-burning produces a sharp surface cooling resulting in atmospheric movement responses and climate changes on a regional level. N2O infiltrates deep into the lungs causing respiratory illnesses, coughing, wheezing, dyspnea, bronchospasm and at high concentrations, pulmonary edema \[48\]. NMVOCs (or VOCs) reacts with NO in the presence of sunlight to form tropospheric ozone. Higher level of O3 in the lower atmosphere have harmful effects on human health, plants and outdoor materials \[47\].

_AIMS Environmental Science_ Volume 9, Issue 2, 124–144.

* * *

From the above, there is a need to strongly enforce regulation against burning of MSW in Nigerian cities, for public health safety and quality environment. This cannot happen without availability of sustainable alternatives.

_4.4. Policy implications_ Various strategies for GHG abatement in the waste management sector exists. They include energy recovery and material circularity. For energy recovery, it includes landfill extension and energy recovery method for waste disposal (landfill gas recovery) for combined heat and power generation; food waste treatment which includes thermal treatment, composting and anaerobic digestion \[24\]. These will support Nigerian Biofuel Policy 2007 through 2
nd generation biofuels production in Nigeria, which does not add to the issue of 1 st generation biofuels (food versus energy conflict). However, these depend on putting proper waste management system in place. Collection, transportation and proper disposal (in sanitary landfill) of MSW entails enormous financial requirement, which most municipalities in Nigeria find difficult to shoulder adequately \[1,4,10,11,27,30,43\]. Hence, it is important that states and municipalities in Nigeria considers employing the emissions trading scheme, for example, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). It supports lower-middle income countries accommodating CDM ventures to realize sustainable development, and at the same time offers opportunities for high-income countries to accomplish their emission reduction targets. It helps local and state governments to secure more investments and other socioeconomic and ecological advantages that otherwise would not be pursued for lack of financial and technical capabilities \[7\]. Another model is private-public partnership, which should encompass waste management and value-chains of re- manufacturing and energy resources. One of the principal limitations which deters private sector participation in social services (waste management) in Nigeria is the unwillingness of the populace and their inability to pay \[26\]. Therefore, the need to transform wastes into a valuable resource which can pay for its management. The model includes circular economy, and waste-to-energy and-material resources \[49\]. It will not only improve economic development–improved energy supply, job creations, revenue for governments, technology transfer-, but will ensure quality environment (reduction in waste going to dumpsites/ landfills and open-burning with their attendant emissions) \[5,28,49\]. One proposal is to convert dumpsites/ landfills to a bio-reactor. It will offer waste stabilization, energy production, in addition to beneficial end-products- fertilizers and soil conditioners \[8\]. For example, Nigeria’s estimated yearly electricity generation potential from MSW is around 26,744 GWh/year \[18\]. At 156 kWh, this is 8.5 times the current consumption of electricity from the national grid. About 89% of the states in Nigeria have enough waste generation capacity to satisfy the requirement of 50 MW stipulated by Nigeria regulatory requirement \[30\]. There are huge opportunities for utilization of biomass for energy production (bioenergy) in Nigeria. It may be bio-power and/ or biofuels. For example, with the national value of 0.44 kg/capita/day, 206 million Nigerians will generate about 90.6 million kg of wastes each day. Further, with a higher organic composition, the country produced about 62 million kg of organic wastes per day in 2020 \[49\]. Anaerobic digestion can yield about 90.6 m3 of methane for each ton of raw food waste \[50\]. Material recovery is also important to improving waste management (reduction in wastes entering landfills and open-burned) \[1,28\]. Efficient and sanitary mechanism should be put in place to support developed and efficient recovery of valuable end-of-life materials, and this entails circular economy.

_AIMS Environmental Science_ Volume 9, Issue 2, 124–144.

* * *

**Figure 6. Waste-to-energy and material support linkages.**

Waste managers (either municipal or public-private partnership) should be responsible for collection and transportation to pre-treatment sites, and from thereon, private or PPP ventures should be responsible. The PPP ventures may fund the activities of waste transport. Thereby, the waste managers are saved the financial implication of landfilling, or as the case in Nigeria, dumping. The model will offer immense financial benefits, considering that waste management agency in Nigeria are heavily under-funded. The adoption will transform liability (cost) into a revenue, as biofuel or bioenergy companies’ shoulder or partially subsidized the financial implications of municipal waste management (collection, transportation, etc.). The importance of private enterprises cannot be over- emphasized. They have the technical proficiency and are not limited by bureaucratic barriers, they are innovative and market-centered, and have the capacity to attract local and foreign investments. The issue of proper waste management system–separation at source, efficient collection and transportation and recycling/ reprocessing–must be addressed adequately, if it will be turned into scalable energy production or material recovery strategies.

