Volume 8, Issue 1 (Winter 2019)
Arch Hyg Sci 2019, 8(1): 27-34 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Pourzamani H, Rohollah F, Heidari Z, Puralaghebandan H, Fadaei S, Karimi H et al . Comparative Analysis of Household Hazardous Waste in Different Seasons of Year(Case Study). Arch Hyg Sci 2019; 8 (1) :27-34
URL: http://jhygiene.muq.ac.ir/article-1-301-en.html
URL: http://jhygiene.muq.ac.ir/article-1-301-en.html
Hamidreza Pourzamani1 
, Fatemeh Rohollah1 , Zahra Heidari1 , Hamidreza Puralaghebandan2 , Saeid Fadaei1 , Hossein Karimi1 , Parisa Talebi *1
, Fatemeh Rohollah1 , Zahra Heidari1 , Hamidreza Puralaghebandan2 , Saeid Fadaei1 , Hossein Karimi1 , Parisa Talebi *1
1- Student Research Committee, School of Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
2- Executive Vice recycling Isfahan Municipality
2- Executive Vice recycling Isfahan Municipality
Full-Text [PDF 452 kb]
(1392 Downloads)
| Abstract (HTML) (4662 Views)
HHW classification
Once the generation analysis was obtained, materials, packages, and containers were separated according to the classification suggested by Delgado (14). As shown in Table 1 waste categories were: (1) home cleaning, (2) automotive maintenance, (3) batteries, (4) medicines, (5) biological-infectious (syringes, dialysis equipment, used bandages, and etc…), (6) gardening, (7) self-care products, (8) miscellaneous. The last category included all containers and packaging that could not be categorized in the other seven.
Data analysis
The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to evaluate the normality of the quantitative data. Data were presented as median, range (R), and percentage. ANOVA test was used to compare weight average of wastes among different seasons. Data analyses were performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 21(SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, U.S.A.).
The results showed that the rate of HHW generation was 6.15 kg/ton/day. In fact, HHW comprised % 0.6 of municipal solid waste (see Table 2). Also by 2243249 inhabitants and 366727 ton municipal solid waste produced in Isfahan, 2.74 gr/person/ day HHW generated. Waste related to home cleaning products accounted for the largest portion of spring (37.53%), summer (26.82%), and fall (39.78%) of total HHW generation but in winter medicines products accounted for (34.70%) of the total HHW generation (Fig 2). Generally, the three largest categories were home cleaning (0.20%), medical products (0.19%) and Self-care equipment (0.11%) of total MSW generation, respectively. Quantity of HHW contributing to total MSW were in fall (0.75), winter (0.75), spring (0.56), summer (0.40). According to the Table 3, there was not a significant difference between the four seasons in terms of weight average of wastes (P-Value=0.325).
Aghalari et al. (16) Investigated the household hazardous wastes production in Tabriz(Iran) and found that the amounts of HHW generated in summer and winter were 2.75 and 2.43 g for each person in per day respectively, that were similar with our research. The Morelia (15) research estimated that a total amount of 442 ton/day of domestic waste are produced, including 7.1 ton of HHW per day. In other words 16 kg/ton/day HHW are produced. HHW generation rate and characteristics deepened on variables factors, some of these variables include culture and geographic location (17), seasonal variations (18), climate changes, as they might determine the acquisition of products such as insecticides and education level and the community type (14). Although the quantities are small, the risks of disposal are not negligible due to the hazardousness of this waste stream (19). Furthermore, as household waste recycling levels increase, the residual waste fraction may contain a greater concentration of hazardous waste, presenting additional management problems (4). Studies showed that a positive correlation between generation and income. For instance, the production of household cleaning products waste was directly related to the socioeconomic stratum (15). Studies have shown that household cleaners can have adverse effects on humans and the environment, including air generally, pollution, endocrine disorders, and chronic bronchitis (20) Therefore, proper management of these products is very important in a landfill. Binxian et