| Literature DB >> 35192024 |
Norvin Requena-Sanchez1, Dalia Carbonel-Ramos2, Stephan Moonsammy3, Robert Klaus4, Leoncio Sicha Punil4, Kelvin Tsun Wai Ng5.
Abstract
The Covid-19 pandemic has caused the alteration of many aspects of the solid waste management chain, such as variations in the waste composition, generation and disposal. Various studies have examined these changes with analysis of integrated waste management strategies; qualitative studies on perceived variations and statistical evaluations based on waste collected or disposed in landfills. Despite this information there is a need for updated data on waste generation and composition, especially in developing countries. The objective of this article is to develop a data sampling and analytical approach for the collection of data on household waste generation and composition during the pandemic; and, in addition, estimate the daily generation of masks in the study area. The proposed methodology is based on the principles of citizen science and utilizes virtual tools to contact participants, and for the training and collection of information. The study participants collected the information, installed segregation bins in their homes and trained their relatives in waste segregation. The article presents the results of the application of the methodology in an urban district of Lima (Peru) in August 2020. The results suggest an apparent decrease in household waste per capita and a slight increase in plastics composition in the study area. It is estimated that each participant generates 0.124 masks per day and 0.085 pairs of gloves per day. The method developed and results presented can be used as a tool for public awareness and training on household waste characterization and segregation. Furthermore it can provide the necessary evidence to inform policy directives in response household waste issues and Covid-19 restrictions.Entities:
Keywords: Bio-medical waste management; Disposable masks; Participatory methods; Waste composition; Waste generation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35192024 PMCID: PMC8862408 DOI: 10.1007/s00267-022-01610-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Manage ISSN: 0364-152X Impact factor: 3.644
Fig. 1Location of the study area
Fig. 2Segregation bins elaborated by the participants of the study and installed at their home. Photos (a) depicted the four segregation bins installed: organic, hazardous, non recyclable and recyclable waste; photo (b) shows the organics, recyclable, non-recyclable and hazardous waste bins; photo (c) shows, besides the four segregation bins (hazardous, organics, recyclable and non-recyclable), containers for the ecobrick (left side) and used cooking oil (right side)
Type of waste
| Type | Description |
|---|---|
| Organic | Peels and remains of fruits and vegetables; weed and pruning residues such as flowers, leaves, stems, grass and other similar organic waste |
| Recyclable | Terephthalate polystyrene |
| High-density polyethylene and polypropylene | |
| Glass, metal, paper, cardboard and tetra pack | |
| Non recyclable | Sanitary waste: diapers and waste generated in the bathroom |
| Food waste | |
| Others: fabrics, dust, expanded polystyrene, used paper towels, etc. | |
| Hazardous | Batteries, medicine waste, light bulbs, gloves, masks, etc. |
| Eco-brick | Candy and food wrappers, aluminium foil, medicine blisters, receipts paper, drinking straws, etc. |
| Used oil | Left over oil after food preparation |
Fig. 3Comparison of household WPC from 2014 to 2020
Fig. 4Municipal solid waste collection in the Municipality of Comas
Household waste composition from this study
| Group | Type | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Organics | Fruit, vegetables and other green waste | 36.46% |
| Food waste | 21.04% | |
| Recyclables | Polyethylene terephthalate | 3.71% |
| High density polyethylene and polypropylene | 2.88% | |
| Paper, cardboard, glass, metal, tetra pack | 5.37% | |
| Non recyclables | Sanitary | 18.17% |
| Hazardous | 2.06% | |
| Eco-brick | 1.82% | |
| Used oil | 1.50% | |
| Others | 6.99% |
Fig. 5Comparison of household waste composition
Daily estimate of masks discarded in the study area
| Population1 | Use rate2 | Average daily masks per capita3 | Total daily masks4 | Total daily weight of masks5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comas | 575,800 | 80 % | 0.124 | 57,015 | 228 kg |
1(CPI, 2019)/2People who leave their homes and need to wear masks (hypothetical data)/3This study/4 Total daily masks = Population × Use rate × Average daily masks per capita/5 Considering that each mask weighs 4 g (Tripathi et al. 2020).
Comparison of estimated average daily masks per capita
| Area | Average daily masks per capita | Acceptance rate | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| BASED ON ESTIMATIONS | |||
| Africa | 2 | 80% | (Nzediegwu and Chang, |
| Worldwide and Asia | 2 | 80% | (Hantoko et al. |
| Worldwide | 2 | 80% | (Tripathi et al. |
| Brazil | 2 | 80% | (Urban and Nakada, |
| Arabian Peninsula | 1 to 4 | 50% to 90% | (Akber Abbasi et al. |
| Africa | 1 | 70% to 80% | (Benson et al. |
| Asia | 1 | 80% | (Sangkham, |
| Iran | 2 | 12% to 68% | (Zand and Heir, |
| Italy | 0.5 | – | (WWF, |
| BASED ON QUANTITATIVE DATA | |||
| Comas, Lima, Peru | 0.124 | This study | |
| Lima, Peru | 0.127 | (Requena Sanchez and Carbonel Ramos, | |
| Arequipa, Peru | 0.134 | ||
| Panama | 0.197 | ||
| Honduras | 0.141 | ||