Human-generated waste, including infectious healthcare waste, poses significant risks to public health and the environment. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the global production of infectious waste, emphasizing the need for safe and sustainable waste management practices. While autoclaves are commonly used for on-site disposal, alternative methods like ozone gas and UV-C radiation offer environmentally friendly options that effectively eliminate pathogens without leaving toxic residues. Inadequate waste management can contribute to disease transmission, while open burning releases harmful pollutants. This study investigated the effectiveness of different disinfection agents – ozone gas and UV-C radiation – on infectious solid waste contaminated with bacteria. The bacterial indicators examined were Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus subtilis, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The experimental methods included operating each ozone and UV-C radiation individually and simultaneously using ozone gas and UV-C radiation. The study also investigated exposure times and various concentrations of ozone gas. The findings demonstrated that the simultaneous application of ozone gas and UV-C radiation was the most effective method for decontaminating infectious solid waste and targeting the selected bacteria. The concentration of ozone gas ranged from 165 to 5000 ppm, depending on generation time and treatment chamber volume, while exposure times varied from 1 to 180 minutes. In applying UV-C rays, complete elimination of S. aureus was observed after 60 minutes up to 6-log, while the reduction of B. subtilis and P. aeruginosa were 2-log and 3-log, respectively. Ozone gas had the ability to inactivate all strains, but when ozone gas and UV-C rays were used simultaneously, this process was accelerated and improved. The total reduction in the bacterial load was 8-log. considering the increase in population and the subsequent increase in waste generation, adopting an environmentally friendly waste management method can be very advantageous.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mohtasebi et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: