The decrease in soil productivity and quality caused by the continuous and abusive use of mineral fertilizers makes necessary to adopt more sustainable agricultural soil management strategies that help to maintain soil edaphic fertility. In light of these considerations, we have evaluated the effect of organic vs. inorganic fertilization on soil microbial communities, soil quality, and crop yield in a melon crop. The following treatments were tested: i) aerobic sewage sludge from a conventional wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) using aerobic bacteria (SS); ii) aerobic sewage sludge from a WWTP using a bacteria-microalgae consortium (B); iii) N-P-K mineral fertilizer (M); iv) a treatment in which 50% of the N was contributed by SS and 50% by mineral fertilizer (M + SS); v) a treatment in which 50% of the N was contributed by B and 50% by mineral fertilizer (M + B); and vi) a no-fertilized control soil. Melon yield and fruit quality were determined in addition to several soil physical, chemical, biochemical and microbiological parameters. Organic fertilizers (SS and B) increased the percentage of soil water-stable aggregates (52 and 60% respectively) as well as the content of organic C (18 and 31%), water soluble C (21 and 41%), N (15 and 41%) and available P content (41 and 82%) compared to inorganic fertilization. They also stimulated bacterial and fungal abundance to a greater extent than mineral fertilizers (189 and 242% vs 85%, and 57 and 122% vs 29%, respectively), as well as soil respiration, and dehydrogenase, β-glucosidase, phosphatase, urease, and glycine aminopectidase activities. The analysis of principal components with parameters linked to soil quality clearly showed that organic fertilizers cause a greater improvement in soil characteristics and microbial community than mineral fertilizers. Results demonstrate that organic and combined fertilization could be used as substitutes for nitrogen mineral fertilizers in melon crop, since these treatments led to similar melon production and quality while improving soil characteristics and microbial population size and activity.
Citation: Teresa Hernandez, José Guillermo Berlanga, Isabel Tormos, Carlos Garcia. Organic versus inorganic fertilizers: Response of soil properties and crop yield[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2021, 7(3): 415-439. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2021024
| [1] | Junbo Jia, Wei Shi, Pan Yang, Xinchu Fu . Immunization strategies in directed networks. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(4): 3925-3952. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020218 |
| [2] | Philip K. Pollett . An SIS epidemic model with individual variation. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(4): 5446-5455. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024240 |
| [3] | Jianquan Li, Zhien Ma, Fred Brauer . Global analysis of discrete-time SI and SIS epidemic models. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2007, 4(4): 699-710. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2007.4.699 |
| [4] | Ke Guo, Wanbiao Ma . Global dynamics of an SI epidemic model with nonlinear incidence rate, feedback controls and time delays. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(1): 643-672. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021035 |
| [5] | F. S. Vannucchi, S. Boccaletti . Chaotic spreading of epidemics in complex networks of excitable units. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2004, 1(1): 49-55. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2004.1.49 |
| [6] | Jing Li, Zhen Jin, Yuan Yuan . Effect of adaptive rewiring delay in an SIS network epidemic model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(6): 8092-8108. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019407 |
| [7] | Zhen Jin, Guiquan Sun, Huaiping Zhu . Epidemic models for complex networks with demographics. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2014, 11(6): 1295-1317. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2014.11.1295 |
| [8] | Yicang Zhou, Zhien Ma . Global stability of a class of discrete age-structured SIS models with immigration. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2009, 6(2): 409-425. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2009.6.409 |
| [9] | Jinna Lu, Xiaoguang Zhang . Bifurcation analysis of a pair-wise epidemic model on adaptive networks. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(4): 2973-2989. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019147 |
| [10] | Meici Sun, Qiming Liu . An SIS epidemic model with time delay and stochastic perturbation on heterogeneous networks. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(5): 6790-6805. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021337 |
The decrease in soil productivity and quality caused by the continuous and abusive use of mineral fertilizers makes necessary to adopt more sustainable agricultural soil management strategies that help to maintain soil edaphic fertility. In light of these considerations, we have evaluated the effect of organic vs. inorganic fertilization on soil microbial communities, soil quality, and crop yield in a melon crop. The following treatments were tested: i) aerobic sewage sludge from a conventional wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) using aerobic bacteria (SS); ii) aerobic sewage sludge from a WWTP using a bacteria-microalgae consortium (B); iii) N-P-K mineral fertilizer (M); iv) a treatment in which 50% of the N was contributed by SS and 50% by mineral fertilizer (M + SS); v) a treatment in which 50% of the N was contributed by B and 50% by mineral fertilizer (M + B); and vi) a no-fertilized control soil. Melon yield and fruit quality were determined in addition to several soil physical, chemical, biochemical and microbiological parameters. Organic fertilizers (SS and B) increased the percentage of soil water-stable aggregates (52 and 60% respectively) as well as the content of organic C (18 and 31%), water soluble C (21 and 41%), N (15 and 41%) and available P content (41 and 82%) compared to inorganic fertilization. They also stimulated bacterial and fungal abundance to a greater extent than mineral fertilizers (189 and 242% vs 85%, and 57 and 122% vs 29%, respectively), as well as soil respiration, and dehydrogenase, β-glucosidase, phosphatase, urease, and glycine aminopectidase activities. The analysis of principal components with parameters linked to soil quality clearly showed that organic fertilizers cause a greater improvement in soil characteristics and microbial community than mineral fertilizers. Results demonstrate that organic and combined fertilization could be used as substitutes for nitrogen mineral fertilizers in melon crop, since these treatments led to similar melon production and quality while improving soil characteristics and microbial population size and activity.
