Kumar Harender, Azad Amaanuddin, Gupta Ankit, Sharma Jitendra, Bherwani Hemant, Labhsetwar Nitin Kumar, Kumar Rakesh
CSIR-National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, CSIR-NEERI, Nagpur, Maharashtra 440 020 India.
Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research [AcSIR], Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201 002 India.
Environ Dev Sustain. 2021;23(6):9418-9432. doi: 10.1007/s10668-020-01033-0. Epub 2020 Oct 9.
Amid COVID-19, there have been rampant increase in the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) kits by frontline health and sanitation communities, to reduce the likelihoods of infections. The used PPE kits, potentially being infectious, pose a threat to human health, terrestrial, and marine ecosystems, if not scientifically handled and disposed. However, with stressed resources on treatment facilities and lack of training to the health and sanitation workers, it becomes vital to vet different options for PPE kits disposal, to promote environmentally sound management of waste. Given the various technology options available for treatment and disposal of COVID-19 patients waste, Life Cycle Assessment, i.e., cradle to grave analysis of PPE provides essential guidance in identifying the environmentally sound alternatives. In the present work, Life Cycle Assessment of PPE kits has been performed using GaBi version 8.7 under two disposal scenarios, namely landfill and incineration (both centralized and decentralized) for six environmental impact categories covering overall impacts on both terrestrial and marine ecosystems, which includes Global Warming Potential (GWP), Human Toxicity Potential (HTP), Eutrophication Potential (EP), Acidification Potential (AP), Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential (FAETP) and Photochemical Ozone Depletion Potential (POCP). Considering the inventories of PPE kits, disposal of PPE bodysuit has the maximum impact, followed by gloves and goggles, in terms of GWP. The use of metal strips in face-mask has shown the most significant HTP impact. The incineration process (centralized-3816 kg CO2 eq. and decentralized-3813 kg CO2 eq.) showed high GWP but significantly reduced impact w.r.t. AP, EP, FAETP, POCP and HTP, when compared to disposal in a landfill, resulting in the high overall impact of landfill disposal compared to incineration. The decentralized incineration has emerged as environmentally sound management option compared to centralized incinerator among all the impact categories, also the environmental impact by transportation is significant (2.76 kg CO2 eq.) and cannot be neglected for long-distance transportation. Present findings can help the regulatory authority to delineate action steps for safe disposal of PPE kits.
在新冠疫情期间，一线医疗卫生和环卫人员对个人防护装备（PPE）套装的使用急剧增加，以降低感染风险。如果使用过的PPE套装未经科学处理和处置，可能具有传染性，会对人类健康、陆地和海洋生态系统构成威胁。然而，由于治疗设施资源紧张，且医疗卫生和环卫工作者缺乏培训，审查PPE套装的不同处置选项对于促进环境友好型废物管理至关重要。鉴于有多种技术可用于治疗和处置新冠患者废物，生命周期评估，即对PPE从摇篮到坟墓的分析，为确定环境友好型替代方案提供了重要指导。在本研究中，使用GaBi 8.7版本对PPE套装进行了生命周期评估，评估了两种处置情景，即填埋和焚烧（集中式和分散式），涉及六个环境影响类别，涵盖对陆地和海洋生态系统的总体影响，包括全球变暖潜势（GWP）、人体毒性潜势（HTP）、富营养化潜势（EP）、酸化潜势（AP）、淡水水生生态毒性潜势（FAETP）和光化学臭氧消耗潜势（POCP）。考虑到PPE套装的清单，就GWP而言，处置PPE连体衣的影响最大，其次是手套和护目镜。口罩中金属条的使用显示出最显著的HTP影响。焚烧过程（集中式 - 3816千克二氧化碳当量和分散式 - 3813千克二氧化碳当量）显示出较高的GWP，但与填埋处置相比，在AP、EP、FAETP、POCP和HTP方面的影响显著降低，导致填埋处置的总体影响高于焚烧。与集中式焚烧炉相比，分散式焚烧在所有影响类别中已成为环境友好型管理选项，此外，运输产生的环境影响也很大（2.76千克二氧化碳当量），对于长途运输而言不可忽视。目前的研究结果有助于监管机构划定安全处置PPE套装的行动步骤。
