Nanjing Clover Medical Technology Co., Ltd., Neighborhood in Nanjing city, China.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. OBJECTIVE OF THE PROGRAMME 4
2. STRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAMME 4
3. COLLABORATORS INVOLVED IN THE PROGRAMME 4
4. STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN THE PROGRAMME 4
5. LABORATORY TRIALS 5
6. FIELD TRIALS 13

 

 

 

1.     OBJECTIVE OF THE PROGRAMME

 

The objective of the programme is to select technical standards acceptable for tender specification purposes that will enable the South African Department of Health to obtain the equipment and services necessary for the primary health care clinics to perform small-scale incineration for the disposal of medical waste.

 

2.     STRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAMME

 

The test programme is being carried out in stages, as follows:

Phase 1         A scoping study to determine the obligation of the various parties and

consensus on the test standards and boundaries of the laboratory tests. The criteria for accepting an incinerator on trial was accepted by all parties involved.

Phase 2         Laboratory tests with a ranking of each incinerator and the choice of the incinerators to be utilised in the field trials.

Phase 3         Completion of field trials, to assess the efficacy of each incinerator under field conditions.

Phase 4         Preparation of a tender specification and recommendations to the DoH for the implementation of a continuing incineration programme.

 

This document provides feedback on stages 2 and 3 of their work.

 

 

 

3.     COLLABORATORS INVOLVED IN THE PROGRAMME

 

SA Collaborative Centre for Cold Chain Management SA National Department of Health

CSIR

Pharmaceutical Society of SA World Health Organisation UNICEF

 

 

 

4.     STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN THE PROGRAMME

 

The next stakeholders participated in the steering committee:

 

• Dept of Health (National & provincial levels) (DoH)
• Dept of Occupational Health & Safety (National & provincial levels)
• Dept of Environmental Affairs & Tourism (National & provincial levels) (DEAT)
• Dept of Water Affairs & Forestry (National & provincial levels) (DWAF)
• Dept of Labour (National & provincial levels) (DoL)
• National Waste Management Strategy Group
• SA Local Government Association (SALGA)
• SA National Civics Organisation (SANCO)
• National Education, Health and Allied Workers Union (NEHAWU)

 

 

• Democratic Nurses Organisation of SA (DENOSA)
• Medecins Sans Frontieres
• SA Association of Community Pharmacists
• Mamelodi Community Health Committee
• Pharmaceutical Society of SA
• CSIR
• UNICEF
• WHO
• SA Federation of Hospital Engineers

 

 

International visitors:

• Dr Luiz Diaz – WHO Geneva and International Waste Management , USA
• Mr Joost van den Noortgate – Medecins Sans Frontieres, Belgium

 

 

 

 

5.     LABORATORY TRIALS

 

5.1.   Objective of the laboratory trials

 

• Rank the performance of submitted units to the following criteria:

y Occupational safety

y Impact on public health from emissions

y The destruction efficiency

y The usability for its available staff

 

• The panel of experts for the ranking consisted of a:

y Professional nurse; Mrs Dorette Kotze from the SA National Department of Health

y Emission specialist; Dr Dave Rogers from the CSIR

y Combustion Engineer; Mr Brian North from the CSIR

 

5.2.   Incinerators received for evaluation

 

Name used in report	Model no.	Description	Manufacturer
C&S Marketing incinerator	SafeWaste Model Turbo 2000Vi	Electrically operated fan supplies combustion air — no auxiliary fuel	C&S Marketing cc.
Molope Gas incinerator	Medcin 400 Medical Waste Incinerator	Gas-fired incinerator	Molope Integrated Waste Management
Molope Auto incinerator	Molope Auto Medical Waste Incinerator	Auto-combust incinerator – uses wood or coal as extra fuel to ease incineration	Molope Integrated Waste Management

 

Name used in report	Model no.	Description	Manufacturer
PaHuOy incinerator	Turbo Stove	Auto-combust unit, with no additional fuel or forced air supply	Pa-Hu Oy

 

 

5.3.   Emission testing: laboratory method

 

Sampling of emissions followed the US-EPA Method 5G dilution tunnel method for stove emissions. Adjustments to the layout were created to account for fires extending up to 0.5 m above the tip of the incinerator and the fall from large pieces of ash. Emissions were extracted into a duct for isokinetic sampling of particulate emissions. The sampling arrangement is revealed by a schematic in Figure 1. A photograph of the performance over the Molope gas fired incinerator unit is shown in Figure 2.

