COVID-19 pandemic: Solid waste and environmental impacts in Brazil.

The World Health Organization has recently declared South America the new epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic, as Brazil has become one of the most affected countries. Besides public health and economic impacts, social isolation has also caused indirect environmental effects. The aim of this study was to assess environmental impacts caused by shifts on solid waste production and management due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. We have analyzed data from 30 cities, representing a population of more than 53.8 million people (25.4% of the Brazilian population). Unexpectedly, solid waste production in the main cities in Brazil has decreased during the social isolation period, possibly because of reduced activity in commercial areas. The latest data on solid waste in Brazil have revealed that more than 35% of medical waste has not been treated properly. Furthermore, improper disposal of facemasks has been reported in several cities and may increase the risk for COVID-19 spread. The suspension of recycling programs has hindered natural resources from being saved, with emphasis on 24,076 MWh of electric power and 185,929 m3 of potable water - respectively enough to supply 152,475 households and 40,010 people, over a month. Furthermore, total sale price for recyclable materials during the suspension of recycling programs reaches more than 781 thousand dollars, being these materials disposed in landfills - demanding an extra volume of 19,000 m3 - reducing landfill lifespan, and hence causing a double loss: economic and environmental.

Introduction

Worldwide public health and economy have been severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, with deaths and increased economic vulnerability especially in middle-income countries (Chakraborty and Maity, 2020; UN, 2020). Recently, the World Health Organization has declared South America the new epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic (Feuer, 2020; WHO, 2020), as Brazil has become one of the most affected countries, being currently the second leading country in number of cases with 1,759,103 confirmed cases as of July 09, 2020 (Worldometers, 2020), albeit social isolation measures have been implemented in the Federal District on March 11, 2020, in São Paulo state and in Rio de Janeiro state on March 16, 2020 and March 17, 2020, respectively.

Besides the alarming socioeconomic impacts, indirect environmental impacts caused by social isolation have been described in several studies, reporting positive impacts such as cleaner beaches and environment noise reduction (Zambrano-Monserrate et al., 2020), immediate improvements in air quality (Bao and Zhang, 2020; Collivignarelli et al., 2020; Nakada and Urban, 2020), and in surface water quality (Braga et al., 2020; Yunus et al., 2020). Nevertheless, negative impacts related to increased solid waste generation and reduced recycling programs may produce medium- or long-term effects and thus constitute a reason for concern (Zambrano-Monserrate et al., 2020).

Kampf et al. (2020) have reviewed the persistence of coronaviruses on different surfaces and have reported viruses' survival on metal for 5 days, on plastic for up to 5 days, on paper for 4 to 5 days, on glass for 4 days, and on aluminum for up to 8 h. Furthermore, one recent investigation on the stability of SARS-CoV-2 on several surfaces has reported viable SARS-CoV-2 virus on plastic for up to 72 h, on stainless steel for up to 48 h, and on cardboard for up to 24 h (van Doremalen et al., 2020). Considering that plastic plus paper/cardboard represent 64.6% of recycling materials in recycling programs in Brazil, and because the majority of recycling centers in Brazil are based on manual waste sorting (Fidelis et al., 2020), COVID-19 infection risk for workers in recycling centers is high. Therefore, the Brazilian Association for Environmental and Sanitary Engineering has recommended the suspension of recycling programs in Brazil (ABES, 2020a).

The aim of this study was to assess environmental impacts caused by shifts on solid waste production and management due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Materials and methods

In this study, we have analyzed data from the Federal District, and all 26 state capital cities of Brazil plus 03 non-capital cities with more than 1 million people, totalizing 30 cities, which were selected based on the following criteria: i) state capital cities may represent the features of each state, considering social, environmental and economic diversity among Brazilian states; ii) data availability; and iii) solid waste production associated with large cities with high urbanization rates. So far, a total of 636,778 COVID-19 confirmed cases have been reported for the 30 analyzed cities, being the number of cases for each city as for July 09, 2020 presented in Table S1.

