College of Energy and Safety Engineering, Tianjin Chengjian University, Tianjin 300384, China; Tianjin Key Laboratory of Building Green Functional Materials, Tianjin 300384, China.
School of Engineering, Westlake Institute for Advanced Study, 310024 Zhejiang Province, China; School of Engineering, Westlake University, Hangzhou 310024, China; Key Laboratory of Coastal Environment and Resources of Zhejiang Province (KLaCER), School of Engineering, Westlake University, Hangzhou 310024, Zhejiang Province, China.
Sci Total Environ. 2021 Nov 20;796:148964. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148964. Epub 2021 Jul 9.
Medical waste (MW) has exploded since the COVID-19 pandemic and aroused great concern to MW disposal. Meanwhile, the energy recovery for MW disposal is necessary due to high heat value of MW. Harmless disposal of MW with economically and environmentally sustainable technologies along with higher energy recovery is urgently required, and their energy recovery efficiencies and environmental impacts reduction due to energy recovery are key issues. In this study, five MW disposal technologies, i.e. rotary kiln incineration, pyrolysis incineration, plasma melting, steam sterilization and microwave sterilization, were evaluated and compared via energy recovery analysis (ERA), life cycle assessment (LCA), and life cycle costing (LCC) methods. Furthermore, three MW incineration technologies with further energy recovery and two sterilization followed by co-incineration technologies were analyzed to explore their improvement potential of energy recovery and environment benefits via scenario analysis. ERA results reveal that the energy recovery efficiencies of "steam and microwave sterilization + incineration" are the highest (≥83.4%), while that of the plasma melting is the lowest (19.2%). LCA results show that "microwave sterilization + landfill" outperforms others while the plasma melting exhibits the worst, electricity is the most significant contributor to the environmental impacts of five technologies. Scenario analysis shows that the overall environmental impact of all technologies reduced by at least 45% after further heat utilization. LCC results demonstrate that pyrolysis incineration delivers the lowest economic cost, while plasma melting is the highest. Co-incineration of sterilized MW and municipal solid waste could be recommended.
医疗废物(MW)在 COVID-19 大流行期间呈爆炸式增长,引起了人们对 MW 处理的极大关注。同时,由于 MW 具有高热值,因此需要对其进行能源回收。迫切需要采用经济和环境可持续的技术对 MW 进行无害处理,并实现更高的能源回收,而提高能源回收效率和减少环境影响是关键问题。在这项研究中,通过能源回收分析(ERA)、生命周期评估(LCA)和生命周期成本核算(LCC)方法,对旋转窑焚烧、热解焚烧、等离子体熔融、蒸汽灭菌和微波灭菌等五种 MW 处理技术进行了评估和比较。此外,还对三种具有进一步能源回收的 MW 焚烧技术和两种随后进行共焚烧的灭菌技术进行了分析,以通过情景分析探索其提高能源回收效率和环境效益的潜力。ERA 结果表明,“蒸汽和微波灭菌+焚烧”的能源回收效率最高(≥83.4%),而等离子体熔融的能源回收效率最低(19.2%)。LCA 结果表明,“微波灭菌+垃圾填埋”的表现优于其他技术,而等离子体熔融的表现最差,电力是五种技术环境影响的最重要贡献者。情景分析表明,所有技术的整体环境影响在进一步利用热量后至少降低了 45%。LCC 结果表明,热解焚烧的经济成本最低,而等离子体熔融的成本最高。建议对经灭菌的 MW 和城市固体废物进行共焚烧。
Sci Total Environ. 2021-11-20
Sci Total Environ. 2022-3-1
Huan Jing Ke Xue. 2018-12-8
Waste Manag Res. 2013-10-25
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2024-6
Int J Mol Sci. 2025-3-21
Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2024-6-6
Bull World Health Organ. 2024-3-1
Front Public Health. 2024
Int J Mol Sci. 2023-8-8
Case Stud Chem Environ Eng. 2022-12