加纳医院医疗废物管理的综合生命周期评估-系统思维方法

Ebenezer Aquisman Asare , Dickson Abdul-Wahab , Elsie Effah Kaufmann , Rafeah Wahi , Zainab Ngaini , Archibold Buah-Kwofie
{"title":"加纳医院医疗废物管理的综合生命周期评估-系统思维方法","authors":"Ebenezer Aquisman Asare ,&nbsp;Dickson Abdul-Wahab ,&nbsp;Elsie Effah Kaufmann ,&nbsp;Rafeah Wahi ,&nbsp;Zainab Ngaini ,&nbsp;Archibold Buah-Kwofie","doi":"10.1016/j.clwat.2025.100130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study integrates life-cycle assessment (LCA) with systems-thinking to evaluate medical-waste treatment options in five Ghanaian hospitals (KBTH, KATH, CCTH, BRH, UCCH). Using a functional unit of 1 kg mixed hospital waste, inventories were modelled in Brightway2/biosphere3 and characterised with CML v4.8 across eight impact categories. We compared current practice and five improvement scenarios and ranked options via entropy-weighted TOPSIS. Autoclaving emerged as the optimal treatment method with a TOPSIS score of 0.994 (CI: 0.992–0.997), followed by pyrolysis (0.990) and microwave treatment (0.986), while incineration plus landfill performed worst across toxicity and climate indicators. Reductions reported herein are relative (%) changes versus the baseline scenario at each facility. Scenario analysis demonstrates that smaller facilities can achieve complete impact reductions (-100 %) across most environmental categories through improved segregation and technology adoption, while larger facilities show varied improvements ranging from −56.4 % to −84.8 % relative to the baseline. Sensitivity analysis indicated that incineration and landfill treatments are highly sensitive to waste composition and segregation efficiency. Systems-feedback analysis highlights waste-segregation efficiency and emission controls as dominant levers. Findings indicate that upgrading segregation to ≥ 80–95 % and deploying non-burn technologies can yield large relative reductions in human-toxicity and climate-change impacts, supporting Ghana’s policy goals. This combined LCA–systems framework provides a transparent, replicable decision basis for hospital and regional planners. This is the first Ghana-focused framework that integrates LCA, systems thinking, and MCDA to rank hospital waste-treatment choices under uncertainty, quantifying facility-specific, relative impact reductions. It operationalizes evidence into a replicable decision tool for Cleaner Production in LMIC health systems. Practical relevance: across five Ghanaian hospitals, pairing non-burn treatment with ≥ 80–95 % segregation delivers 56–100 % relative reductions in toxicity indicators and ∼75–89 % in climate-change impacts versus baseline. The integrated LCA–systems–MCDA tool is directly usable by hospital planners for Cleaner Production decisions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100257,"journal":{"name":"Cleaner Water","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100130"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Integrated life cycle assessment-systems thinking approach for medical waste management in Ghanaian hospitals\",\"authors\":\"Ebenezer Aquisman Asare ,&nbsp;Dickson Abdul-Wahab ,&nbsp;Elsie Effah Kaufmann ,&nbsp;Rafeah Wahi ,&nbsp;Zainab Ngaini ,&nbsp;Archibold Buah-Kwofie\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clwat.2025.100130\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>This study integrates life-cycle assessment (LCA) with systems-thinking to evaluate medical-waste treatment options in five Ghanaian hospitals (KBTH, KATH, CCTH, BRH, UCCH). Using a functional unit of 1 kg mixed hospital waste, inventories were modelled in Brightway2/biosphere3 and characterised with CML v4.8 across eight impact categories. We compared current practice and five improvement scenarios and ranked options via entropy-weighted TOPSIS. Autoclaving emerged as the optimal treatment method with a TOPSIS score of 0.994 (CI: 0.992–0.997), followed by pyrolysis (0.990) and microwave treatment (0.986), while incineration plus landfill performed worst across toxicity and climate indicators. Reductions reported herein are relative (%) changes versus the baseline scenario at each facility. Scenario analysis demonstrates that smaller facilities can achieve complete impact reductions (-100 %) across most environmental categories through improved segregation and technology adoption, while larger facilities show varied improvements ranging from −56.4 % to −84.8 % relative to the baseline. Sensitivity analysis indicated that incineration and landfill treatments are highly sensitive to waste composition and segregation efficiency. Systems-feedback analysis highlights waste-segregation efficiency and emission controls as dominant levers. Findings indicate that upgrading