Biomedical waste is a significant source of infection in the community and a major cause of environmental pollution. Inappropriate management of these wastes is a significant source of hospital infections. Medical wastes produced in dentistry including needles and sharp objects, body tissues, chemical fixers, mercury, silver thiosulfate, lead laminate, amalgam, etc. and the chemicals such as acrylics, molds, and mercury materials used for therapeutic purposes may have an impact on the environment and humans safety. Lead can cause undesirable effects on the ecosystem [1]. Recently, With the increased demand for dental care, there has been rapid growth in public and private dental clinics, which resulted in an increase in the amount of medical waste [2]. It is assumed to be a cause of increased infection and contamination of the environment leading to an elevated possibility of diseases and injuries. There are guidelines for the management of medical wastes provided by the World Health Organization. Unfortunately, these guidelines are not met in a large number of developing countries [3]. The researches carried out in developing countries indicate a low level of awareness and knowledge of dental waste management. Neto et al., in a survey on dry waste management, which assessed 15 dental offices in Brazil, found that 81.8% of dental practitioners did not plan for waste management. They showed that despite the separation of wastes, there was not any sanitary and safety landfill in the office. They also found that there were many deficiencies in waste disposal [4]. Adedigba et al. (2010) evaluated hospital waste management in eight dental clinics in Nigeria and concluded that there were high levels of lead and chromium, mercury, cadmium, and manganese in soil and water samples [5]. A study conducted in the province of Sistan and Balouchestan, Iran, on dental wastes showed that 11.7% were general, 80.6% were infectious, 6.3% were chemicals, and 1.7% were toxic wastes [6]. Koolivand et al. (2012) [8] in their study, which was conducted in Bandar Abbas, showed that there was not any effective plan for waste recycling [7]. In order to protect the environment and society, the law on waste management was approved by the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran in 2004. According to this law, every waste producer, including hospitals, clinics and offices are obliged to take measurements on their disposal to be sure thay do not have any adverse effects on human health and also on the environment. Considering the proximity of Bandar Abbas to the Persian Gulf and the risk of water pollution which may cause environmental and health hazards, the need for higher sensitivity to the optimal management of medical wastes and reasonable management of medical waste is inevitable. Therefore, this study aimed to assess dentists' knowledge and practice on dental waste management in public and private clinics and dental offices in Bandar Abbas.
This cross-sectional study was conducted in Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences (HUMS) in 2015–2016. The study included 166 private and public dental offices and clinics in Bandar Abbas. After the literature searches and review, an anonymous questionnaire was developed to collect the data. Based on the knowledge, awareness, and practices of the dentists, a self-administered questionnaire, composed of 40 items, was prepared. The first section of the questionnaire consisted of questions related to respondents’ age, sex, and clinical experience. Each question was closed-ended with a Yes/No, and multiple-choice pattern response. The questionnaire was assessed by content validity (taking experts' opinions), and its reliability was evaluated by Cronbach's alpha (0.94).
The questionnaire consisted of 2 sections. The first section included four demographics questions, and the second consisted of questions related to the awareness and practices of dental care waste management. This section consisted of a table with 23 yes/no and 13 multiple-choice questions about the awareness and practice of dental waste. The author visited the dental facilities and distributed questionnaires between dentists. A completed questionnaire was collected on the same (or consecutive) day. After collecting questionnaires, the data were analyzed using SPSS 16 software. Descriptive statistics (frequency distribution and percentage tables, statistical indices, and mean and standard deviation) and Chi-square test (Two ways and one way) were conducted on the data. P < 0.05 was considered as significant.
A total of 133 of the dentist from 124 private dental offices, five government dental clinics, and four private dental clinics participated in this study. A total of 166 questionnaires were distributed among dentists of the private and government dental clinics and offices. The overall response rate was 80%. The demographic characteristics of the participants are shown in Table 1. All dentists, regardless of the type of specialty who worked in government(62.5%) and private dental clinicis (57.1%) and dental offices (77.5%) in Bandar Abbas, were questioned in this study regarding the management of dental waste. The majority of dentists were under the age of 40 years (65.4%).The majority of the dentists had the experience of fewer than five years (65.4%). There was not any statistically significant association between the responses given by dentists in government dental clinics and private dentist’s offices for the majority of the questions (P = 0.05).
| Variables | Frequency (%) | |
| Gender | Male | 67(50.4) |
| Female | 66(49.6) | |
| Specialty | All dental specialties | 133(80) |
| Location | Dental offices | 124(77.5) |
| Government dental clinics | 5(62.5) | |
| Private dental clinics | 4(57.1) | |
| Age | 20–30 years | 41(30.8) |
| 30–40 years | 46(34.6) | |
| 40–50 years | 39(29.3) | |
| > 50 years | 7(5.3) | |
| Years of work | 1–10 years | 87(65.4) |
| 10–20 years | 34(25.6) | |
| 20–30 years | 12(0.9) | |
DownLoad:
CSV
Table 2 shows the awareness of the dentists regarding dental waste management in Bandar Abbas. The results of the present study show that 63.2% of dentists were aware of different categories of wastes. It was interesting to notice that nearly half of the dentists (48.9%) were not aware of color codings for different categories of medical wastes.
| Questions | Yes (%) | No (%) |
| Awareness regarding different category of wastes | 84(63.2) | 49(36.8) |
| Awareness regarding various color coding of BMW | 68 (51.1) | 65 (48.9) |
| Awareness regarding Iran BMW management law | 75 (56.4) | 58 (43.6) |
| You know the requirements for hazardous waste classification | 84 (63.2) | 49 (36.8) |
DownLoad:
CSV
A statistically significant difference was found on the dentists' awareness regarding Iran's medical waste management law (P < 046). Dentists in the age group 20–30 years old, were less aware of this law (39.0%).
Dentist’s response to the practices of dental and biomedical waste management is described in Table 3. Almost half of the dentists (53.4%) separated the waste. A total of 33.8% did not categorize wastes as hazardous. Almost half of the dentists (53.4%) did not use colored bags. Most of the dentists (73.7%) did not have a wastewater treatment system, and most (75.2%) of dental office wastewaters were discharged directly into the municipal sewage system. Besides, other chemicals used in these offices, including x-ray film stabilization, sterilization, disinfectant, etc. were mainly (76.7%) dumped into municipal wastewater. 56.4% of dentists did not put x-ray shields foils or aprons in the trash bin.Most dentists (74.4%) pour fluorescent lamps and batteries into the trash bin. Only 27.1% had chair-site separators for amalgam. Most dentists (66.2%) did not record the amount of produced waste. A statistically significant difference was found in the dentists' practice and among different categories of dentists' age with the dumping chemicals into the sewage system (P < 047). Dentists under 30 years of age had the highest level of chemicals disposal in the sewer (70.7%).