For the assessment of the impacts on solid waste management system in Brazil, we have analyzed official time-series data (SNIS, 2019a), and the latest published data about solid waste management in Brazil (Brazil, 2019), made available by the National System for Sanitation Information. Estimates of sale prices for recyclable materials were obtained from the Business Association for Recycling (CEMPRE, 2020). Resources saved by recycling were calculated according to Eq. (1), adapted from Calderoni (2003), being resources data presented in Table S2. Environmental and economic impacts caused by the suspension of recycling programs were calculated using Eq. (1), considering 30 days of suspension only in cities where recycling programs were actually suspended.where:

Resources : Amount of resources of type X from recycling programs

X: Sale price; or volume in landfill; or saved: electric power/potable water/trees/oil/ore/sand

Rec. Mat. : Daily amount of solid waste of type n: 1: Plastic; 2: Paper; 3: Metal; 4: Glass

: Transformation coefficient of amount of solid waste of type n to amount of resources of type X

The numbers of daily disposable facemasks potentially used in cities under study were estimated using Eq. (2) (Nzediegwu and Chang, 2020).where:

TDF: Total daily disposable facemasks

Pop.: Total population

Urb.: Urban Population (%)

FAR: Facemask acceptance rate = 80%

ADFPC: Average daily disposable facemasks per capita = 2

Results and discussion

Different levels of solid waste collection and recycling programs are observable on data referring to solid waste management in each analyzed city (Table 1 ). Recycling programs are not available in three (10%) of the studied cities, albeit one of these cities (Macapá-AP) has reported recyclable collection, probably by informal workers. Effectively recovered materials represent only 1%, pointing out: i) low levels of recycling programs in the studied cities; and ii) high rates of disposal of recyclable materials following collection due to decreased quality for recycling or low commercial price. Another important aspect is the recyclable collection system, which varies between door-to-door collection and voluntary deposit in containers for recyclables (Campos, 2014; Ibáñez-Forésa et al., 2018).

Table 1

Data referring to solid waste management in state capital cities and in cities with more than 1 million people in Brazil in 2018.

	City-state code	Population	Urb.	Collected solid waste (t)	Door-to-door recycling collection (%)	Collected Recyclable (t)	Effectively recovered materials (%)
Northern	Belém-PA	1,492,745	99	709,492	3.01	3780	0.53
	Boa Vista-RR	399,213	98	204,090	NA	–	0.00
	Macapá-AP	503,327	96	93,287	NA	252	0.27
	Manaus-AM	2,182,763	99	943,813	18.32	10,145	1.07
	Palmas-TO	299,127	97	85,833	97.57	494.4	0.58
	Porto Velho-RO	529,544	91	111,814	31.07	1506	1.35
	Rio Branco-AC	407,319	92	124,894	24.50	240.5	0.19
Northeastern	Aracaju-SE	657,013	100	235,456	40.80	1032	0.44
	Fortaleza-CE	2,669,342	100	1,533,559	0.00	7170	0.47
	João Pessoa-PB	809,015	100	258,932	26.80	13,740	5.31
	Maceió-AL	1,018,948	100	385,195	19.87	1433	0.37
	Natal-RN	884,122	100	366,080	12.91	2633	0.72
	Recife-PE	1,645,727	100	863,732	29.86	1697	0.20
	Salvador-BA	2,872,347	100	916,649	0.00	7860	0.86
	São Luís-MA	1101,884	94	401,815	0.00	21,868	5.44
	Teresina-PI	864,845	94	413,721	0.00	829.8	0.20
Center-Western	Brasília-DF	3,015,268	97	1,267,313	51.30	17,143	1.35
	Campo Grande-MS	895,982	99	488,882	55.61	2282	0.47
	Cuiabá-MT	612,547	98	185,141	5.82	2649	1.43
	Goiânia-GO	1,516,113	100	421,327	93.72	16,955	4.02
Southeastern	Belo Horizonte-MG	2,512,070	100	888,254	15.43	4900	0.55
	Campinas*-SP	1,204,073	98	415,197	75.68	3464	0.83
	Guarulhos*-SP	1,379,182	100	346,951	11.11	4903	1.41
	Rio de Janeiro-RJ	6,718,903	100	3,079,233	44.45	10,889	0.35
	São Gonçalo*-RJ	1,084,839	100	230,006	NA	–	0.00
	São Paulo-SP	12,252,023	99	3,811,785	79.51	33,427	0.88
	Vitória-ES	362,097	100	163,831	4.18	1499	0.91
Southern	Curitiba-PR	1,933,105	100	511,222	99.18	10,260	2.01
	Florianópolis-SC	500,973	96	209,318	71.59	9514	4.55
	Porto Alegre-RS	1,483,771	100	521,473	99.69	11,266	2.16