## 5\. Conclusion

Economic growth (implied in purchasing power) and population increase has led to huge increase in the amount of MSW generated in Nigerian cities. MSW management is a very serious problem in Nigeria where institutional and policy support have been lacking for years. Accordingly, many Nigerians dispose their wastes carelessly, and this include open-burning. Open-dumping and open- burning of solid wastes is a major disposal method adopted across Nigeria. The method has negative implication on the environment and public health. We estimated the level of emissions–greenhouse gases and non-GHG produced by the burning of wastes by urban population of Nigeria. Factors critical to the estimation were waste generation rate (kg/cap/day), MSW collection efficiency, combustible portion of the MSW and oxidation/ burning efficiency. At the accepted waste collection efficiency of 44% for Nigeria, we estimate that 14.1 million tons of MSW are carelessly disposed to the environment annually. Our estimation shows 14.7% of the total generated MSW in Nigeria is open-burned. However, not all the amount subjected to burning actually burns out. This is related to burning

_AIMS Environmental Science_ Volume 9, Issue 2, 124–144.

* * *

efficiency, which in our study adopted 𝜂 = 0.58, after IPCC 2006 guidelines for areas such as Nigeria,
with high organic wastes and low level of waste compaction. Our estimated level of MSW burned in
Nigeria represents between 0.66–1.1% of the total MSW open-burn globally. The total emissions for
the three GHGs–carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxides were between 798 to 1,197 kiloton of
CO2-eq per year. Further other emissions such as black carbon, organic carbon, NMVOC, PM10 and
PM2.5 which have adverse health effects are emitted by the method. Thus, the need to phase out waste
open dumping and burning, with upgraded waste disposal method, to foster beneficial environmental
impacts, support in achieving the country’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and protect
the health of the people. Extensive and updated country-specific data should be generated across all
the aspect of waste management in Nigeria. This will enable accuracy of estimation to a higher extent
of the environmental implications of the value-chain.

\\eta=0.58

\\mathrm{C O}\_{2}\\mathrm\\mathrm{{{-e q}}}

\\mathrm{P M}\_{10}

\\mathrm{P M}\_{2.5}

6. Further research

Acknowledging the limitations of this study (a simple estimate), there is need for further research
to assess the accurate estimate of emissions produced by open-burning of MSW (both collected and
uncollected) in Nigeria. Taking into consideration Nigeria’s waste characteristics, technical, weather
and other factors; the research should concentrate on determining burning/ oxidation efficiency and
default emissions for the respective pollutants associated with open-burning; specific to Nigeria. Also,
other factors associated with the practice–seasonality, settlement patterns should be inculcated.
Further, disaggregated waste method disposal across the states or region of the country should be
studied in detail. These are necessary since waste management has been identified as one area that
contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, and invariably climate change.

1. Ogwueleka TC (2009) Municipal solid waste characteristics and management in Nigeria. J
   Environ Health Sci Eng 6: 173–180.
2. Ayantoyinbo BB, Adepoju OO (2018) Analysis of solid waste management logistics and its
   attendant challenges in Lagos metropolis. Logistics 2: 11.
   [https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics2020011](https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics2020011)
3. Aluko OO, Obafemi TH, Obiajunwa PO, et al (2021) Solid waste management and health hazards
   associated with residence around open dumpsites in heterogeneous urban settlements in
   Southwest Nigeria. Int J Environ Health Res 2021: 1–16.
   [https://doi.org/10.1080/09603123.2021.1879738](https://doi.org/10.1080/09603123.2021.1879738)

Conflict of interest

* * *

04. Adekola PO, Iyalomhe FO, Paczoski A, et al, (2021) Public perception and awareness of waste management from Benin City. Sci Rep Nat 11: 1–14. [https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79688-](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79688-) y
05. Okedere OB, Olalekan AP, Fakinle BS, et al, (2019) Urban air pollution from the open burning of municipal solid waste. Environ Qual Manage 28: 67–74. [https://doi.org/:10.1002/tqem.21633](https://doi.org/:10.1002/tqem.21633)
06. Das B, Bhave PV, Byanju RM, et al. (2018) Estimating emissions from open burning of municipal solid waste in municipalities of Nepal. Waste Manage 79: 481–490. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.
    2018.08.013
07. dos Muchangos LS, Tokai A (2020) Greenhouse gas emission analysis of upgrading from an open dump to a semi-aerobic landfill in Mozambique–the case of Hulene dumpsite. Sci Afr 10: e00638. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00638](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00638)
08. Kristanto GA, Koven W (2019) Estimating greenhouse gas emissions from municipal solid waste management in Depok, Indonesia. _City Environ Interact_ 4: 100027. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cacint.2020.100027](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cacint.2020.100027)
09. Olukanni DO, Mnenga MU (2015) Municipal solid waste generation and characterization: A case study of Ota, Nigeria. Int J Environ Sci Toxicol 391: 1–8.
10. Adeniran AA, Adewole AA, Olofa SA (2014) Impact of solid waste management on Ado Ekiti property values. Civil and Environ Res 6: 29–35.
11. Okedere OB, Elehinafe FB, Oyelami S, et al, (2021) Drivers of anthropogenic air emissions in Nigeria-A review. Heliyon 7: e06398. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06398](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06398)
12. Shrestha R.M, Oanh NTH, Shrestha RP, et al (2013) Atmospheric Brown Clouds (ABC) Emission Inventory Manual, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
13. IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2006a). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Incineration and open burning of waste. [https://www.ipcc-](https://www.ipcc-/) nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/5\_Volume5/V5\_5\_Ch5\_IOB.pdf
14. Cogut A (2016). Open burning of waste: A global health disaster. R20 Regions of Climate Action, 1–63.
15. Chen DM, Bodirsky BL, Krueger T, et al, (2020) The world’s growing municipal solid waste: trends and impacts. Environ Res Lett 15: 074021. [https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8659](https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8659)
16. IPCC, 2006b, Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Emissions from waste incineration, 455–468. [https://www.ipcc-](https://www.ipcc-/) nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/5\_3\_Waste\_Incineration.pdf
17. Verma R, Vinoda KS, Papireddy M, et al, (2016) Toxic pollutants from plastic waste- A review. _Procedia Environ Sci 35: 701–708._
18. Valavanidid A, Iliopoulos N, Gotsis G, et al, (2008) Persistent free radicals, heavy metals and PAHs generated in particulate soot emissions and residual ash from controlled combustion of common type of plastics. J Hazard Mat 156: 277–284.
19. Kaza S, Yao L, Bhada-Tata P, et al, (2018) What a waste 2.0. A global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. Urban Development Series. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank, Washington, DC: World Bank. [https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-](https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-) 4648-1329-0.
20. Ipeaiyeda AR, Falusi BA (2018) Monitoring of SO2, NOx and NH3 Emission from Burning of Solid Wastes at Awotan and Lapite Dumpsites, Ibadan, Nigeria. S Afr J Chem 71: 166–173. [https://doi.org/10.17159/0379-4350/2018/v71a22](https://doi.org/10.17159/0379-4350/2018/v71a22) _AIMS Environmental Science_ Volume 9, Issue 2, 124–144.

* * *

21. Fakinle BS, Odekanle EL, Olalekan AP, et al (2020) Air pollutant emissions by anthropogenic
    combustion processes in Lagos, Nigeria. Cogent Eng 7: 1808285.
    [https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2020.1808285](https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2020.1808285)
22. Dunne D, The carbon Brief Profile: Nigeria, 2020. Available [https://www.carbonbrief.org/thecarbon-brief-profile-nigeria](https://www.carbonbrief.org/thecarbon-brief-profile-nigeria)
23. Edenhofer O, Seyboth K (2013) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Eds) Encyclopedia
    of Energy, Natural Resource, and Environmental Economics. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-375067-
    9.00128-5
24. Magazzino C, Mele M, Schneider N, et al, (2021) Waste generation, wealth and GHG emissions
    from the waste sector: Is Denmark on the path towards circular economy? Sci Total Environ 755:
26. Nnaji CC (2015) Status of municipal solid waste generation and disposal in Nigeria. Manage
    Environ Qual 26: 53–71.
27. Aliu IR, Adeyemi OE, Adebayo A (2014). Municipal household solid waste collection strategies
    in an African megacity: Analysis of public private partnership performance in Lagos. Waste
    Manage Res 32: 67–78. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X14544354](https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X14544354)
28. Ibikunle RA, Titiladunayo IF, Akinnuli BO, et al (2019) Estimation of power generation from
    municipal solid wastes: A case study of Ilorin metropolis, Nigeria. Energy Rep 5: 126–135.
    [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.01.005](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.01.005)
29. Ezeudu OB, Agunwamba JC, Ugochukwu UC, et al, (2020) Temporal assessment of municipal
    solid waste management in Nigeria: Prospects for circular economy adoption. Rev Environ Health
31. Magazzino C, Mele M, Schneider N (2020) The relationship between municipal solid waste and
    greenhouse gas emissions: Evidence from Switzerland. Waste Manage 113: 508–520.
    [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.05.033](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.05.033)
32. Somorin TO, Adesola S, Kolawole A (2017) State-level assessment of the waste-to-energy
    potential (via incineration) of municipal solid wastes in Nigeria. J Clean Prod 164: 804–815.
    [https://doi.org/1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.228](https://doi.org/1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.228)
33. Bichi MH, Amatobi DA (2013) Characterization of household solid waste generated in Sabon-
    Gari area of Kano in Northern Nigeria. Am J Res Commun 1: 165–171.
34. Nwude MO, Igboro SB, Otun JA, et al, (2014) Solid waste generation and characterization in
    Kaduna metropolis, Nigeria. Acad J Sci Eng 6: 31–39.
35. Ayuba KA, Manaf LA, Sabrina AH, et al, (2013) Current status of municipal solid waste
    management practice in FCT Abuja. Res J Environ Earth Sci 5: 295–304.
36. Iyamu HO, Anda M, Ho G (2017) Socio-technical systems analysis of waste to energy from
    municipal solid waste in developing economies: A case for Nigeria. Renew Energy Environ
    Sustain 2: 1–9. [https://doi.org/10.1051/rees/2017027](https://doi.org/10.1051/rees/2017027).
37. Amarachukwu E, Evuti AM, Salam KA, et al. (2020) Determination of waste generation,
    composition and optimized collection route for University of Abuja main campus using
    “MyRouteOnline” software. Sci Afr 10: e00569. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00569](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00569)
38. Ferronato N, Torretta V, (2019) Waste Mismanagement in Developing Countries: A Review of
    Global Issues. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16: 1060. [https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16061060](https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16061060)
39. The World Bank, Population growth (annual %)–Nigeria, 2021. Available from:
    [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?locations=NG](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?locations=NG)