| Questions | Yes (%) | No (%) |
| Do you segregate waste? | 71 (53.4) | 62 (46.6) |
| Do you categories your waste into hazardous waste? | 88 (66.2) | 45 (33.8) |
| Do you have chair-side separators for amalgam? | 36 (27.1) | 97 (72.9) |
| Do you use colored bags for waste disposal? | 62 (46.6) | 71 (53.4) |
| Is your office wastewater discharged into municipal sewage pour? | 100 (75.2) | 33 (24.8) |
| Do you dump chemicals into the sewage system? (X-ray film stabilization, sterilization, disinfectants, etc.) | 102 (76.7) | 31 (23.3) |
| Do you rinse amalgam from chair-side separator? | 60 (45.1) | 73 (54.9) |
| Do you have a sewage treatment system? | 35 (26.3) | 98 (73.7) |
| Are you recording the amount of infectious waste? | 45 (33.8) | 88 (66.2) |
| Are you a sharps container label and symbol use? | 86 (64.7) | 47 (35.3) |
| Do you throw fluorescent tubes and batteries in the trash bin? | 99 (74.4) | 34 (25.6) |
| Do you put x-ray shields foils or aprons in the trash bin? | 58 (43.6) | 75 (56.4) |
DownLoad:
CSV
Table 4 shows the knowledge and practice of dentists regarding dental wastes. One-way Chi-square test was used to analyze the homogeneity of the frequency distribution of each question. In answer to the question, what classification is used for extracted teeth?, the infectious category was correctly reported by only over half (57.1%) of the dentists. 60.9% dentists correctly made sharp choices. 44.4% of dentists were aware of the grouping of expired drugs in the cytotoxic group. The category of soiled waste correctly was selected for dental and cotton molds by 51.1%. Only 12.0 % of the Dentists were aware of yellow color containers, which are used for the disposal of human anatomical waste. More than half of the dentists (58.6%) were aware of disposing of sharp objects in yellow containers. Nearly one third (33.1%) of the dentists put extra amalgam in the trash bin. Surprisingly 23.3% of dentists disposed of infected needles in the trash bin. Our results show that 44.4% of dentists poured the solutions of radiology film preparation directly into the urban sewage system. Lead foils and X-ray films were directly disposed to the trash bin by 52.6%. Almost half of the dentists (48.9%) had not any specific method of disposing of the orthodontic wire and hook; They dumped these materials directly into the trash bin. Most dentists (60.2%) threw outdated drugs into the trash bin. 45.1% of dentists evaluated in this study used authentic collector as the final waste disposal method.
| Questions | Options | (%) | P-value |
| Which of the following classifications for tooth extraction? |
Infectious waste Cytotoxic waste Infected/cytotoxic waste I don’t know |
76 (57.1) 21 (15.8) 23 (17.3) 13 (9.8) |
< 0.001 |
| What are the categories for needle and syringe disposal? | Infected waste Sharps Chemical General |
36 (27.1) 81 (60.9) 12 (9.0) 4 (3.0) |
< 0.001 |
| Which a category for disposal of expired drugs is? | Chemical Cytotoxic waste Biotechnological waste I don’t know |
51 (38.3) 59 (44.4) 9 (6.8) 14 (10.5) |
< 0.001 |
| Category of dental mould and cotton | Solid waste Soiled waste Infectious waste I don’t know |
19 (14.3) 68 (51.1) 26 (19.5) 20 (15) |
< 0.001 |
| Human anatomical wastes should be disposed in? | Yellow container Red container Blue/white container I don’t know |
16 (12.0) 40 (30.1) 19 (14.3) 58 (43.6) |
< 0.001 |
| Sharps should be disposed in? | Yellow container Red container Blue/white container Don’t know |
78 (58.6) 25 (18.8) 13 (9.8) 17 (12.8) |
< 0.001 |
| How do you store extra amalgam | Trash bin Close container with water Close container other(don’t use / in a fixer) |
44 (33.1) 25 (18.8) 34 (25.6) 30 (22.6) |
0.119 |
| How do you dispose infected needles | Trash bin Break the needle & dispose needle burner puncture- resistant container |
31 (23.3) 25 (18.8) 39 (29.3) 38 (28.6) |
0.276 |
| How do you dispose developer and fixer | Direct in sewer After diluting the sewage poured Return to producer Others(recycle…) |
59 (44.4) 58 (43.6) 2 (1.5) 14 (10.5) |
< 0.001 |
| How do you dispose X‑ray film lead foils | Trash bin Maintenance & disposal separately Burial in the soil Silver recycling buyers |
70 (52.6) 47 (35.3) 7 (5.3) 9 (6.8) |
< 0.001 |
| How dental orthodontic wires and hooks are disposed | Trash bin Deformation & disposal Recycle or reuse Other |
65 (48.9) 40 (30.1) 8 (6.0) 20 (15.0) |
< 0.001 |
| How to dispose of expired medicines | Trash bin Deformation & disposal Burial in the soil secure burial |
80 (60.2) 33 (24.8) 3 (2.3) 17 (12.8) |
< 0.001 |
| What is the final disposal of dental waste | Municipal waste bin Authentic collector Recycling Center Valid & authorized landfill |
36 (27.1) 60 (45.1) 10 (7.5) 27 (20.3) |
< 0.001 |
DownLoad:
CSV
If Dental offices do not comply with sanitary requirements, they can be a cause of transmitting infectious diseases to patients and even dentists themselves. Dental wastes such as mercury, lead, processing solutions from X-ray units, sharps, and blood-soaked dressings are used in dentistry. If these wastes were not correctly discarded, it can lead to a potential threat to the environment [8]. It is reported that dentists are recruiting improper operation of waste production and disposal in their clinics and offices in Iran. There is not any effective effort to minimize waste, separation, reuse, and recycling in the dental offices of Iran [9,10].
