MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388639265 · doi:10.1080/10962247.2023.2282011

A review on medical waste treatment in COVID-19 pandemics: Technologies, managements and future strategies

2023· review· en· W4388639265 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Air & Waste Management Association · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare and Environmental Waste Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôpital Saint-François d'Assise
FundersNational Science and Technology Council
KeywordsIncinerationPandemicMedical wasteOutbreakCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Waste managementTransmission (telecommunications)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)BusinessEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMedicineVirologyDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)Telecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the outbreak of COVID-19 few years ago, the increasing of the number of medical waste has become a huge issue because of their harmful impact to environment. A major concern associated to the limitation of technologies for dealing with medical waste, especially conventional technologies, are overcapacities since pandemic occurs. Moreover, the outbreak of new viruses from post COVID-19 should become a serious attention to be prevented not only environmental issues but also the spreading of viruses to new pandemic near the future. The high possibility of an outbreak of new viruses and mutation near the future should be prevented based on the experience associated with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the last three years. This review presented information and strategies for handling medical waste during the outbreak of COVID-19 and post-COVID-19, and also information on the current issues related to technologies, such as incineration, pyrolysis/gasification, autoclaves and microwave treatment for the dealing with high numbers of medical waste in COVID-19 to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus, their advantages and disadvantages. Plasma technology can be considered to be implemented as an alternative technology to deal with medical waste since incinerator is usually over capacities during the pandemic situation. Proper treatment of specific medical waste in pandemics, namely face masks, vaccine vials, syringes, and dead bodies, are necessary because those medical wastes are mediums for transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Furthermore, emission controls from incinerator and plasma are necessary to be implemented to reduce the high concentration of CO2, NOx, and VOCs during the treatment. Finally, future strategies of medical waste treatment in the perspective of potential outbreak pandemic from new mutation viruses are discussed in this review paper.Statement of Environmental Implication Journal of the air and waste management association may consider our review paper to be published. In this review, we give important information related to the technologies, managements and strategies for handling the medical waste and control the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus, starting from proper technology to control the high number of medical waste, their pollutants and many strategies for controlling the spreading of SARS-CoV-2 virus. Moreover, this review also describes some strategies associated with control the transmission not only the SARS-CoV-2 virus but also the outbreak of new viruses near the future.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it