4.7 Article

An illicit economy: Scavenging and recycling of medical waste

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 92, 期 11, 页码 2900-2906

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.051

关键词

Medical waste; Healthcare establishments; Illicit economy; Scavenging; Recycling and re-selling

资金

  1. Charles Wallace Bangladesh Trust
  2. Charles Wallace Trust UK
  3. Gilchrist Trust
  4. S.A. Ziauddin Trust
  5. Sir Ernest Cassel Educational Trust
  6. Hammond Trust
  7. Leche Trust
  8. Churches Commission Overseas Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper discusses a significant illicit economy, including black and grey aspects, associated with medical waste scavenging and recycling in a megacity, considering hazards to the specific group involved in scavenging as well as hazards to the general population of city dwellers. Data were collected in Dhaka, Bangladesh, using a variety of techniques based on formal representative sampling for fixed populations (such as recycling operatives) and adaptive sampling for roaming populations (such as scavengers). Extremely hazardous items (including date expired medicines, used syringes, knives, blades and saline bags) were scavenged, repackaged and resold to the community. Some HCE employees were also observed to sell hazardous items directly to scavengers, and both employees and scavengers were observed to supply contaminated items to an informal plastics recycling industry. This trade was made possible by the absence of segregation, secure storage and proper disposal of medical waste. Corruption, a lack of accountability and individual responsibility were also found to be contributors. In most cases the individuals involved with these activities did not understand the risks. Although motivation was often for personal gain or in support of substance abuse, participants sometimes felt that they were providing a useful service to the community. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据