| Literature DB >> 33652254 |
Dwi Hantoko1, Xiaodong Li2, Agamuthu Pariatamby3, Kunio Yoshikawa4, Mika Horttanainen5, Mi Yan6.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed a global emergency and also has raised issues with waste management practices. This study emphasized the challenges of increased waste disposal during the COVID-19 crisis and its response practices. Data obtained from the scientific research papers, publications from the governments and multilateral organizations, and media reports were used to quantify the effect of the pandemic towards waste generation. A huge increase in the amount of used personal protective equipments (facemasks, gloves, and other protective stuffs) and wide distribution of infectious wastes from hospitals, health care facilities, and quarantined households was found. The amount of food and plastic waste also increased during the pandemic. These factors caused waste treatment facilities to be overwhelmed, forcing emergency treatment and disposals (e.g., co-disposal in a municipal solid waste incinerator, cement kilns, industrial furnaces, and deep burial) to ramp up processing capacity. This paper discussed the ways the operation of those facilities must be improved to cope with the challenge of handling medical waste, as well as working around the restrictions imposed due to COVID-19. The study also highlights the need for short, mid, and longer-term responses towards waste management during the pandemic. Furthermore, the practices discussed in this paper may provide an option for alternative approaches and development of sustainable strategies for mitigating similar pandemics in the future.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Disposal facilities; Incinerator; Infectious wastes; Waste management
Year: 2021 PMID: 33652254 PMCID: PMC7869705 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112140
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Manage ISSN: 0301-4797 Impact factor: 6.789
Estimated daily facemask use in the world with accumulated confirmed COVID-19 cases.
| Country | Population | COVID-19 cases | Urban population (%) | Total daily facemask use (pieces) | Discarded facemask (tons/day) | Medical waste (tons/day) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asia | 4,628,322,315 | 22,315,871 | 50.90% | 3,769,305,693 | 11,308 | 55,630 |
| Africa | 1,358,208,732 | 3,356,223 | 43.80% | 951,832,679 | 2,855 | 8367 |
| Europe | 747,882,582 | 28,216,000 | 74.50% | 891,476,038 | 2,674 | 70,338 |
| North America | 591,669,479 | 28,558,410 | 82.60% | 781,950,383 | 2,346 | 71,192 |
| South America | 432,731,157 | 14,926,579 | 85.50% | 591,976,223 | 1,776 | 37,210 |
| Oceania | 42,567,863 | 49,677 | 67.80% | 46,177,618 | 139 | 124 |
Data retrieved on January 21, 2021 (Woldometer, 2021b).
The urban population was taken from (Woldometer, 2021c).
Total daily facemask usage was estimated according to (Nzediegwu and Chang, 2020).
The mass of discarded facemask was calculated based on the assumption (3 g/facemask).
The medical waste generation was estimated based on the study done by (Sangkham, 2020).
Estimated daily facemask use in selected Asian countries with accumulated confirmed COVID-19 case.