Dentists' awareness of the medical waste management law in dentistry makes them ineffective. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate the knowledge and practice of dentists in Bandar Abbas. The results of this study provide essential insights into Bandar Abbas’s dentists dental waste management efforts. In this study, slightly more than a third of the dentists (36.8%) were not aware of the different categories of wastes, and approximately a third of the dentists (33.8%) did not categories waste into hazardous waste. According to recent studies, there was a higher level of awareness in India [11,12] while studies conducted in Iran show a lower level of awareness and practice [10]. 48.09% of the dentists were not aware of the color coding used for waste disposal, similar to Pandey's study in Pakistan and Sing study in India [13,14]. In this study, they observed that 53.4% of dentists did not use a colored bag for waste disposal, and also 46.6% did not do the waste separation, which showed a different rate of awareness compares to other studies [2]. Our results also showed that slightly less than half (43.6%) of dentists were unaware of Iranian waste management laws. In our study, a significant difference between different ages of dentists and their knowledge on Iranian Waste Management Law (P < 0.046) was observed. It can be reffered to the fact that most dentists in iran are young and have less than ten years of work experience. In-service training on waste management can have a great impact on raising the awareness and also effective performance of the dentists.
When asked about the category of an extracted tooth, 57.1% correctly said that it comes under the category of infectious wastes which was in line with the Singh study [14]. Six hundred and nine percent of dentists correctly reported the category of needles which comes under the category of sharps wastes. This result was in contrast to sing study in India, where only 23.7% of dentists were aware [14]. 40.41% of the dentists correctly reported the outdated and contaminated drugs as cytotoxic wastes. These results were similar to the study by Naidu in India [11]. Cytotoxic wastes, including all items contaminated with cytotoxic drugs, are put in a non-chlorinated yellow container, sealed and labeled as cytotoxic. Outdated cytotoxic drugs will be returned to the manufacturer or supplier for incineration at temperature > 1200℃. The antibiotic and other drugs are discarded in a yellow bag with a biohazard label. Dilution in water and discharge into a sewer for solutions containing vitamins, cough syrups, IV solutions and eye drops, salts, amino acids is recommended [15]. In the present study, 60.2% of the dentists disposed outdated medicines into a trash bin. A study which was conducted in Shiraz, Iran showed that none of the dental offices in Shiraz were in compliance with the standards for the drug disposal [10].
Only 12.0% of dentists in this study were aware of the correct container color for disposing human anatomical wastes (yellow containers). A study by Naidu and et al, . in India showed that in total, 41.2% of dentists were aware about yellow containers [11].
In answer to the question about disposing of infected needles, 29.3% of dentists used needle burner that is an optimal method for sharp objects disposal, and 23.3% put it directly into a trash bin whicgh was in line with o the results of study conducted in New Zealand [16]. The results of the one-way chi-square test showed that various methods had been used to infected needle disposal by dentists, and their knowledge is low about the correct methods (P = 0.276). The results of a study conducted in Sari, Iran showed that 9.6% of dentists directly disposed sharps wastes in a trash bin, and 78.9% of dentists used cutter or safety boxes for sharp wastes disposal [17]. A study in conducted in Shiraz, Iran showed that 36.4% of dentists disposed sharp wastes as a domestic waste [10]. Sharp wastes should be collected in puncture-proof containers (safety boxes) and incin erated or autoclaved before disposal.
In Iran, water and sewage systems of dental clinics in many centers are directly connected to the municipal sewage system. Slightly over half of the dentists (54.9%) in this study dumped the chemicals used for radiography and disinfection directly into municipal wastewater. There was a significant difference between the different age groups of dentists and the answer to this question (P < 0.047). There was a higher rate of chemical disposal to sewage in the 20–30 years old group dentists. It may indicate lower awareness of young dentists about dental waste management and specify the need for education for young and new dentists.
It is estimated that between 8 and 14 percent of the mercury content in the urban wastewater system is related to dental offices. The separators remove 96.9% of amalgam according to ISO standard [18]. Amalgam is a source of mercury wellknown as a neurotoxin and nephrotoxic [19]. Storing of scrap amalgam in a fixer solution in an adequately labeled sealed container is the recommended method of disposal by the American Dental Association. It can also be sent to a recycler to retrieve the silver and use it for other purposes. This study revealed that only 27.1 % of dentists had chair-side separators for amalgam. Only 33.1% of dentists put extra amalgam in a trash bin, and 22.6% do not use amalgam in offices or put it in a fixer. 25.6% of dentists in this study used close containers as a disposal methods, which was similar to sings’ study in India [14]. The results of the one-way chi-square test showed that various methods had been used to dispose of amalgam by dentists, and they has little knowledge on the correct methods (P = 0.119).
A survey conducted by Nabizadeh in Iran showed that 100% of amalgam waste was simply added to the lo cal sewage system and all sharp wastes were added to domestic wastes [9]. The study conducted in Shiraz, Iran showed that 61.7% of extra amalgam was put in the trash bin as domestic waste [10]. A study by Zazouli in Iran revealed that 91.7 % of amalgam waste was placed into the toilet trash bin, and sewer system [17]. A study by Sudhakar and Chandrashekar in India indicated that 39.1% of participants did not separate their extra amalgam or mercury and disposed it directly into municipal solid wastes [20].
Fixer liquid, along with advent solution, is widely used for oral radiology. The fixer liquid is classified as a hazardous material because it contains a high concentration of silver and should not be directly discharged into the sewer or trash bin.Silver recycling is the best way of its managment. However, as in other studies in Iran, 88% of dentists dumped fixer liquid and advent solution in the municipal sewage system [10,17] which was in line with Al-Khatibs' study in Palestine and Singhs’ in India [3,14].
Lead-containing products cannot be considered as municipal solid wastes and must be disposed of as hazardous or recycled wastes. In response to the question, the dispose method of X-ray film and lead foils? 52.6% of dentists declared that they put it into the trash bin as domestic waste, and 6.8% reported that they had sold it for recycling purposes. This result was in line with Naidus’ in India and other studies in Iran [9,11,17].
According to OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health) regulations, orthodontic wires are considered as sharp wastes because the end of orthodontic wires can penetrate the skin and become contaminated with blood. Therefore they must be disposed of as sharp wastes. In this study, 48.9% of dentists disposed them directly into the trash bin, and 30.1% deformed them and then disposed, which is not considered to be a correct method. These results were similar to Sudhir and Naidu's studies in India [2,11].