Urb.: urbanization rate (%); NA: not applicable (recycling program not available); * non-capital cities.

Data source: SNIS (2019a).

The Brazilian Association for Environmental and Sanitary Engineering has reported decreases in solid waste production, as follows: 16% in Rio de Janeiro-RJ, 12% in Brasília-DF and Porto Alegre-RS, and 10% in Fortaleza-CE and Manaus-AM during the first week of April 2020, and 22% – achieving 50% in central and thus commercial area – during 30 days of partial lockdown in Belo Horizonte (ABES, 2020b). In the city of Campinas-SP solid waste production has decreased 15% during the first month of partial lockdown, albeit the recycling program has been suspended and the recyclable materials incorporated into the domiciliary solid waste collection (G1, 2020).

A recent study has foreseen an increase in solid waste production due to social isolation (Zambrano-Monserrate et al., 2020), which has not happened in Brazil. Because in Brazil up to 200 L-solid waste produced daily by commercial and service sectors are collected as domiciliary waste (Brazil, 2010), the reduction of commercial activities may explain the decrease in solid waste production.

Impacts on recycling programs

Being Brazil a middle-income country, the purpose of recycling is mainly income generation, besides resource recovery (Conke, 2018). The Brazilian legislation regarding solid waste (Brazil, 2010) encourages the integration of informal workers into the formal recycling sector, being the organization as a cooperative an important means to reduce socio-economic fragilities (Fidelis et al., 2020; Ibáñez-Forésa et al., 2018). Considering the continental size of the country with its cultural and economic diversity, solid waste management also varies from similar to low-income countries to similar to high-income countries (Cetrulo et al., 2018). Informal workers such as waste pickers, itinerant traders, and middlemen constitute one important characteristic of recycling programs in Brazil (Conke, 2018), and even formal workers conduct manual waste sorting in recycling centers. Therefore, the Brazilian recycling system is highly vulnerable to the effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, considering both environmental and economic impacts of the suspension of recycling programs in Brazilian cities due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Table 2 ).

Table 2

Environmental and economic impacts caused by the suspension of recycling programs in Brazilian cities due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

