4.7 Article

Do closed waste containers lead to less air contamination than opened? A clinical case study at Jena University Hospital, Germany

Journal

WASTE MANAGEMENT
Volume 136, Issue -, Pages 11-17

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2021.09.031

Keywords

Waste container construction; Waste collection; Non-infectious waste; Health care; Airborne transmission; Nosocomial infection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to investigate the impact of waste container construction on microbial air contamination in hospitals, showing that closed waste containers have lower bacterial and fungal contamination levels compared to hands-free opening and open containers.
Nosocomial infections are a growing challenge at hospitals. This clinical study aimed to investigate the influence of waste container construction ((open (O), closed (C), and hands-free opening (HF)) on microbial air contamination in a hospital setting. The results are intended to help develop guidelines for waste containers for the collection of non-infectious waste at hospitals and medical facilities. The clinical experiment was conducted at the University Hospital Jena, Germany. Air Impactor samples were performed and microbiologically evaluated for bacteria and fungi both quantitatively and qualitatively. The results were statistically determined using generalized estimating equations. Quantitatively, the lowest bacterial counts in ambient air were found around closed waste containers (114.74 CFU/m(3)) in comparison to HF (129.28 CFU/m(3)) and O (126.28 CFU/m(3)). For fungi, the surrounding air of C (2.08 CFU/m(3)) and HF (1.97 CFU/m(3)) waste containers showed a lower impact of fungal air contamination than for O (2.32 CFU/m(3)). Overall, it was shown that C are more preferable to HF and O waste containers from the point of view of microbial air contamination at hospitals.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available