Our study shows that dentists, in general, did not have sufficient awareness of dental waste management in Bandar Abbas. Also, mostly they do not meet the waste disposal standards. Therefore, continuous training of dentists, especially at the start of their work in offices and clinics, on the management of dental wastes is essential in raising their awareness. In order to protect the environment from pollution, as well as to ensure the safety of health care workers and patients, medical waste management programs are especially effective in preventing water and soil contamination. Implementing waste management laws requires constant monitoring and training. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a comprehensive system of health care for waste management in Iran as those of developed countries.
This article is the result of a research proj ect funded by the Vice-Chancellor for Research, Hormozgan University of Medi cal Sciences (grant # 9463). We thank all dentists for their kind cooperation.
The author declare no conflict of interest.
| [1] | Singh H, Verma A, Ansari MW, et al. (2014) Physiological response of rice (Oryzasativa L.) genotypes to elevated nitrogen applied under field conditions. Plant Signal Behav 9: e29015. |
| [2] |
Galloway JN, Townsend AR, Erisman W, et al. (2008) Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: recent trends, questions, and potential solutions. Science 320: 889-892. doi: 10.1126/science.1136674
|
| [3] |
Zhou J, Guan D, Zhou B, et al. (2015) Influence of 34-years of fertilization on bacterial communities in an intensively cultivated black soil in northeast China. Soil Biol Biochem 90: 42-51. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.07.005
|
| [4] | Wang Y, Zhu Y, Zhan S, et al. (2018) What could promote farmers to replace chemical fertilizers with organic fertilizers? J Clean Prod 199: 882-890. |
| [5] | Natsheh B, Mousa S (2014) Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers application on soil and cucumber (Cucumis Sativa L.) plant productivity. Int J Agric For 4: 166-170. |
| [6] | Hernandez T, Chocano C, Moreno JL, et al. (2016) Use of compost as an alternative to conventional inorganic fertilizers in intensive lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) crops. Effects on soil and plant. Soil Tillage Res 160: 14-22. |
| [7] |
Cai A, Zang W, Xu M, et al. (2018) Soil fertility and crop yield after manure addition to acidic soils in South China. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 11: 61-72. doi: 10.1007/s10705-018-9918-6
|
| [8] |
Cai A, Xu M, Wang B, et al. (2019) Manure acts as a better fertilizer for increasing crop yields than synthetic fertilizer does by improving soil fertility. Soil Tillage Res 189: 168-175. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2018.12.022
|
| [9] |
Hernandez T, Chocano C, Coll MD, et al. (2018) Composts as alternative to inorganic fertilization for cereal crops. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26: 35340-35352. doi: 10.1007/s11356-018-3898-6
|
| [10] |
De Souza JRM, Artur AG, Taniguchi CAK, et al. (2018) Yellow melon yield in response to mineral or organic fertilization. J Plant Nutr 41: 1197-1204. doi: 10.1080/01904167.2018.1434543
|
| [11] |
Rezácová V, Czakó A, Stehlik M, et al. (2021) Organic fertilization improves soil aggregation through increases in abundance of eubacteria and products of arbuscular mycorrhizalfungi. Sci Rep 11: 12548. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-91653-x
|
| [12] |
Xin X, Zhang J, Zhu A, et al. (2016) Effects of long-term (23 years) mineral fertilizer and compost application on physical properties of fluvo-aquic soil in the North China plain. Soil Tillage Res 156: 166-172 doi: 10.1016/j.still.2015.10.012
|
| [13] | Hernandez T, Garcia E, García C (2015) A strategy for marginal semiarid degraded soil restoration: A sole addition of compost at a high rate. A five-year field experiment. Soil Biol Biochem 89: 61-71. |
| [14] |
Ochoa-Hueso R, Delgado-Baquerizo M, King PTA, et al. (2019) Ecosystem type and resource quality are more important than global change drivers in regulating early stages of litter decomposition. Soil Biol Biochem 129: 144-152. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.11.009
|
| [15] |
Van der Wal A, Geydan TD, Kuyper TW, et al. (2013) A thread affair: linking fungal diversity and community dynamics to terrestrial decomposition processes. FEMS Microbiol Rev 37: 477-494. doi: 10.1111/1574-6976.12001
|
| [16] |
Fierer N, Lauber CL, Ramirez KS, et al. (2012) Comparative gradients. ISME J 6:1007-1017. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2011.159
|
| [17] |
Smalla, Wachtendorf U, Heuer H, et al. (1998) Analysis of Biolog GN substrate utilization patterns by microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 64: 1220-1225. doi: 10.1128/AEM.64.4.1220-1225.1998
|
| [18] | Preston-Mafham J, Boddy L, Randerson PF (2002) Analysis of microbial community functional diversity using sole-carbon-source utilization profiles- a critique. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 42: 1-14. |
| [19] |
Braun S, Thomas V, Quiring R, et al. (2010) Does nitrogen deposition increase forest production? The role of phosphorus. Environ Pollut 158: 2043-2052. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2009.11.030
|
| [20] |
Ros M, Pascual JA, Garcia C, et al. (2006) Hydrolase activities, microbial biomass and bacterial community in a soil after long-term amendment with different composts. Soil Biol Biochem 38: 3443-3452. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.05.017
|
| [21] | Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June, Relative to the environment protection, in particular, soils in the utilization of sewage sludges in agriculture, 1986. Available from: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f76faa39-2b27-42f2-be1e-9332f795e324. |
| [22] |
Rehman RA, Rizwan M, QayyumMF, et al. (2018) Efficiency of various sewage sludges and their biochars in improving selected soil properties and growth of wheat (Triticum aestivum). J Environ Manag 223: 607-613. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.06.081