 

All tests were conducted according to specified operating procedures. The directions provided by the supplier of the equipment were followed in the case of the C&S Marketing Unit. No operating procedures were provided with the Molope Gas, Molope auto-combustion and PaHuOy units. These procedures were established by the CSIR personnel with their prior experience together with information provided by the supplier.

 

Test facilities were set up at the CSIR and measurements were carried out under an ISO9001 system using standard EPA test procedures or modifications made at the CSIR.

 

 

 

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the laboratory set-up

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2:Photograph of air intake sampling hood over Molope gas incinerator

 

 

 

5.4.   RANKING RESULTS OF THE LABORATORY TRIALS

 

With the criteria listed under section 4.1 above, the incinerators were ranked as followed:

 

	Molope gas-fired unit	Molope wood-fired unit	C&S electric unit	PaHuOy wood-fired unit
Safety	6.8	4.8	5.5	3.3
Health	5.5	3.5	4.3	2.3
Destruction	9	2	6	1
Usability	2	3	3	5
Average	5.8	3.3	4.7	2.9

 

 

5.5.   EMISSION RESULTS OF THE LABORATORY TRIALS

 

Quantitative measurements were used to rank the components Concerning destruction efficiency as well as the potential to produce hazardous emissions.

 

Conformance to the South African Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism’s (DEAT) recommended guidelines on emissions from Large Scale Medical Waste Incinerators is outlined in Table 1. The dimensions are listed1 in Table 2.

 

 

 

Table 1: Summary qualitative results

 

Parameter Measured	Units	Molope   Gas-fired	Molope   Wood-fired	C&S   Electric	PaHuOy   Wood-fired	SA DEAT Guidelines
Stack height	m	×	×	×	×	3 m above closest building
Gas velocity	m/s	×	×	×	×	10
Residence time	s	×	×	×	×	2
Minimum combustion temperature	ºC	4	×	×	×	> 850
Gas combustion performance	%	×	×	×	×	99.99
Particulate emissions	mg/Nm3	4	×	4	×	180
Cl as HCl	mg/Nm3	×	4	4	×	< 30
F as HF	mg/Nm3	4	4	4	4	< 30
Metals	mg/Nm3	4	×	×	4	< 0.5 and < 0.05

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Emission concentrations are reported in accordance with the South African reporting requirements, ie, normalized to Normal Temperature (0

oC) and Stress (101.3 kPa) and adjusted to a minimal concentration of

8% of CO2 on a dry gas basis. If a measurement dropped below the detection limit for the method is it reported as the detection limit or as N.D., ie, not detectable.

 

 

Table 2: Detailed quantitative results

 

Parameter Measured *	Components	Molope gas	Molope Automobile	C&S	PaHuOy	SA Process Guide1	Comments
Stack height	m	1.8	1.8	1.9	0.3	3 m over nearest building	None of these unite includes a stack. If it’s over the respiration zone of the operator it provides some protection from exposure to smoke.
Gas velocity	m/s	0.8	0.5	1.1	0.5	10	Gas velocities vary across the pile to get the Molope gas, Molope auto-combustion, as well as the PaHuOy units.
Home time	s	0.4	0.7	0.6	0.4	two	Home time is taken to be the total combustion time, and the highest achievable
Minimum combustion zone temperature	oC	800 -900	400 – 650	600 – 800	500 – 700	> 850	Molope auto-combustion temperatures are predicted to be higher as the middle of the combustion zone isn’t expected to be at the measurement location.
CO2 at the stack tip	% vol	2.64	3.75	4.9	3.25	8.0	Actual emission concentrations are less than the values reported here, which can be normalized to 8% CO2 and standard temperature and pressure for reporting purposes. They’re lower between 4 to 8 times.
Gas	percent	99.91-	98.8 -98.4	99.69-	98.9	99.99	Most accurate measurement in
Combustion		99.70		99.03			the duct where mixing of exhaust
efficiency							gases is complete. Results of two trials.
Particulate emissions entrained in exhaust gas	mg/Nm3	102	197	130	338	180	The total emissions will be the sum of the both entrained and un- entrained particulates. Emissions are lower than expected for these units and this is attributed to the absence of raking which is the significant source of particulate emissions from incinerators with no emission control system.
Particulate fall- out	mg/Nm3	42	105	n.d.	n.d.	–	Large pieces of cardboard and paper ash rained from the emissions. Totalling 0.8 to 2 g over a +/- two minute period.
Soot in particulates	percent	42.2	58.1	48.7	84.8	–	Correlates directly with gas combustion efficiency

 

1 Emission concentrations are reported in accordance with the South African reporting requirements, ie, Normalized to Normal Temperature (0

oC) and Stress (101.3 kPa) and adjusted to a minimal concentration of

8% of CO2 on a dry gas basis. If a measurement dropped below the detection limit for the method is it reported as the detection limit or as N.D., ie, not detectable.