	City-state code	Sale price (US$)	Not Saved electric power (MWh)	Not Saved potable water (m3)	Not Saved trees	Not Saved oil (barrel)	Not Saved ore (t)	Not Saved sand (t)	Volume in landfill (m3)
Northern	Manaus-AM	119,202	3544	27,827	4716	2708	135.6	0.0	2386
	Palmas-TO	4600	142.3	1011	170.7	100.5	6.1	4.0	107.6
Northeastern	João Pessoa-PB	127,835	3956	28,109	4743	2794	168.7	110.2	2990
	Maceió-AL	12,678	427.8	4037	687.5	291.2	13.8	14.4	329.7
	Salvador-BA	73,128	2263	16,080	2713	1598	96.5	63.1	1710
	São Luís-MA	11,767	389.1	2639	445.9	251.0	14.4	29.7	362.3
	Teresina-PI	4925	192.7	1927	330.3	113.8	2.7	22.2	207.9
Center-Western	Brasília-DF	193,020	5579	43,030	7334	4496	138.1	88.0	4323
	Campo Grande-MS	24,458	711.4	6348	1088	593.0	10.2	8.2	554.2
	Cuiabá-MT	24,546	811.6	10,664	1838	650.5	1.3	0.0	580.9
Southeastern	Belo Horizonte-MG	45,589	1411	10,024	1691	996.3	60.1	39.3	1066
	Campinasa-SP	32,232	997.5	7087	1196	704.4	42.5	27.8	753.9
	Guarulhosa-SP	50,529	1559	11,056	1863	1101	69.9	35.3	1141
Southern	Florianópolis-SC	56,562	2091	16,091	2752	1238	31.5	303.2	2526
	Total	781,071	24,075.4	185,930	31,568.4	17,635.7	791.4	745.4	19,038.5

Non-capital cities; currency exchange: U$$ 1 = R$ 5.50 (R$ 1 = U$$ 0.18); Estimates calculated considering recycling suspension for 30 days.

As a measure to avoid SARS-COV-2 transmission in recycling centers, 14 out of 30 cities have suspended recycling programs. In São Paulo, the largest city in Latin America, recycling program has not been suspended; nevertheless, only automated segregation is still working (São Paulo, 2020b). As a consequence of the suspension of recycling programs, considerable amounts of natural resources have not been saved over a month, such as 24,076 MWh of electric power – amount enough to supply 152,475 households over a month, considering an average consumption of 157.9 kWh/household∙month (Brazil, 2018), and 185,929 m3 of potable water – amount enough to supply 40,010 people over a month, considering each person uses 154.9 L/day (SNIS, 2019b). Furthermore, total sale price for recyclable materials during the suspension of recycling programs reaches more than 781 thousand dollars, being these materials disposed in landfills demanding an extra volume of 19,000 m3 – reducing landfill lifespan, and hence causing a double loss: economic and environmental.

An important income loss has been reported because of the suspension of recycling programs using manual waste sorting in recycling centers, albeit this measure was intended to safeguard public health, and therefore some city governments – for example, Belém-PA and São Paulo-SP – have approved emergency financial support for recycling-related workers (MPF, 2020; Jovem Pan, 2020). Because there is a high rate of turnover in recycling centers (Fidelis et al., 2020), at least 6581 formal workers have been affected by the COVID-19 crisis (Table S4). In locations where recycling programs have not been suspended, sales for recycling materials have also been compromised because some sectors – such as recycling facilities and also middlemen – of the complex solid waste management system are not fully working (Conke, 2018; Peduzi, 2020).

Impacts on medical waste

The latest data on medical waste in Brazil has shown installed treatment capacity for 479,653 t/year, and an annual production of 252,948 t, being 63.8% of this amount properly treated (ABRELPE, 2020).

Based on the evidence that medical waste production has increased up to 6 fold in Wuhan, China due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Calma, 2020), a recent study has foreseen an increment in medical waste production (Saadat et al., 2020). Assuming a 2 fold increase in medical waste in Brazil, the current treatment capacity would be exceeded. Moreover, although Brazil is one of the developing countries with most studies on its medical waste (Ansari et al., 2019), improper management of medical waste in small medical units is still a reason for concern (Moreira and Günther, 2013).

The COVID-19 pandemic has become more critical in Brazil in middle April 2020, and non-official preliminary data report an increment in medical waste production in May 2020 (Azevedo et al., 2020). By contrast, estimates on medical waste production in Brazil in the first week of April 2020 point out a 17% decrease in collected and treated waste (ABETRE, ABLP, ABRELPE and SELUR/SELURB, 2020), possibly because of the suspension of non-emergency medical and odontological appointments from late March 2020 on, and also improperly disposal among domiciliary waste (Azevedo et al., 2020). Furthermore, increasing use of personal protective equipment such as facemasks and gloves (Calma, 2020; Zambrano-Monserrate et al., 2020), both in hospitals and in general, also increases the chances for inappropriate disposal leading to environmental- (Saadat et al., 2020) and public health- (Nzediegwu and Chang, 2020) risks associated with potentially infective material.