|
| [23] |
Koutroubas SD, Antoniadis V, Fotiadis S, et al. (2014) Growth, grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency of Mediterranean wheat in soils amended with municipal sewage sludge. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 100: 227-243. doi: 10.1007/s10705-014-9641-x
|
| [24] |
Lax A, Díaz E, Castillo V, et al. (1994) Reclamation of physical and chemical properties of salinized soil by organic amendment. Arid Land Res Manag 8: 9-17. doi: 10.1080/15324989309381374
|
| [25] | Hernández T, García C (2003) Estimación de respiración microbiana del suelo (Stimation of soil respiration). Técnicas de Análisis de Parámetros Bioquímicos en Suelos. Actividades Enzimáticas y Biomasa Microbiana (Techniques of analysis of Biochemical parameters in soils. Enzymatic activities and microbial biomass), Mundi-Prensa. Madrid, 311-346. |
| [26] |
García C, Hernandez MT, Costa F (1997) Potential use of dehydrogenase activity as an index of microbial activity in degraded soils. Comm Soil Sci Plant Anal 28: 123-134. doi: 10.1080/00103629709369777
|
| [27] |
Eivazi F, Tabatabai MA (1988) Glucosidase and galactosidase in soils. Soil Biol Biochem 20: 601-606. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(88)90141-1
|
| [28] |
Kandeler E, Gerber H (1988) Short-term assay of soil urease activity using colorimetric determination of ammonium. Biol Fert Soils 6: 68-72. doi: 10.1007/BF00257924
|
| [29] |
Sinsabaugh RL, Antibus RK, Linkins AE, et al. (1993) Wood decomposition: nitrogen and phosphorus dynamics in relation to extracellular enzyme activity. Ecology 74: 1586-1593. doi: 10.2307/1940086
|
| [30] |
Garland JL, Mills AI (1991) Classification and characterization of heterotrophic microbial communities on the basis of patterns of community-level sole-carbon-source utilization. Appl Environ Microbiol 57: 2351-2359. doi: 10.1128/aem.57.8.2351-2359.1991
|
| [31] |
Weber KP, Legge RL (2009) One-dimensional metric for tracking bacterial community divergence using sole carbon source utilization patterns. J Microbiol Methods 79: 55-61. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2009.07.020
|
| [32] |
Kaufmann K, Christophersen M, Buttler A, et al. (2004) Microbial community response to petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in the unsaturated zone at the experimental field site Vaerlose, Denmark. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 48: 387-399. doi: 10.1016/j.femsec.2004.02.011
|
| [33] |
Bligh EG, Dyer WJ (1959) A rapid method for total lipid extraction and purification. Can J Biochem Physiol 37: 911-917. doi: 10.1139/o59-099
|
| [34] |
Frostegard Å, Tunlid A, Bååth E (1993) Phospholipid fatty acid composition, biomass, and activity of microbial communities from two soil types experimentally exposed to different heavy metals. Appl Environ Microbiol 59: 3605-3617. doi: 10.1128/aem.59.11.3605-3617.1993
|
| [35] |
Bardgett RD, Hobbs PJ, Frostegard A (1996) Changes in soil fungal: bacterial biomass ratios following reductions in the intensity of management of an upland grassland. Biol Fertil Soils 22: 261-264. doi: 10.1007/BF00382522
|
| [36] |
Demelash N, Bayu W, Tesfaye S, et al. (2014) Current and residual effects of composts and inorganic fertilizers on wheat and soil chemical properties. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 100: 357-367. doi: 10.1007/s10705-014-9654-5
|
| [37] |
Oades JM (1984) Soil organic matter and structural stability: mechanisms and implications for management. Plant Soil 76: 319-337. doi: 10.1007/BF02205590
|
| [38] |
Tisdall JM, Oades JM (1982) Organic matter and water-stable aggregates in soils. Soil Sci 62: 141-163. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.1982.tb01755.x
|
| [39] | Hernandez T, Hernandez MC, Garcia C (2017) The effects on soil aggregation and carbon fixation of different organic amendments for restoring degraded.soils in semiarid areas. Eur J Soil Sci 68: 941-950. |
| [40] |
Zou C, Li Y, Huang W, et al. (2018) Rotation and manure amendment increase soil macro-aggregates and associated carbon and nitrogen stocks in flue-cured tobacco production. Geoderma 325: 49-58. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.03.017
|
| [41] |
Mangalassery D, Kalaivanan S, Philip PS (2019) Effect of inorganic fertilisers and organic amendments on soil aggregation and biochemical characteristics in a weathered tropical soil. Soil Tillage Res 187: 144-151. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2018.12.008
|
| [42] |
Long P, Sui P, Gao WS, et al. (2015) Aggregate stability and associated C and N in a silty loam soil as affected by organic material inputs. J Integr Agric 14: 774-787. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60796-6
|
| [43] |
Heijboer A, ten Berge HFM, de Ruiter PC, et al. (2016) Plant biomass, soil microbial community structure and nitrogen cycle under different organic amendment regimes: a 15N tracer-based approach. Appl Soil Ecol 107: 251-260. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.06.009
|
| [44] |
Zhao L, Li L, Cai H et al. (2019) Organic amendments improve wheat root growth and yield through regulating soil properties. Agron J 111: 482-495. doi: 10.2134/agronj2018.04.0247
|
| [45] |
Toor RR, Savage GP, Heeb A (2006) Influence of different types of fertilizers on the major antioxidant components of tomatoes. J Food Composition Anal 19: 20-27. doi: 10.1016/j.jfca.2005.03.003
|
| [46] |
Hu J, Lin X, Wang J, et al. (2011) Microbial functional diversity, metabolic quotient and invertase activity of a sandy loam soil as affected by long-term application of organic amendment and mineral fertilizer. J Soils Sediments 11: 271-280. doi: 10.1007/s11368-010-0308-1
|
| [47] | Zhong Y, Zou S, Lin L, et al. (2010) Effects of pyrene and fluoranthene on the degradation characteristics of phenanthrene in the cometabolism process by Sphingomonas sp. strain PheB4 isolated from mangrove sediments. Mar Pollut Bull 60: 2043-2049. |