al. (2014) reported that the major waste categories contributing to total HHW were home cleaning products (21.33%), medicines (17.67%), and personal care products (15.19%) (10). Also, Otoniel et al. (2008) indicated that home cleaning (34.9%), self-care product (26.6%), and medical products (15%) constitute the most part of HHW (15). According to our research in winter medicines products accounted for (34.70%) of the total HHW generation. The highest percentage of HHW in winter was medicines products, such as glass syrup, pill, thermometer, and syringe. Probably cause of the high percentage of medical products is disease outbreaks in winter. According to Yousefi et.al study the containers of laundry and dishwashing liquid are the largest amount of HHW generated by families and the lowest amount of those belonged to batteries and electrical components (21). The results of this study were compared with other countries in Table 4. In studies conducted in Mexico and China as well as household cleaners, personal protective equipment, and medicine had formed the highest percentage of household hazardous waste (15). Studies have shown that household cleaners can have adverse effects on humans. Results from ANOVA test (P-Value=0.325) showed there was not a significant difference between the four seasons in terms of weight average of wastes (Table 3). In another study of Delgado et al. (2007) were done a comparative analysis of HHW in two Mexican regions. In the northern region (Mexicali city), HHW comprised 3.7% of municipal solid waste, the largest categories in this fraction were home cared products (29.2%), cleaning products (19.5%), batteries and electronic equipment (15.7%). In the central region, HHW comprised 1.03% of municipal solid waste; the main categories in this fraction were represented by cleaning products (39%), self -care products (27.3%), and insecticides (14.4%) (14). Ojeda-Benítez et al. (2013) attempted to quantify the levels of HHW generated in Mexicali, Mexico. Cleaning products represent 45.86% of the HHW generated (8). As shows in table 2 the average of HHW obtained.62 %, although it has been considered that HHW at 1.6% (w/w) of total waste does not constitute a serious risk(15), because generation rate of HHW are increasing the HHW management is important. In Isfahan, HHW is collected and managed along with MSW, management of hazardous waste is the most difficult, because in the process of treatment, heavy metals and dioxins are obtained. These elements are dangerous for the environment and public health (22). For waste management, it needs information about family structure, consumption patterns, population growth, society, parameters of income, geographical location, and culture of society (12). Finally this article supposes strategies include the training of families to reduce and elimination of waste, separation, and elimination in the source for HHW management.
The study was descriptive in 2015 – 2016. Sampling was performed in four different seasons of the year. In every season one day was selected for sampling. This survey of the HHW generation and characteristics in Isfahan city enables us to make the following conclusions:
1. The rate of HHW generation was 6.15 kg/ton/day. In fact, HHW comprised 0.6% of municipal solid waste
2. The largest percentage of HHW was home cleaners in spring (37.53%), summer (26.82%), and fall (39.78%), but the largest percentage of HHW in winter was medical products (34.70%).
3. There was not a significant difference between the four seasons in terms of weight average of wastes (P-Value=0.325).
4. Generally, the three largest categories of HHW in a year were home cleaning (32.09%), medical products (31.50%) and self-care equipment (17.14%).
5. Although the average of HHW generation was lower than 1.6% and does not constitute a serious risk but also due to the increasing of HHW rate and prevention of adverse environmental effects of hazardous wastes, management of these waste are important.
Acknowledgements
This article is the result of a project approved by the Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (IUMS). The authors are grateful for the financial support from Vice Chancellery of Research of IUMS (Research Project No. 194204). We also thank Meghdad Tahmasebi expert of composting plant for his help in method of this paper.