 

Parameter Measured *	Components	Molope gas	Molope Automobile	C&S	PaHuOy	SA Process Guide1	Comments
% ash remaining from medical waste	percent	14.8	12.9	15.6	21.7	–	Measurement of destruction efficiency of the incinerator. Typical industrial units operate at 85-90% mass reduction. PaHuOy is lower because of the melting and unburnt plastic. This is expected because of the variability of the feed composition.
F as HF	mg/Nm3	< 6	< 1	<2	< 1	< 30	Fluoride not found in this waste.
Arsenic (As)	mg/Nm3	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	0.5	Arsenic isn’t anticipated as a solid.
Lead (Pb)	mg/Nm3	< 0.4	< 0.4	< 0.4	< 0.4	0.5	Lead not anticipated in waste
Cadmium (Cd)	mg/Nm3	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	0.05	Sensitivity of the x-ray procedure is adequate for ranking. Greater sensitivity not searched for this particular trial.
0.5	mg/Nm3	Chromium relative to iron ranges between 12 and 25% that’s consistent with stainless steel needles	Manganese (Mn)	< 0.1	0.3	0.3	< 0.1
0.5	mg/Nm3	Manganese might be a component in the stainless steel needle.	Nickel (Ni)	< 0.1	0.3	< 0.1	< 0.1
0.5	mg/Nm3	Nickel may be a component in the needle.	Antimony (Sb)	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2
0.5	mg/Nm3	Not anticipated in this waste.	Copper (Cu)	< 0.5	< 0.5	< 0.5	< 0.5
0.5	mg/Nm3	Lower sensitivity because of copper in the sample blanks. May be background in the analytical equipment.	Tin (Sn)	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2	< 0.2
0.5	mg/Nm3	Tin not anticipated in this waste.	Vanadium (V)	< 0.1	< 0.1	0.4	< 0.1
0.5	mg/Nm3	Vanadium may be present in stainless steel. Sensitivity of the x-ray procedure is adequate for ranking. Greater sensitivity not searched for this particular trial.					The principal conclusions drawn from the trials are as follows:
	mg/Nm3	::          All four components can be used to render medical waste non-infectious, and to destroy syringes or leave needles unsuitable for reuse.	::The largest potential health hazard arises from the emissions of smoke and soot.              (the combustion efficiency of all units lies outside the	regulatory standards). The threat to health can be reduced by training operators to avoid the smoke or by installation of a chimney at the site.	::          The emissions from small scale incinerators are expected to be lower compared to those from a wood fire, but higher than a traditional fire-brick-	lined multi-chambered incinerator.	::          Incomplete combustion, and the substantial formation of smoke at low elevation rendered the PaHuOy unit unsuitable for field trials. Figure 3
below shows this unit in a trial burn. Molten plastic flowed from	mg/Nm3	the incinerator, blocked the primary combustion air feed ports, and burnt out of the unit.
	mg/Nm3	The CSIR conducted a quantitative trial in the field for gas combustion efficiency, temperature profiles and mass destruction rate on the Molope Vehicle wood-fired unit at the Mogale Clinic.		The results of this trial are compared to the laboratory trial results below:		Temperatures were higher but for a shorter time and this was	correlated with the sort of wood available to the clinic. The fuel was burnt out until the medical waste was destroyed completely and this resulted in lower temperatures, lower combustion efficiency and higher emissions while burning the waste.
prior to complete ignition of the waste.	mg/Nm3		It was concluded that:
these recommendations are made as the result of the laboratory trials:	mg/Nm3	::A detailed operating manual must be provided with each unit.	Adequate training in the performance of these units must be provided, especially focussed on security issues.	:::     It is advised that the height of the exhaust port on all units be	addressed.     In order to facilitate the dispersion of emissions and reduce the exposure risk of these operators.	::The suppliers of the incinerators must provide instructions for the safe handling and disposal of ash.

 

 

 

5.6.   MAIN FINDINGS OF THE LABORATORY TRIALS

 

 

After completion of the laboratory trials, the project steering committee recommended that the Molope Gas and C&S Marketing units be filed for field testing. The Molope Vehicle was recommended for field testing on the condition that the manufacturer modified the ash grate in order to prevent the spillage of partially burnt needles and syringes.

 

 

 

 

 

The objective of the field trials was to acquire information in the field and assess the strengths and weaknesses of all the incinerators during use at primary health care clinics.