| [48] | Albiach R, Canet R, Pomares F, et al. (2000) Microbial biomass content and enzymatic activities after the application of organic amendments to a horticultural soil. Bioresour Technol 75: 43-48. |
| [49] |
Hoogmoed M, Cunningham SC, Baker P, et al. (2014) N-fixing trees in restoration plantings: effects on nitrogen supply and soil microbial communities. Soil Biol Biochem 77: 203-213. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.06.008
|
| [50] |
Shrestha P, Gautam R, Ashwath N (2019) Effects of agronomic treatments on functional diversity of soil microbial community and microbial activity in a revegetated coal mine spoil. Geoderma 338: 40-47. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.11.038
|
| [51] |
Chakraborty A, Chakraborti K, Chakraborty A, et al. (2011) Effect of long-term fertilizers and manure application on microbial biomass and microbial activity of a tropical agricultural soil. Biol Fertil Soils 47: 227-233. doi: 10.1007/s00374-010-0509-1
|
| [52] |
Rashedul I, Puneet SC, Yoohak K, et al. (2011) Community level functional diversity and enzyme activities in paddy soils under different long-term fertilizer management practices. Biol Fertil Soils 47: 599-604. doi: 10.1007/s00374-010-0524-2
|
| [53] |
Yang XY, Ren WD, Sun BH, et al. (2012) Effects of contrasting soil management regimes on total and labile soil organic carbon fractions in a loess soil in China. Geoderma 177-178: 49-56. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.01.033
|
| [54] |
Bray SR, Kitajima K, Mack MC (2012) Temporal dynamic of microbial communities on decomposing leaf litter of 10 plant species in relation to decomposition rate. Soil Biol Biochem 49: 30-37. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.02.009
|
| [55] |
Kramer C, Gleixner G (2008) Soil organic matter in soil depth profiles: distinct carbon preferences of microbial groups during carbon transformation. Soil Biol Biochem 40: 425-433. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.09.016
|
| [56] |
Börjesson G, Menichetti L, Kirchmann H (2012) Soil microbial community structure affected by 53 years of nitrogen fertilisation and different organic amendments. Biol Fertil Soils 48: 245-257. doi: 10.1007/s00374-011-0623-8
|
| [57] |
Tscherko D, Hammesfahr U, Marx MC, et al. (2004) Shits in rhizosphere microbial communities and enzyme activity of Poa alpine across an alpine chronosequence. Soil Biol Biochem 36: 1685-1698. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.07.004
|
| [58] |
Hueso S, Garcia C, Hernandez T (2012) Severe drought conditions modify the microbial community structure, size and activity in amended and unamended soils. Soil Biol Biochem 50: 167-173. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.03.026
|
| [59] |
Bossio DA, Scow KM, Gunapala N, et al. (1998) Determinants of soil microbial communities: Effects of agricultural management, season, and soil type on phospholipids fatty acid profiles. Microbial Ecol 36: 1-12. doi: 10.1007/s002489900087
|
| [60] |
Vorisková J, Baldrian P (2012) Fungal community on decomposing leaf litter undergoes rapid successional changes. ISME J 7: 477-486. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2012.116
|
| [61] |
Trivedi P, Delgado-Baquerizo M, Jeffries TC, et al. (2017) Soil aggregation and associated microbial communities modify the impact of agricultural management on carbon content. Environ Microbiol 19: 3070-3086. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.13779
|
| [62] |
Lehmann J, Kleber M (2015) The contentious nature of soil organic matter. Nature 528: 60-68. doi: 10.1038/nature16069
|
| [63] |
Kadri T, Rouissi T, Kaur-Brar S, et al. (2017) Biodegradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) by fungal enzymes: a review. J Environ Sci 51: 52-74. doi: 10.1016/j.jes.2016.08.023
|
| [64] |
Hu P, Wu L, Hollister EB, et al. (2019) Fungal community structural and microbial functional pattern changes after soil amendments by oilseed meals of Jatropha curcas and Camelina sativa: a microcosm study. Front Microbiol 10: 537. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00537
|
| [65] |
Banerjee S, Kirbby CA, Schmutter DA, et al. (2016) Network analysis reveals functional redundancy and keystone taxa amongst bacterial and fungal communities during organic matter decomposition in an arable soil. Soil Biol Biochem 97: 188-198. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.03.017
|
| [66] |
Broeckling CD, Broz AK, Bergelson J, et al. (2008) Root exudates regulate soil fungal community composition and diversity. Appl Environ Microbiol 74: 738-744. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02188-07
|
| [67] |
Sapp M, Harrison M, Hany U, et al. (2015) Comparing the effect of digestate and chemical fertiliser on soil bacteria. Appl Soil Ecol 86: 1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2014.10.004
|
| [68] |
Montiel-Rozas MM, Dominguez MT, Madejon E, et al. (2018) Long-term effect of organic amendments on bacterial and fungal communities in a degraded Mediterranean soil. Geoderma 332: 20-28. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.06.022
|
| [69] |
Lopedota O, Leogrande R, Fiore A, et al. (2013) Yield and soil responses of melon grown with different organic fertilizers. J Plant Nutr 36: 415-428. doi: 10.1080/01904167.2012.748062
|
| [70] |
Dungait JAJ, Kemmit SJ, Michallon M, et al. (2011) Variable responses of the soil microbial biomass to trace concentrations of 13C-labelled glucose, using 13C-PLFA analysis. Eur J Soil Sci 62: 117-126. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01321.x
|
| [71] |
Brant JB, Sulzman EW, Myrold DD (2006) Microbial community utilization of added carbon substrates in response to long-term carbon input manipulation. Soil Biol Biochem 38: 2219-2232. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.01.022
|
| 1. | Nadia M. G. Al-Saidi, Husam Yahya, Suzan J. Obaiys, Discrete Dynamic Model of a Disease-Causing Organism Caused by 2D-Quantum Tsallis Entropy, 2022, 14, 2073-8994, 1677, 10.3390/sym14081677 |
Figures(7) / Tables(7)