Conflict of Interest:
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
Full-Text: (1163 Views)
Background
According to the United States of America (USA) definition of hazardous waste due to the amount or concentration of materials that feature physical, chemical, and infectious causes an increase in infectious diseases and ultimately lead to death. Now because of the treatment, storage, transportation, disposal, and improper management of this waste, there are potential risks to human health and the environment (1). The risk of dangerous waste is dependent on various factors, including the physical form, the reactivity, quantity, composition of matter, the biological and ecological effects, the degree of volatility after entering the environment, its stability in the environment, indirect effects on health humans, and the environment (2). According to Chinese law, hazardous waste is divided into three categories: industrial hazardous waste (IHW), medical waste (MW), household hazardous waste (HHW) (3). Any waste that is discarded by residential areas called household waste. It forms more than two-thirds of municipal waste and a large part of the waste that buried in the landfill. In Europe and the United Kingdom (UK) based National Household Hazardous Waste Forum (NHHWF), HHW is defined as garbage that when composting, disposal, and burning increases the potential risks also because of the physical and chemical nature is a serious risk to human health and the environment (4-5). HHW characteristics include combustible, flammability, spontaneous combustion, reactivity, toxicity, and corrosion (6-9). HHW is an important part of the household waste that amount and quality of its depend on people's life (10). Household hazardous waste included paint, gardening pesticides, pharmaceuticals, photographic chemicals, cleaners special, personal protective equipment, fluorescent lamps, oil, and heavy metals such as batteries, electronic waste, and equipment that have chlorofluorocarbons (CFCS) (11). Although studies have shown that HHW makes up only 0.5-5 percent of municipal waste, but causing significant damage to the environment when buried (8). The impact of HHW is evaluated in three stages of garbage collection and transportation and treatment. When transferring the HHW to disposal sites one gallon of leachate can contaminate a million liters of drinking water. Suitable management in collection and transportation stage prevent of serious events. In the final compost treatment step if household solid waste (HSW) and HHW mix together, cause aggression of heavy metal and reduce of biogas extraction (10). One of the causes of global warming, greenhouse gas emissions and contamination of soil and groundwater is increasing HHW in a landfill (12,13). Rainfall in waste collected site causes waste decomposition and leachate production. If the leachate of MSW contacts with dangerous contaminants in landfills, HHW will be toxic. It is the first cause of groundwater pollution (5, 11). If HHW toxins enter in the human food chain, accumulate in the body and cause cancer, genes mutagenic, and congenital diseases (12). In recent decades, some researchers have studied the characteristics of HHW stream in various regions around the world. Otoniel et al. (2007) found that HHW concentrations of 3.7% and 1.7% were detected in the northern region (Mexicali) and in the CB area, respectively (14). Gu et al. (2014) reported that the rate of HHW generation was 6.16 (g/person/day), which accounted for 2.23% of the household solid waste stream (10). Also, Otoniel et al. (2008) indicated that approximately 1.6% of the waste stream consists of HHW (15). Ojeda-Benitez et al (2013) attempted to quantify the levels of HHW generated in Mexicali, Mexico. In this study, HHW comprised 3.49% of the total generated waste (8).
Aims of the study: Due to the adverse effects of hazardous waste and the lack of sufficient information on the quantity and quality of household hazardous waste in Isfahan, so in this study, the quantity and quality of HHW were analyzed. The results of this study will provide a benchmark for the discussion of and will also help officials plan strategies designed to manage Isfahan’s HHW.
Description of the study area
Isfahan is located in the center of Iran. This city is located in center of Isfahan, at north latitude 32°63′ and east longitude 51°65′. Isfahan’s weather is semi-desert- Mild and dry with very little annual precipitation. Temperatures range from −5°C in the winter to 40°C, in the summer. In 2011, according to official statistics, the population of this city obtained 2243249 (Fig. 1).
Sampling method
The cross-sectional study was descriptive in 2015 – 2016. Sampling was performed in four different seasons of the year. Every season one day was selected for sampling. In waste receiving a place, the samples were collected randomly by Bobcat machine (KOMATSU). The waste was mixed completely and was selected one ton of it for analysis. According to Table 1 hazardous waste was separated from the selected sample and their weights were measured by small carriage scales (OHAUS, capacity: 2610, USA) and big carriage scales (Fixed measure, precision: 50 g, capacity: 200kg, IRAN)(7).
Figure 1) Location of Isfahan City, Iran.