 

A participative decision making process was used for the trials. It was based on specialist technical analysis by the CSIR and the National Department of Health as well as involvement in the trials by experienced end users and participating advisors. All decisions were made by the Steering Committee, which consisted of representatives of stakeholders in the clinical and medical waste disposal process.

 

 

The Provinces in which the trials were done selected clinics for the field trials. The standards set by the Steering Committee for the choice of the practices were the following:

Figure 3: Photo of PaHuOy incinerator during trial burn

 

y No medical waste removal

5.7.   COMPARISON OF THE FIELDS TRIALS WITH THE LABORATORY TRIALS

y No existing incineration

y No transport

 

The practices that were chosen were as follows:

 

• Waste loading: Disposable rubber gloves were observed in addition to needles syringes, glass vials, bandages, dressings, and paper w
• Temperatures and combustion efficiency: The same performance in gas combustion        efficiency   was    obtained    for    wood    .

 

 

• Emissions: Large amounts of black smoke were observed and this was correlated directly to cooling of the unit as the wood fuel was exhausted

incinerator, wood-fired.

• Destruction efficiency: The destruction efficiency was similar to that in the laboratory measurem
• Usability: The unit is difficult to control as the result of the variability of the quality of wood
• Acceptability: the smoke was not acceptable to the clinic, the community, or the local

 

Information concerning the field trials as well as questionnaires were provided to the coordinators from the participating provinces.

• The performance with fuel alone indicates that laboratory trial data can be used to predict emissions in the
• The Molope Auto unit is too difficult to control for the available staff and fuel at the

 

The team in the field consisted of the operator, supervisor and inspector (coordinator). The manufacturer of the incinerators did the training of the operators.

 

5.8.   RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE LABORATORY TRIALS

The questionnaires used during the trials were set in order to obtain information with respect to the standards set for the ranking of the incinerators in accordance with functionality in the field. The questionnaires were obtained from the clinics at two-weekly intervals.

 

Questions with regard to the standards were the following:

 

 

y Volume and thickness

y Colour

y Odour

 

 

5.9.   RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE STEERING COMMITTEE

 

 

y Total

y Partial

y Minimal

y Residue articles

 

6.     FIELD TRIALS

 

6.1.   OBJECTIVE OF THE FIELD TRIALS

 

 

 

y Operator

y Nurse

6.2.   CLINIC SELECTION

y Head of the clinic

y Local Authority representative

y Community leader

• Location must be rural or under-serviced with

 

During the trials the practices were visited and the incinerators evaluated by members of the Steering Committee and the CSIR as well as Dr L Diaz from WHO, Mr M Lainejoki from UNICEF and the coordinator from the National Department of Health.

 

• It must be in a high-density population area
• Acceptable environmental conditions must prevail
• Community acceptance must be obtained
• Operator skill level to be used must be at a level of illiteracy

 

 

Type of incinerator at the clinic: Molope Auto-Combustion (Fired with timber )

• Steinkopf Clinic – Northern Cape Province – Gas incinerator

 

 

• Marydale Clinic – Northern Cape Province – Gas incinerator
• Mogale Clinic – Gauteng Province             – Auto combustion

 

• Chwezi Clinic – KwaZulu-Natal Province – Gas incinerator
• Ethembeni Clinic- KwaZulu-Natal Province – Auto-combustion electrical

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Difficulty in controlling the operating temperature and preventing smoke emissions made this incinerator user unfriendly.

 

 

As a result of the heavy, black smoke emission the unit wasn’t acceptable to the community.

 

 

Sort Of Incinerator: C&S Auto-Combustion (Uses an electrically actuated fan)                           Considered user friendly by operator, supervisor and inspector.     The incinerator was accepted by the community and wasn’t thought of as harmful.         Type of incinerator: Molope Gas incinerator                   This incinerator was considered user friendly.             The incinerator was accepted by the community and wasn’t thought of as harmful.

 

 

Two

timber, coal also an option)

3

 

 

 

 

6.3.   COORDINATION OF THE TRIALS

 

(Uses Electricity)

Great

• Safety (occupational and public health)
• Destruction capability
• Usability
• Community acceptability

Great

Great

Great

Combust Incinerator

 

The team in the field consisted of the operator, supervisor and inspector (coordinator). The manufacturer of the incinerators did the training of the operators.

 

The questionnaires used during the trials were set so as to obtain information with regard to the criteria set for the ranking of the incinerators in accordance with performance in the field. The questionnaires were received from the clinics at two-weekly intervals.

 

Questions with regard to the criteria were the following:

 

A.  SAFETY (occupational and public health)

 

• Smoke Emission

y Volume and thickness

y Colour

y Odour

• Ash Content
• Are the filled sharps boxes and soiled dressings stored in a locked location while waiting to be incinerated?