Teresa Hernandez, José Guillermo Berlanga, Isabel Tormos, Carlos Garcia. Organic versus inorganic fertilizers: Response of soil properties and crop yield[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2021, 7(3): 415-439. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2021024
| Variables | Frequency (%) | |
| Gender | Male | 67(50.4) |
| Female | 66(49.6) | |
| Specialty | All dental specialties | 133(80) |
| Location | Dental offices | 124(77.5) |
| Government dental clinics | 5(62.5) | |
| Private dental clinics | 4(57.1) | |
| Age | 20–30 years | 41(30.8) |
| 30–40 years | 46(34.6) | |
| 40–50 years | 39(29.3) | |
| > 50 years | 7(5.3) | |
| Years of work | 1–10 years | 87(65.4) |
| 10–20 years | 34(25.6) | |
| 20–30 years | 12(0.9) | |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Questions | Yes (%) | No (%) |
| Awareness regarding different category of wastes | 84(63.2) | 49(36.8) |
| Awareness regarding various color coding of BMW | 68 (51.1) | 65 (48.9) |
| Awareness regarding Iran BMW management law | 75 (56.4) | 58 (43.6) |
| You know the requirements for hazardous waste classification | 84 (63.2) | 49 (36.8) |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Questions | Yes (%) | No (%) |
| Do you segregate waste? | 71 (53.4) | 62 (46.6) |
| Do you categories your waste into hazardous waste? | 88 (66.2) | 45 (33.8) |
| Do you have chair-side separators for amalgam? | 36 (27.1) | 97 (72.9) |
| Do you use colored bags for waste disposal? | 62 (46.6) | 71 (53.4) |
| Is your office wastewater discharged into municipal sewage pour? | 100 (75.2) | 33 (24.8) |
| Do you dump chemicals into the sewage system? (X-ray film stabilization, sterilization, disinfectants, etc.) | 102 (76.7) | 31 (23.3) |
| Do you rinse amalgam from chair-side separator? | 60 (45.1) | 73 (54.9) |
| Do you have a sewage treatment system? | 35 (26.3) | 98 (73.7) |
| Are you recording the amount of infectious waste? | 45 (33.8) | 88 (66.2) |
| Are you a sharps container label and symbol use? | 86 (64.7) | 47 (35.3) |
| Do you throw fluorescent tubes and batteries in the trash bin? | 99 (74.4) | 34 (25.6) |
| Do you put x-ray shields foils or aprons in the trash bin? | 58 (43.6) | 75 (56.4) |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Questions | Options | (%) | P-value |
| Which of the following classifications for tooth extraction? |
Infectious waste Cytotoxic waste Infected/cytotoxic waste I don’t know |
76 (57.1) 21 (15.8) 23 (17.3) 13 (9.8) |
< 0.001 |
| What are the categories for needle and syringe disposal? | Infected waste Sharps Chemical General |
36 (27.1) 81 (60.9) 12 (9.0) 4 (3.0) |
< 0.001 |
| Which a category for disposal of expired drugs is? | Chemical Cytotoxic waste Biotechnological waste I don’t know |
51 (38.3) 59 (44.4) 9 (6.8) 14 (10.5) |
< 0.001 |
| Category of dental mould and cotton | Solid waste Soiled waste Infectious waste I don’t know |
19 (14.3) 68 (51.1) 26 (19.5) 20 (15) |
< 0.001 |
| Human anatomical wastes should be disposed in? | Yellow container Red container Blue/white container I don’t know |
16 (12.0) 40 (30.1) 19 (14.3) 58 (43.6) |
< 0.001 |
| Sharps should be disposed in? | Yellow container Red container Blue/white container Don’t know |
78 (58.6) 25 (18.8) 13 (9.8) 17 (12.8) |
< 0.001 |
| How do you store extra amalgam | Trash bin Close container with water Close container other(don’t use / in a fixer) |
44 (33.1) 25 (18.8) 34 (25.6) 30 (22.6) |
0.119 |
| How do you dispose infected needles | Trash bin Break the needle & dispose needle burner puncture- resistant container |
31 (23.3) 25 (18.8) 39 (29.3) 38 (28.6) |
0.276 |
| How do you dispose developer and fixer | Direct in sewer After diluting the sewage poured Return to producer Others(recycle…) |
59 (44.4) 58 (43.6) 2 (1.5) 14 (10.5) |
< 0.001 |
| How do you dispose X‑ray film lead foils | Trash bin Maintenance & disposal separately Burial in the soil Silver recycling buyers |
70 (52.6) 47 (35.3) 7 (5.3) 9 (6.8) |
< 0.001 |
| How dental orthodontic wires and hooks are disposed | Trash bin Deformation & disposal Recycle or reuse Other |
65 (48.9) 40 (30.1) 8 (6.0) 20 (15.0) |
< 0.001 |
| How to dispose of expired medicines | Trash bin Deformation & disposal Burial in the soil secure burial |
80 (60.2) 33 (24.8) 3 (2.3) 17 (12.8) |
< 0.001 |
| What is the final disposal of dental waste | Municipal waste bin Authentic collector Recycling Center Valid & authorized landfill |
36 (27.1) 60 (45.1) 10 (7.5) 27 (20.3) |
< 0.001 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Variables | Frequency (%) | |
| Gender | Male | 67(50.4) |
| Female | 66(49.6) | |
| Specialty | All dental specialties | 133(80) |
| Location | Dental offices | 124(77.5) |
| Government dental clinics | 5(62.5) | |
| Private dental clinics | 4(57.1) | |
| Age | 20–30 years | 41(30.8) |
| 30–40 years | 46(34.6) | |
| 40–50 years | 39(29.3) | |
| > 50 years | 7(5.3) | |
| Years of work | 1–10 years | 87(65.4) |
| 10–20 years | 34(25.6) | |
| 20–30 years | 12(0.9) | |
| Questions | Yes (%) | No (%) |
| Awareness regarding different category of wastes | 84(63.2) | 49(36.8) |
| Awareness regarding various color coding of BMW | 68 (51.1) | 65 (48.9) |
| Awareness regarding Iran BMW management law | 75 (56.4) | 58 (43.6) |
| You know the requirements for hazardous waste classification | 84 (63.2) | 49 (36.8) |
| Questions | Yes (%) | No (%) |
| Do you segregate waste? | 71 (53.4) | 62 (46.6) |
| Do you categories your waste into hazardous waste? | 88 (66.2) | 45 (33.8) |
| Do you have chair-side separators for amalgam? | 36 (27.1) | 97 (72.9) |
| Do you use colored bags for waste disposal? | 62 (46.6) | 71 (53.4) |
| Is your office wastewater discharged into municipal sewage pour? | 100 (75.2) | 33 (24.8) |
| Do you dump chemicals into the sewage system? (X-ray film stabilization, sterilization, disinfectants, etc.) | 102 (76.7) | 31 (23.3) |
| Do you rinse amalgam from chair-side separator? | 60 (45.1) | 73 (54.9) |
| Do you have a sewage treatment system? | 35 (26.3) | 98 (73.7) |
| Are you recording the amount of infectious waste? | 45 (33.8) | 88 (66.2) |
| Are you a sharps container label and symbol use? | 86 (64.7) | 47 (35.3) |
| