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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
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
期刊最新文献
A Review on Biohazards Removal in Ethiopia: Efficacy of Existing Treatment Systems and Challenges. Studying the Relationship Between Coal Consumption and Health of Rural Residents: Evidence from China. Intervention to Improve Children's Hygiene in Urban Squatter Settlement Schools in Pakistan: An Implementation Research. Pesticide Residues, Glyphosate Adsorption and Degradation Characteristics in Ethiopian Agricultural Soils. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Burden of Meats Singed with Different Fuel Sources from Abattoirs in Ghana and Associated Cancer Risk Assessment.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1