Abstract

Rapid urbanisation in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, has outpaced waste-management capacity, yet few studies have paired residents’ reported practices with measured airborne microbial exposure. This study conducted a descriptive comparative cross-sectional investigation in four communities (Egbelu, Rumuodara, Diobu and Borokiri) and one control community with no visible waste dump. Structured questionnaires were administered face to face to 348 adult residents, and a structured checklist recorded environmental conditions. Airborne bacteria, fungi and Staphylococcus were sampled by passive sedimentation and expressed as CFU/m³; isolates were identified by cultural, morphological and biochemical methods. Results revealed that waste segregation was uncommon (7.1–39.7% across communities) and was lower in the four study communities combined (15.7%) than in the control community (39.7%; p < 0.001). Awareness that improper disposal affects community health (88.6–100%) and of its health risks (73.5–100%) was high, indicating a clear knowledge–practice gap. Between 8.8% and 42.9% of respondents reported a dumpsite near their home. Egbelu, Rumuodara and Diobu were rated dirty or very dirty by 87–97% of respondents, compared with 14.3% in the control community. Mean airborne total heterotrophic bacterial counts ranged from 98.27 to 727.20 CFU/m³, fungal counts from 15.72 to 157.29 CFU/m³ and Staphylococcus counts from 78.61 to 290.09 CFU/m³. Egbelu recorded the highest value for all three indicators and the control community the lowest. bacterial isolates were Staphylococcus spp. (32%), Bacillus spp. (25%), Escherichia coli (16%), Streptococcus spp. (10%), Pseudomonas spp. (10%) and Micrococcus spp. (7%). Fungal isolates were Aspergillus (32%), Penicillium (30%), Fusarium (16%), Mucor (15%) and Rhizopus (7%). The findings revealed that poor waste management in the study communities coincided with poorer sanitation and higher airborne microbial loads. Awareness alone is not translating into safe practice; integrated action on source segregation, reliable collection, discouraging open burning, community engagement and routine environmental monitoring is needed.