Recently, a few studies have depicted improper disposal of facemasks in distinct parts of the world, such as Soko Islands, Nigeria, Portugal, and Canada (Kalina and Tilley, 2020; Fadare and Okoffo, 2020; Prata et al., 2020). During the social isolation period in Brazil, the press has reported inappropriate disposal of facemask in several cities analyzed in this study such as Campinas-SP, Campo Grande-MS, Goiânia-GO, João Pessoa-PB, Palmas-TO, São Luís-MA and São Gonçalo-RJ. Using the criteria described by Nzediegwu and Chang (2020), an estimate show that more than 85 million facemasks may be daily disposed (Fig. 1 ). Considering the high demand of disposable facemasks and in order to control improper disposal, the Ministry of Health of Brazil (MS, 2020) and the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA, 2020) have recommended the use of disposable masks only by health personnel, and the use of homemade reusable fabric facemask by population in general, according to the World Health Organization recommendations. One recent study has assessed the effectivity of cotton facemask as an alternative to disposable facemasks and has concluded that daily use of washable cotton facemask by healthy people in community is a suitable measure (Ho et al., 2020).

Fig. 1

Estimates of daily disposable facemasks in state capital cities and in cities with more than 1 million people in Brazil, during the COVID-19 pandemic considering each person uses 2 units per day, with acceptance by 80% of total population.

Impacts on solid waste collection in São Paulo megacity

São Paulo is the largest city in Brazil, producing the highest amount of solid waste in the country, being data regarding solid waste collection monitored by an information system maintained and made available by the city government (São Paulo, 2020a).

Time-series data on solid waste production from January to April over the last 11 years (Fig. 2 ) reveal some impacts on solid waste production caused by social isolation measures in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. As a result of environmental education campaigns as well as inspection of irregular waste disposal by the city government (São Paulo, 2020a), before the COVID-19 pandemic the following situations have been observed: i) variations in domiciliary solid waste collection, with a stable trend; ii) increasing recyclable collection; iii) increasing voluntary deposit in containers for recyclables; and iv) decreasing amount of solid waste on streets. In April 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic and consequent partial lockdown, the following situations have been observed: i) the lowest (276,684 t) domiciliary solid waste collection over 11 years; ii) increased recyclable collection; iii) decreased voluntary deposit in containers for recyclables; and iv)) the lowest (3887 t) amount of solid waste on streets over 11 years.

Fig. 2

Variations over the last decade (2010−2020) in domiciliary solid waste collection, domiciliary recyclable collection, voluntary deposit in containers for recyclables (started on 2016) and solid waste collection on streets and squares in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. Data source: São Paulo (2020a).

Future perspectives and challenges

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused several impacts on the solid waste management system in Brazil, considering socioeconomic and environmental effects, and hence has hampered advances in sustainable development. The suspension of recycling programs over a month has hindered natural resources from being saved, with emphasis on 24,076 MWh of electric power and 185,929 m3 of potable water – respectively enough to supply 152,475 households and 40,010 people, over a month. Recycling-related workers have experienced economic issues, albeit the government has approved emergency financial support.

Given behavior shifts in the post-pandemic period, the solid waste management system may demand adjustments seeking to: i) increase both recycling capacity and environmental education, considering the increment in the use of disposable utensils and also packages from food delivery and online shopping; ii) encourage training of waste pickers for adoption of safe methods for recyclable sorting; and iii) monitor both the production and the installed capacity for medical waste treatment, in order to assess an eventual need for system expansion.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Rodrigo Custodio Urban: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Liane Yuri Kondo Nakada: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.