According to the United States of America (USA) definition of hazardous waste due to the amount or concentration of materials that feature physical, chemical, and infectious causes an increase in infectious diseases and ultimately lead to death. Now because of the treatment, storage, transportation, disposal, and improper management of this waste, there are potential risks to human health and the environment (1). The risk of dangerous waste is dependent on various factors, including the physical form, the reactivity, quantity, composition of matter, the biological and ecological effects, the degree of volatility after entering the environment, its stability in the environment, indirect effects on health humans, and the environment (2). According to Chinese law, hazardous waste is divided into three categories: industrial hazardous waste (IHW), medical waste (MW), household hazardous waste (HHW) (3). Any waste that is discarded by residential areas called household waste. It forms more than two-thirds of municipal waste and a large part of the waste that buried in the landfill. In Europe and the United Kingdom (UK) based National Household Hazardous Waste Forum (NHHWF), HHW is defined as garbage that when composting, disposal, and burning increases the potential risks also because of the physical and chemical nature is a serious risk to human health and the environment (4-5). HHW characteristics include combustible, flammability, spontaneous combustion, reactivity, toxicity, and corrosion (6-9). HHW is an important part of the household waste that amount and quality of its depend on people's life (10). Household hazardous waste included paint, gardening pesticides, pharmaceuticals, photographic chemicals, cleaners special, personal protective equipment, fluorescent lamps, oil, and heavy metals such as batteries, electronic waste, and equipment that have chlorofluorocarbons (CFCS) (11). Although studies have shown that HHW makes up only 0.5-5 percent of municipal waste, but causing significant damage to the environment when buried (8). The impact of HHW is evaluated in three stages of garbage collection and transportation and treatment. When transferring the HHW to disposal sites one gallon of leachate can contaminate a million liters of drinking water. Suitable management in collection and transportation stage prevent of serious events. In the final compost treatment step if household solid waste (HSW) and HHW mix together, cause aggression of heavy metal and reduce of biogas extraction (10). One of the causes of global warming, greenhouse gas emissions and contamination of soil and groundwater is increasing HHW in a landfill (12,13). Rainfall in waste collected site causes waste decomposition and leachate production. If the leachate of MSW contacts with dangerous contaminants in landfills, HHW will be toxic. It is the first cause of groundwater pollution (5, 11). If HHW toxins enter in the human food chain, accumulate in the body and cause cancer, genes mutagenic, and congenital diseases (12). In recent decades, some researchers have studied the characteristics of HHW stream in various regions around the world. Otoniel et al. (2007) found that HHW concentrations of 3.7% and 1.7% were detected in the northern region (Mexicali) and in the CB area, respectively (14). Gu et al. (2014) reported that the rate of HHW generation was 6.16 (g/person/day), which accounted for 2.23% of the household solid waste stream (10). Also, Otoniel et al. (2008) indicated that approximately 1.6% of the waste stream consists of HHW (15). Ojeda-Benitez et al (2013) attempted to quantify the levels of HHW generated in Mexicali, Mexico. In this study, HHW comprised 3.49% of the total generated waste (8).
Aims of the study: Due to the adverse effects of hazardous waste and the lack of sufficient information on the quantity and quality of household hazardous waste in Isfahan, so in this study, the quantity and quality of HHW were analyzed. The results of this study will provide a benchmark for the discussion of and will also help officials plan strategies designed to manage Isfahan’s HHW.
|
Materials & Methods
|
Description of the study area
Isfahan is located in the center of Iran. This city is located in center of Isfahan, at north latitude 32°63′ and east longitude 51°65′. Isfahan’s weather is semi-desert- Mild and dry with very little annual precipitation. Temperatures range from −5°C in the winter to 40°C, in the summer. In 2011, according to official statistics, the population of this city obtained 2243249 (Fig. 1).
Sampling method
The cross-sectional study was descriptive in 2015 – 2016. Sampling was performed in four different seasons of the year. Every season one day was selected for sampling. In waste receiving a place, the samples were collected randomly by Bobcat machine (KOMATSU). The waste was mixed completely and was selected one ton of it for analysis. According to Table 1 hazardous waste was separated from the selected sample and their weights were measured by small carriage scales (OHAUS, capacity: 2610, USA) and big carriage scales (Fixed measure, precision: 50 g, capacity: 200kg, IRAN)(7).
Figure 1) Location of Isfahan City, Iran.
Table 1) Household hazardous waste categories(14)
| Household hazardous waste | waste categories |
| Home cleaning | Laundry detergent, powder or liquid, Dishwashing detergent, powder or liquid, Laundry aids, Bleach, Fabric softener, Oven cleaners, Soap bars, All-purpose cleaners, Wood protectors, Drain openers, Air fragrances |
| Automotive maintenance |
Oil, Antifreeze agents, Brake fluid, Lubricants, Windshield wiper solution, Transmission, fluid |
| Batteries and small home appliances | Car batteries, Batteries, electronic equipment |
| Medicines | Oral, Injections, Syrup, Lotion, Suppositories, Food supplements |
| Biological-infectious | Dialysis, Latex gloves, Syringes, Condoms, Gauze bandages |
| Gardening | Insecticide, Pesticides, Soil fertilizers |
| Self-care | Beauty products and cosmetics, Hair Care, Lotion, Perfume, Deodorant, Soap bar, Talcum powder, Ketone, Tooth paste, Acrylic nails |
| Others | Oil base paint, Water base paint, Solvents, Shoe polish, Printer toner, Photography material, CD, Glue |
HHW classification
Once the generation analysis was obtained, materials, packages, and containers were separated according to the classification suggested by Delgado (14). As shown in Table 1 waste categories were: (1) home cleaning, (2) automotive maintenance, (3) batteries, (4) medicines, (5) biological-infectious (syringes, dialysis equipment, used bandages, and etc…), (6) gardening, (7) self-care products, (8) miscellaneous. The last category included all containers and packaging that could not be categorized in the other seven.