| Country | Population | COVID-19 cases | Urban population (%) | Total daily facemask use (pieces) | Discarded facemask (tons/day) | Medical waste (tons/day) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| China | 1,439,323,776 | 88,701 | 61% | 1,404,780,005 | 4,214 | 221.119 |
| India | 1,387,530,727 | 10,611,719 | 35% | 777,017,207 | 2,331 | 26,453.500 |
| Indonesia | 275,127,290 | 951,651 | 56% | 246,514,052 | 740 | 2,372.330 |
| Pakistan | 223,256,147 | 527,146 | 35% | 125,023,442 | 375 | 1,314.100 |
| Bangladesh | 165,599,479 | 530,271 | 39% | 103,334,075 | 310 | 1,321.890 |
| Japan | 126,259,973 | 339,774 | 92% | 185,854,680 | 558 | 847.008 |
| Philippines | 110,388,276 | 507,717 | 47% | 83,011,984 | 249 | 1,265.666 |
| Vietnam | 97,824,681 | 1546 | 38% | 59,477,406 | 178 | 3.854 |
| Turkey | 84,842,191 | 2,406,216 | 76% | 103,168,104 | 310 | 5,998.353 |
| Iran | 84,588,146 | 1,354,520 | 76% | 102,859,186 | 309 | 3,376.625 |
| Thailand | 69,897,587 | 12,795 | 51% | 57,036,431 | 171 | 31.896 |
| Myanmar | 54,612,547 | 135,721 | 31% | 27,087,823 | 81 | 338.333 |
| S. Korea | 51,293,799 | 73,918 | 82% | 67,297,464 | 202 | 184.267 |
| Iraq | 40,718,860 | 611,407 | 73% | 47,559,628 | 143 | 1,524.150 |
| Afghanistan | 39,410,451 | 54,483 | 25% | 15,764,180 | 47 | 135.818 |
| Saudi Arabia | 35,113,472 | 365,775 | 84% | 47,192,506 | 142 | 911.825 |
| Uzbekistan | 33,737,441 | 78,219 | 50% | 26,989,953 | 81 | 194.989 |
| Malaysia | 32,595,582 | 172,549 | 78% | 40,679,286 | 122 | 430.140 |
| Yemen | 30,187,320 | 2115 | 38% | 18,353,891 | 55 | 5.272 |
| Nepal | 29,425,912 | 268,646 | 21% | 9,887,106 | 30 | 669.696 |
| Taiwan | 23,840,809 | 872 | 79% | 30,134,783 | 90 | 2.174 |
| Sri Lanka | 21,463,233 | 55,189 | 18% | 6,181,411 | 19 | 137.578 |
| Kazakhstan | 18,901,121 | 172,412 | 58% | 17,540,240 | 52.62 | 429.798 |
| Syria | 17,734,143 | 13,313 | 60% | 17,024,777 | 51.07 | 33.187 |
| Cambodia | 16,846,976 | 453 | 24% | 6,469,239 | 19.41 | 1.129 |
The urban population in Asian countries was taken from (Woldometer, 2021a) (Woldometer, 2021c).
The mass of discarded facemask was calculated based on the assumption (3 g/facemask).
The medical waste generation was estimated based on the study done by (Sangkham, 2020).
Fig. 1Plastic wastes by segment (Geyer et al., 2017), which are expected to increase in trend of medical and packaging wastes.
Fig. 2The potential sources of contaminated waste during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The technological approaches for the treatment of COVID-19 contaminated waste.
| Criteria | Preferred technologies | Secondary preferred technologies | Emergency solutions | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Autoclave/steam sterilization | Microwave | Twin chamber incineration | Brick built de-montfort incinerators | Barrel incinerators with air induction | Onsite pit burial | |
| Condition | Static or mobile | Static or mobile | Static or mobile | Static | Mobile | Static |
| Cost | Low | Medium | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
| Scale of technology | 200-10,000 L/cycle | 30–500 L/cycle | 50–2000 kg/h | 15–50 kg | 8–25 kg/h | 5–10 tons of waste |
| Suitable for/type of waste | Soiled wastes bedding and PPE clinical laboratory waste reusable instruments waste sharps glassware | Soiled wastes bedding and PPE clinical laboratory waste reusable instruments waste sharps glassware | Soiled wastes bedding and PPE human anatomical wastes chemical wastes laboratory waste | Soiled wastes PPE Chemical and laboratory wastes | Soiled wastes PPE Chemical and laboratory wastes | Soiled wastes PPE Clinical laboratory waste Disposable instruments |
| Pollution control | Reduced air pollution | Negligible to no air emissions | Acceptable emissions and 90% volume reduction Secondary combustion chamber, temperature controls and air pollution control equipment | Negligible to air emissions | Air induction cyclonic system | No emission |
| Time of scale | 30–60 min per cycle, 121–134 °C | 30–250 kg/h in cycles of 30–60 min | 8-h cycles receiving multiple batches of waste | 6-h cycles with 1–3 batches of waste | 6-h cycles with multiple batches of waste Medium temperature (>650 °C) | Short |
| Complexity | Simple | Simple | Mandatory training | Simple | Use operating manual | Layers of waste with daily soil cover until full |