segregation to ≥ 80–95 % and deploying non-burn technologies can yield large relative reductions in human-toxicity and climate-change impacts, supporting Ghana’s policy goals. This combined LCA–systems framework provides a transparent, replicable decision basis for hospital and regional planners. This is the first Ghana-focused framework that integrates LCA, systems thinking, and MCDA to rank hospital waste-treatment choices under uncertainty, quantifying facility-specific, relative impact reductions. It operationalizes evidence into a replicable decision tool for Cleaner Production in LMIC health systems. Practical relevance: across five Ghanaian hospitals, pairing non-burn treatment with ≥ 80–95 % segregation delivers 56–100 % relative reductions in toxicity indicators and ∼75–89 % in climate-change impacts versus baseline. The integrated LCA–systems–MCDA tool is directly usable by hospital planners for Cleaner Production decisions.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100257,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cleaner Water\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100130\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cleaner Water\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950263225000687\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleaner Water","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950263225000687","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究将生命周期评估(LCA)与系统思维相结合,对加纳五家医院(KBTH、KATH、CCTH、BRH、UCCH)的医疗废物处理方案进行了评估。使用1 kg混合医院废物的功能单位,在Brightway2/biosphere3中对清单进行建模,并使用CML v4.8对八个影响类别进行表征。我们比较了当前的实践和五种改进方案,并通过熵加权TOPSIS对选项进行了排名。蒸压法处理效果最佳,TOPSIS评分为0.994 (CI: 0.992 ~ 0.997),其次是热解法(0.990)和微波法(0.986),焚烧加填埋法在毒性和气候指标上表现最差。此处报告的减少量是相对于每个设施的基线情况的(%)变化。情景分析表明,通过改进隔离和采用技术,较小的设施可以在大多数环境类别中实现完全的影响减少(-100 %),而较大的设施相对于基线的改善幅度从- 56.4% %到- 84.8 %不等。敏感性分析表明,焚烧和填埋处理对垃圾成分和分离效率高度敏感。系统反馈分析强调废物分离效率和排放控制是主要杠杆。研究结果表明,将隔离升级到≥ 80-95 %,并采用非燃烧技术,可以大大减少对人类的毒性和气候变化的影响,支持加纳的政策目标。这种综合的lca系统框架为医院和区域规划者提供了一个透明的、可复制的决策基础。这是首个以加纳为重点的框架,将生命周期分析、系统思考和MCDA结合起来,对医院废物处理选择在不确定性下进行排名,量化具体设施的相对影响减少。它将证据转化为中低收入国家卫生系统清洁生产的可复制决策工具。实际意义:在加纳的五家医院中,将非烧伤治疗与≥ 80-95 %隔离相结合,与基线相比,毒性指标相对降低56-100 %,气候变化影响相对降低75-89 %。集成的lca系统- mcda工具可直接用于医院计划人员的清洁生产决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Integrated life cycle assessment-systems thinking approach for medical waste management in Ghanaian hospitals
This study integrates life-cycle assessment (LCA) with systems-thinking to evaluate medical-waste treatment options in five Ghanaian hospitals (KBTH, KATH, CCTH, BRH, UCCH). Using a functional unit of 1 kg mixed hospital waste, inventories were modelled in Brightway2/biosphere3 and characterised with CML v4.8 across eight impact categories. We compared current practice and five improvement scenarios and ranked options via entropy-weighted TOPSIS. Autoclaving emerged as the optimal treatment method with a TOPSIS score of 0.994 (CI: 0.992–0.997), followed by pyrolysis (0.990) and microwave treatment (0.986), while incineration plus landfill performed worst across toxicity and climate indicators. Reductions reported herein are relative (%) changes versus the baseline scenario at each facility. Scenario analysis demonstrates that smaller facilities can achieve complete impact reductions (-100 %) across most environmental categories through improved segregation and technology adoption, while larger facilities show varied improvements ranging from −56.4 % to −84.8 % relative to the baseline. Sensitivity analysis indicated that incineration and landfill treatments are highly sensitive to waste composition and segregation efficiency. Systems-feedback analysis highlights waste-segregation efficiency and emission controls as dominant levers. Findings indicate that upgrading segregation to ≥ 80–95 % and deploying non-burn technologies can yield large relative reductions in human-toxicity and climate-change impacts, supporting Ghana’s policy goals. This combined LCA–systems framework provides a transparent, replicable decision basis for hospital and regional planners. This is the first Ghana-focused framework that integrates LCA, systems thinking, and MCDA to rank hospital waste-treatment choices under uncertainty, quantifying facility-specific, relative impact reductions. It operationalizes evidence into a replicable decision tool for Cleaner Production in LMIC health systems. Practical relevance: across five Ghanaian hospitals, pairing non-burn treatment with ≥ 80–95 % segregation delivers 56–100 % relative reductions in toxicity indicators and ∼75–89 % in climate-change impacts versus baseline. The integrated LCA–systems–MCDA tool is directly usable by hospital planners for Cleaner Production decisions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信