Data analysis
The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to evaluate the normality of the quantitative data. Data were presented as median, range (R), and percentage. ANOVA test was used to compare weight average of wastes among different seasons. Data analyses were performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 21(SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, U.S.A.).
|
Results
|
The results showed that the rate of HHW generation was 6.15 kg/ton/day. In fact, HHW comprised % 0.6 of municipal solid waste (see Table 2). Also by 2243249 inhabitants and 366727 ton municipal solid waste produced in Isfahan, 2.74 gr/person/ day HHW generated. Waste related to home cleaning products accounted for the largest portion of spring (37.53%), summer (26.82%), and fall (39.78%) of total HHW generation but in winter medicines products accounted for (34.70%) of the total HHW generation (Fig 2). Generally, the three largest categories were home cleaning (0.20%), medical products (0.19%) and Self-care equipment (0.11%) of total MSW generation, respectively. Quantity of HHW contributing to total MSW were in fall (0.75), winter (0.75), spring (0.56), summer (0.40). According to the Table 3, there was not a significant difference between the four seasons in terms of weight average of wastes (P-Value=0.325).
Table 2) Weight (g ton-1day-1) and percentage of household hazardous waste in per season
Table 3) The relationship between HHW and different seasons.
Figure 2) Composition distributions of HHW in Isfahan
Table 4) Comparison of household hazardous waste and other countries
Table 3) The relationship between HHW and different seasons.
| Spring | Summer | Autumn | Winter | sig | |
| Median | 127 | 162 | 108.5 | 113.5 | 0.325 |
| Minimum | 7 | 29.2 | 6.5 | 7.8 | |
| Maximum | 2080 | 1900 | 1820 | 960 | |
| IQR | 43.25-290.75 | 84.2-415 | 27.25-212 | 31.76-314.25 |
Table 4) Comparison of household hazardous waste and other countries
| Country and/or city | Type of the largest HHW categories | The largest HHW categories (%) | Average HHW generation % |
References |
| Isfahan, Iran | -home cleaning -medical products -Self-care |
32.09 31.50 17.14 |
0.6 | This study |
| Northern Mexico | -home maintenance products -cleaning products -batteries and electro domestics |
29.2 19.5 15.7 |
3.7 | (14) |
| Southern Mexico | -cleaning products -self- care products -insecticides |
39 27.3 14.4 |
1.7 | (14) |
| Mexico | -home cleaning -Self-care -medical products |
34.9 26.6 15 |
1.6 | (15) |
| Mexico | -Cleaning products -Personal care and beauty products |
45.86 22.45 |
3.49 | (8) |
| Suzhou, China | -home cleaning -medical products -Self-care |
21.33 17.67 15.19 |
6.16 g/person/day |
(10) |
|
Discussion
|
Aghalari et al. (16) Investigated the household hazardous wastes production in Tabriz(Iran) and found that the amounts of HHW generated in summer and winter were 2.75 and 2.43 g for each person in per day respectively, that were similar with our research. The Morelia (15) research estimated that a total amount of 442 ton/day of domestic waste are produced, including 7.1 ton of HHW per day. In other words 16 kg/ton/day HHW are produced. HHW generation rate and characteristics deepened on variables factors, some of these variables include culture and geographic location (17), seasonal variations (18), climate changes, as they might determine the acquisition of products such as insecticides and education level and the community type (14). Although the quantities are small, the risks of disposal are not negligible due to the hazardousness of this waste stream (19). Furthermore, as household waste recycling levels increase, the residual waste fraction may contain a greater concentration of hazardous waste, presenting additional management problems (4). Studies showed that a positive correlation between generation and income. For instance, the production of household cleaning products waste was directly related to the socioeconomic stratum (15). Studies have shown that household cleaners can have adverse effects on humans and the environment, including air generally, pollution, endocrine disorders, and chronic bronchitis (20) Therefore, proper management of these products is very important in a landfill. Binxian et al. (2014) reported that the major waste categories