| Weakness/drawbacks | No volume reduction Odor generation, Remained waste must be landfilled | No volume reduction Remained waste must be landfilled Need regular maintenance | Higher capital and operational costs Poor emissions if the equipment is low quality Potential of formation and release of PCDD/PCDF Need regular maintenance | Short life span (3–5 years) Initial incineration will produce black smoke due to the fuel source Potential of formation and release of PCDD/PCDF | Short life span (2–3 years) The poor feedstock may lead to poor emissions Potential of formation and release of PCDD/PCDF | Potential for leachate and releases to water and land Short term solution Will be fled in quickly |
| Application tips | Pair it with the shredding of material for volume reduction Break down the PPE before landfilled to avoid waste picking and reuse | Use a HEPA filter to avoid toxic contaminants release Re-bag reduced waste volumes before sending them | Have a cool down cycle to enable safe ash removal Encapsulate hazardous ash waste Make sure emissions controls are in place | Use good design quality material to build a safe model. Operate well to maintain acceptable emissions. Avoid overloading Have a cool down cycle to enable safe ash removal | Temporal back-up technology to ease overburden of waste materials Suitable for remote sites Have a cool-down cycle to enable safe ash removal Fly ash easily removed | Secure the site from waste pickers Site it away from water abstraction points, waterways, crops and communities Use gauze cover to avoid vermin and odors Never conduct open burning |
Guidelines for COVID-19 contaminated wastes by different agencies and countries.
| Country/Agency | Guideline for waste management during COVID-19 pandemic |
|---|---|
| WHO ( | WHO has issued guidelines for the disposal of infectious and non-infectious healthcare wastes during COVID 19 crisis. The COVID-19 wastes should be safely collected and disposed of. All workers involved in waste management and disposal must be equipped with proper PPE. |
| US EPA ( | The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) responded by releasing guidelines for recycling and sustainable management of food wastes during the COVID-19 outbreak. These guidelines include food waste management at households, institutions, and business levels. |
| United States ( | The U.S Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has defined the safety guidelines for personnel workers involved in MSW management. Strict engineering and administrative controls, safe work practices, and proper PPE (gloves, gowns, masks, and face shields) should be applied to protect workers from exposure to contaminated recyclable materials. |
| SWANA ( | The Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) reminds all stakeholders, including the nation's governors, mayors, elected officials, and leaders that solid waste collection, processing, and disposal are a crucial public service and should be issued from local or state-wide quarantines in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. |
| Europe ( | European Commission has issued guidance for waste management during the COVID-19 crisis to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment. The guidance involves preventing or reducing distortions in waste management services, dealing with an increasing amount of medical wastes, ensuring enhanced health and safety at work, and providing safe handling of household wastes generated from residents with confirmed cases. |
| United Kingdom ( | The British government has formulated COVID-19 regulatory position statements for local authorities and waste collectors. |
| India ( | The COVID-19 related wastes should be carefully treated such as double-layered bags, COVID-19 labeled, and independently stored. The labeling is to ensure the priority treatment and disposal immediately upon at Common Bio-medical Waste Treatment Facilities (CBWTF). |
| China ( | The Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People's Republic of China issued “COVID-19 Infected Pneumonia Medical Waste Emergency Disposal Management and Technical Guide. |
| Nigeria ( | The Nigeria Center for Disease Control (NCDC) has published the guideline for handling wastes produced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Special waste collection bins to collect disposable PPEs should be provided in buildings (residential, government and hospitals), and public places. |
Fig. 3Solid waste management trends and practices during COVID-19 pandemic, modified from (ACRPlus, 2020).