A Review on Biohazards Removal in Ethiopia: Efficacy of Existing Treatment Systems and Challenges.

IF 2.3 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Environmental Health Insights Pub Date : 2025-01-09 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/11786302241312770
Chalachew Yenew, Muluken Azage Yenesew, Argaw Ambelu, Gashaw Melkie Bayeh, Almaw Genet Yeshiwas
{"title":"A Review on Biohazards Removal in Ethiopia: Efficacy of Existing Treatment Systems and Challenges.","authors":"Chalachew Yenew, Muluken Azage Yenesew, Argaw Ambelu, Gashaw Melkie Bayeh, Almaw Genet Yeshiwas","doi":"10.1177/11786302241312770","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Wastewater treatment is crucial to protecting public health and the environment by removing Biohazards. In Ethiopia, however, significant research gaps limit progress, especially regarding the efficiency of Biohazard removal in existing treatment facilities. This review evaluates the effectiveness of current treatment methods for Biohazard removal, highlights key challenges, and offers recommendations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scoping review followed PRISMA guidelines, systematically searching databases like NLM. Science Direct, HINARI and Scopus for Biohazard removal studies in Ethiopia, with independent reviewers screening and analyzing relevant data to identify key challenges.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 1218 studies initially recorded by title and abstract, only 11 articles were selected for analysis. The Activated Sludge Process emerged as a highly effective system, achieving 85% to 95% removal of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and total coliforms. Other methods, such as the Conventional Activated Sludge, and Anaerobic-Aerobic Reactors, demonstrated promising results but were found only in select locations. However, the widely adopted Oxidation Ponds, Ethiopia's most common wastewater treatment system, showed the lowest AMR removal efficiency, at just 30% to 50%. Significant challenges, including inadequate infrastructure, high operational costs, and weak regulatory enforcement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and recommendations: </strong>The review underscores the need for affordable wastewater treatment in Ethiopia, highlighting challenges such as inadequate infrastructure and high costs. To enhance effectiveness and reduce public health risks from Biohazards like AMR, recommendations include adopting cost-effective treatment technologies, strengthening regulatory frameworks, increasing public awareness, promoting corporate responsibility, and investing in infrastructure for sustainable wastewater management.</p>","PeriodicalId":11827,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Health Insights","volume":"19 ","pages":"11786302241312770"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11713958/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Health Insights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11786302241312770","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Wastewater treatment is crucial to protecting public health and the environment by removing Biohazards. In Ethiopia, however, significant research gaps limit progress, especially regarding the efficiency of Biohazard removal in existing treatment facilities. This review evaluates the effectiveness of current treatment methods for Biohazard removal, highlights key challenges, and offers recommendations.

Methods: This scoping review followed PRISMA guidelines, systematically searching databases like NLM. Science Direct, HINARI and Scopus for Biohazard removal studies in Ethiopia, with independent reviewers screening and analyzing relevant data to identify key challenges.

Results: Out of 1218 studies initially recorded by title and abstract, only 11 articles were selected for analysis. The Activated Sludge Process emerged as a highly effective system, achieving 85% to 95% removal of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and total coliforms. Other methods, such as the Conventional Activated Sludge, and Anaerobic-Aerobic Reactors, demonstrated promising results but were found only in select locations. However, the widely adopted Oxidation Ponds, Ethiopia's most common wastewater treatment system, showed the lowest AMR removal efficiency, at just 30% to 50%. Significant challenges, including inadequate infrastructure, high operational costs, and weak regulatory enforcement.

Conclusions and recommendations: The review underscores the need for affordable wastewater treatment in Ethiopia, highlighting challenges such as inadequate infrastructure and high costs. To enhance effectiveness and reduce public health risks from Biohazards like AMR, recommendations include adopting cost-effective treatment technologies, strengthening regulatory frameworks, increasing public awareness, promoting corporate responsibility, and investing in infrastructure for sustainable wastewater management.

埃塞俄比亚生物危害去除综述:现有处理系统的有效性和挑战。
背景:废水处理是通过消除生物危害来保护公众健康和环境的关键。然而,在埃塞俄比亚,重大的研究差距限制了进展,特别是在现有处理设施中去除生物危害的效率方面。本综述评估了目前去除生物危害的治疗方法的有效性,强调了主要挑战,并提出了建议。方法:本综述遵循PRISMA指南,系统地检索NLM等数据库。Science Direct、HINARI和Scopus在埃塞俄比亚开展生物危害去除研究,由独立审稿人筛选和分析相关数据,以确定关键挑战。结果:在最初以标题和摘要记录的1218篇研究中,只选择了11篇进行分析。活性污泥法是一种高效的系统,可达到85%至95%的抗菌素耐药性(AMR)和总大肠菌群的去除。其他方法,如常规活性污泥和厌氧-好氧反应器,显示出有希望的结果,但仅在选定的地点发现。然而,埃塞俄比亚最常用的污水处理系统氧化池的AMR去除率最低,仅为30%至50%。重大挑战,包括基础设施不足、运营成本高、监管执法不力。结论和建议:审查强调了埃塞俄比亚需要负担得起的废水处理,强调了基础设施不足和成本高等挑战。为提高有效性并减少抗菌素耐药性等生物危害带来的公共卫生风险,建议包括采用具有成本效益的处理技术、加强监管框架、提高公众意识、促进企业责任以及投资于可持续废水管理的基础设施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental Health Insights
Environmental Health Insights PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
22.20%
发文量
97
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信