contributing to total HHW were home cleaning products (21.33%), medicines (17.67%), and personal care products (15.19%) (10). Also, Otoniel et al. (2008) indicated that home cleaning (34.9%), self-care product (26.6%), and medical products (15%) constitute the most part of HHW (15). According to our research in winter medicines products accounted for (34.70%) of the total HHW generation. The highest percentage of HHW in winter was medicines products, such as glass syrup, pill, thermometer, and syringe. Probably cause of the high percentage of medical products is disease outbreaks in winter. According to Yousefi et.al study the containers of laundry and dishwashing liquid are the largest amount of HHW generated by families and the lowest amount of those belonged to batteries and electrical components (21). The results of this study were compared with other countries in Table 4. In studies conducted in Mexico and China as well as household cleaners, personal protective equipment, and medicine had formed the highest percentage of household hazardous waste (15). Studies have shown that household cleaners can have adverse effects on humans. Results from ANOVA test (P-Value=0.325) showed there was not a significant difference between the four seasons in terms of weight average of wastes (Table 3). In another study of Delgado et al. (2007) were done a comparative analysis of HHW in two Mexican regions. In the northern region (Mexicali city), HHW comprised 3.7% of municipal solid waste, the largest categories in this fraction were home cared products (29.2%), cleaning products (19.5%), batteries and electronic equipment (15.7%). In the central region, HHW comprised 1.03% of municipal solid waste; the main categories in this fraction were represented by cleaning products (39%), self -care products (27.3%), and insecticides (14.4%) (14). Ojeda-Benítez et al. (2013) attempted to quantify the levels of HHW generated in Mexicali, Mexico. Cleaning products represent 45.86% of the HHW generated (8). As shows in table 2 the average of HHW obtained.62 %, although it has been considered that HHW at 1.6% (w/w) of total waste does not constitute a serious risk(15), because generation rate of HHW are increasing the HHW management is important. In Isfahan, HHW is collected and managed along with MSW, management of hazardous waste is the most difficult, because in the process of treatment, heavy metals and dioxins are obtained. These elements are dangerous for the environment and public health (22). For waste management, it needs information about family structure, consumption patterns, population growth, society, parameters of income, geographical location, and culture of society (12). Finally this article supposes strategies include the training of families to reduce and elimination of waste, separation, and elimination in the source for HHW management.
|
Conclusion
|
The study was descriptive in 2015 – 2016. Sampling was performed in four different seasons of the year. In every season one day was selected for sampling. This survey of the HHW generation and characteristics in Isfahan city enables us to make the following conclusions:
1. The rate of HHW generation was 6.15 kg/ton/day. In fact, HHW comprised 0.6% of municipal solid waste
2. The largest percentage of HHW was home cleaners in spring (37.53%), summer (26.82%), and fall (39.78%), but the largest percentage of HHW in winter was medical products (34.70%).
3. There was not a significant difference between the four seasons in terms of weight average of wastes (P-Value=0.325).
4. Generally, the three largest categories of HHW in a year were home cleaning (32.09%), medical products (31.50%) and self-care equipment (17.14%).
5. Although the average of HHW generation was lower than 1.6% and does not constitute a serious risk but also due to the increasing of HHW rate and prevention of adverse environmental effects of hazardous wastes, management of these waste are important.
|
Footnotes
|
Acknowledgements
This article is the result of a project approved by the Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (IUMS). The authors are grateful for the financial support from Vice Chancellery of Research of IUMS (Research Project No. 194204). We also thank Meghdad Tahmasebi expert of composting plant for his help in method of this paper.
Conflict of Interest:
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
Type of Study: Original Article |
Subject:
Environmental Health
Received: 2017/11/23 | Accepted: 2019/05/28 | Published: 2019/05/28
Received: 2017/11/23 | Accepted: 2019/05/28 | Published: 2019/05/28
References
1. 1. Musee N, Lorenzen L, Aldrich C. New methodology for hazardous waste classification using fuzzy set theory: Part I. Knowledge acquisition. J Hazard Mater 2008;154(1-3):1040-51. PubMed [DOI:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.11.011]
2. Misra V, Pandey SD. Hazardous waste, impact on health and environment for development of better waste management strategies in future in India. Environ Int 2005;31(3):417-31. PubMed [DOI:10.1016/j.envint.2004.08.005]
3. Duan H, Huang Q, Wang Q, Zhou B, Li J. Hazardous waste generation and management in China: A review. J Hazard Mater 2008;158(2-3):221-7. Link [DOI:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.01.106]
4. Inglezakis VJ, Moustakas K. Household hazardous waste management: A review. J Environ Manage 2015;150:310-21. PubMed [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.11.021]
5. Slack R, Gronow J, Voulvoulis N. The management of household hazardous waste in the United Kingdom. J Environ Manag 2009;90(1):36-42. Link [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.03.007]
6. Orloff K, Falk H. An international perspective on hazardous waste practices. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2003;206(4):291-302. PubMed [DOI:10.1078/1438-4639-00225]
7. Ebrahimi A, Salehei A, Shahsavari A, Khazaeli S, Pour Alaghemandan H. The first complete reference of quality organic fertilizer production. Isfahan: Danesh Pajuhan Barin Scientific Institute; 2008. (Persian)
8. Ojeda-Benítez S, Aguilar-Virgen Q, Taboada-González P, Cruz-Sotelo SE. Household hazardous wastes as a potential source of pollution: a generation study. Waste Manag Res 2013;31(12):1279-84. Link [DOI:10.1177/0734242X13510057]
9. Yasuda K, Tanaka M. Report on hazardous household waste generation in Japan. Waste Manag Res 2006;24(4):397-401. PubMed [DOI:10.1177/0734242X06064821]
10. Gu B, Zhu W, Wang H, Zhang R, Liu M, Chen Y, et al. Household hazardous waste quantification, characterization and management in China's cities: A case study of Suzhou. Waste Manage 2014;34(11):2414-23. Link [DOI:10.1016/j.wasman.2014.06.002]
11. Slack R, Gronow J, Voulvoulis N. Household hazardous waste in municipal landfills: contaminants in leachate. Sci Total Environ 2005;337(1):119-37. PubMed [DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.07.002]
12. Fikri E, Purwanto P, Sunoko HR. Modelling of Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Management in Semarang City (Indonesia) by Using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Approach to Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. Procedia Environ Sci 2015;23:123-9. Link [DOI:10.1016/j.proenv.2015.01.019]
13. Reinhart DR. A review of recent studies on the sources of hazardous compounds emitted from solid waste landfills: a US experience. Waste Manage Res 1993;11(3):257-68. Link [DOI:10.1177/0734242X9301100307]
14. Delgado OB, Ojeda-Benítez S, Márquez-Benavides L. Comparative analysis of hazardous household waste in two Mexican regions. Waste Manag 2007;27(6):792-801. PubMed [DOI:10.1016/j.wasman.2006.03.022]
15. Otoniel BD, Liliana M-B, Francelia PG. Consumption patterns and household hazardous solid waste generation in an urban settlement in México. Waste Manag 2008;28 Suppl 1:S2-6. PubMed [DOI:10.1016/j.wasman.2008.03.019]
16. Amouei A, Hoseini R, Asgharnia H, Fallah H, Faraji H, Aghalari Z. Investigation of Household Hazardous Waste Production in Amirkola, Iran, in 2012-2013. Iranian J Health Sci 2014;2(3):8-14. Link [DOI:10.18869/acadpub.jhs.2.3.8]
17. Corraliza JA, Berenguer J. Environmental values, beliefs, and actions: A situational approach. Environ Behav 2000;32(6):832-48. Link [DOI:10.1177/00139160021972829]
18. Buenrostro O, Bocco G, Bernache G. Urban solid waste generation and disposal in Mexico: A case study. Waste Manag Res 2001;19(2):169-76. PubMed [DOI:10.1177/0734242X0101900208]
19. Cabaniss AD. Handbook on household hazardous waste: Government Institutes; 2008.
20. Bondi CA. Applying the precautionary principle to consumer household cleaning product development. J Clean Product 2011;19(5):429-37. Link [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.07.008]
21. Yousefi Z, Bahrami Zamanabad M, editors. Household hazardous solid wastes study in Sari city. Proceeding of the 14 th National Congress on Iran Environmental Health; 2011. (Persian)
22. Couto N, Silva V, Monteiro E, Rouboa A. Hazardous waste management in Portugal: An overview. Energy Procedia 2013;36:607-11. Link [DOI:10.1016/j.egypro.2013.07.069]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Owned by Qom University of Medical Sciences
Published by Qom University of Medical Sciences Press
eISSN: 2322-4916
pISSN: 2251-9203
Email: arch.hygiene[at]muq.ac.ir
arch.hygiene[at]gmail.com