 

 

 

B.  DESTRUCTION CAPABILITY

 

• Destruction Rate

y Complete

y Partial

y Minimal

y Residue content

 

C.  USABILITY (for the available staff)

• Can the incinerator be used easily?

 

 

• Is the process of incineration safe?
• Has training been successful?
• Is protective clothing such as gloves, goggles, dust masks and safety boots available?

 

D.  COMMUNITY ACCEPTABILITY

 

• What is the opinion of the following persons on the use of the incinerator?

y Operator

y Nurse

y Head of the clinic

y Local Authority representative

y Community leader

 

During the trials the clinics were visited and the incinerators evaluated by members of the Steering Committee and the CSIR as well as Dr L Diaz from WHO, Mr M Lainejoki from UNICEF and the coordinator from the National Department of Health.

 

6.4.   QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

 

6.4.1.      MOGALE CLINIC

 

Type of incinerator at the clinic: Molope Auto-Combustion (Fired with wood)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4 & 5: Molope Auto wood-fired incinerator during field trials at Mogale clinic

 

 

A.               SAFETY (occupational and public health)

 

1. The process of incineration with this unit was considered by the operator, supervisor and the inspector as unsafe because there is no protective cage around the During the process the incinerator becomes very hot and this could result in injury to the operator.

 

2. The smoke emission of this incinerator had a volume and thickness which was heavy and black, with a distinct unpleasant odour, and was considered This could cause a pollution problem.

 

 

 

B.               DESTRUCTION CAPABILITY

 

1. The needles and vials were not completely destroyed but were rendered unsuitable for re-use.

 

2. The soft medical waste was completely destroy

 

 

 

C.               USABILITY

 

Difficulty in controlling the operating temperature and avoiding smoke emissions made this incinerator user unfriendly.

 

D.               COMMUNITY ACCEPTABILITY

 

As a result of the heavy, black smoke emission the unit was not acceptable to the community.

 

 

6.4.2.      ETHEMBENI CLINIC:

 

 

Figure 6: C&S Marketing Auto Combust Electrical Incinerator At Ethembeni Clinic

 

 

 

Type Of Incinerator: C&S Auto-Combustion (Uses an electrically actuated fan)

 

 

 

A.               SAFETY (occupational and public health)

 

1. The operator, supervisor and inspector considered this incinerator easy to operate with no danger to the Removal of the ash from the drum for disposal in a pit is, however, considered difficult, as the drum is heavy. Removal of the incinerator lid before it has been allowed to cool has been identified as a potential danger to the operator.

 

2. Emission of smoke from this incinerator was not considered ex The volume and thickness was evaluated as moderate with no pollution experienced.

 

 

 

B.               DESTRUCTION CAPABILITY

 

1. The needles and vials were not completely destroyed but were rendered unsuitable for re-use.
2. The soft medical waste was completely destroy

 

 

 

C.               USABILITY

 

Considered user friendly by operator, supervisor and inspector.

 

D.               COMMUNITY ACCEPTABILITY

 

The incinerator was accepted by the community and was not considered to be harmful.

 

 

 

6.4.3.      CHWEZI CLINIC, MARYDALE CLINIC AND STEINKOPF CLINIC:

 

Type of incinerator: Molope Gas incinerator

 

Figure 7:       Molope Gas incinerator during field trials at Marydale clinic

 

A.               SAFETY (occupational and public health)

 

1. The operator, supervisor and inspector considered this incinerator easy to operate with minimal danger to the
2. Smoke emissions were not excessive and were reported to be minim

 

B.               DESTRUCTION CAPABILITY

 

1. Sharps not completely destroyed but were rendered unsuitable for re-use.

 

 

2. Soft medical waste completely destroy

 

C.               USABILITY

 

This incinerator was considered user friendly.

 

 

 

D.               COMMUNITY ACCEPTABILITY

 

 

 

The incinerator was accepted by the community and was not considered to be harmful.

 

 

 

6.5.   RANKING

 

 

INCINERATOR	RANKING
Molope Gas	1
C&S Auto-Combustion (Uses electrical fan)	2
Molope Auto- Combustion (Fired with wood, coal also an option)	3

 

 

 

 

6.6.   OUTCOME OF THE FIELD TRIALS

 

Incinerator	Safety	Destruction Capability	Usability	Community Acceptability
Molope Gas	Good	Good	Good	Good
C&S Auto- Combustion (Uses Electricity)	Good	Good	Good	Good
Molope Auto- Combust Incinerator	Un-Acceptable	Good	Un-Acceptable	Un-Acceptable