* * *

38. Knoema, Nigeria–urban population as a share of total population. World Data
    Atlas>Nigeria>Demographics, 2021. Available from: [https://knoema.com/atlas/Nigeria/Urbanpopulation](https://knoema.com/atlas/Nigeria/Urbanpopulation)
39. The World Bank, GDP per capita, (Current US$)–Sub-Saharan Africa, 2021. Available from:
    [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=ZG](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=ZG)
40. UNDP, United Nations Development Programme, National human development Report, 2018.
    Achieving human development in North East Nigeria. Available from:
    [http://hdr.undp.org/sites/all/themes/hdr\_theme/country-notes/NGA.pdf](http://hdr.undp.org/sites/all/themes/hdr_theme/country-notes/NGA.pdf)
41. Okafor CC, Madu CN, Ajaero CC, et al, (2021) Sustainable management of textile and clothing.
    Clean Tech Recycl 1: 70–87.
42. Orhorhoro EK, Oghoghorie O (2019) Review on solid waste generation and management in Sub-
    Saharan Africa: A case study of Nigeria. J Appl Sci. Environ Manage 23. DOI:
    10.4314/jasem.v2319.19
43. Adeniran AE, Nubi AT, Adelopo AO (2017) Solid waste generation and characterization in the
    University of Lagos for a sustainable waste management. Waste Manage 67: 3–10.
    [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.05.002](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.05.002)
44. Ibikunle RA, Titiladunayo IF, Dahunsi SO, et al (2021) characterization and projection of dry
    season municipal solid waste for energy production in Ilorin metropolis, Nigeria. Waste Manage
    Res: The J Sustain Circ Econ 39: 1048–1057. [https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0734242X20985599](https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0734242X20985599)
45. Popoola O E, Popoola A O, Purchase D (2019). Level of awareness and concentrations of heavy
    metals in the blood of electronic waste scavengers in Nigeria. J Health Pollut 9: 1–10.
46. The World Bank, Total greenhouse gas emissions (kt of CO2 equivalent)–Nigeria, 2020.
    [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.GHGT.KT.CE?locations=NG](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.GHGT.KT.CE?locations=NG)
47. Dave PN, Sahu LK, Tripathi N, et al (2020) Emissions of non-methane volatile organic
    compounds from a landfill site in a major city of India: Impact on local air quality. Heliyon 6:
    e04537. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844020313815](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844020313815)
48. Fuzzi S, Baltensperger U, Carslaw K, et al. (2015) Particulate matter, air quality and climate:
    lessons learned and future needs. Atmos Chem Phys 15: 8219–8299. [https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-](https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-)
    15-8217-2015
49. Okafor C, Madu C, Ajaero C, et al, (2021) Situating circular economy and energy transition in an
    emerging economy. AIMS Energy 9: 651–675. [https://doi.org/10.3934/energy.2021031](https://doi.org/10.3934/energy.2021031)
50. Kuo J, Dow J (2017) Biogas production from anaerobic digestion of food waste; and relevant air
    quality implications, J Air Waste Manage Assoc 67: 1000–1011,
    [https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2017.1316326](https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2017.1316326)

© 2022 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License ( [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0))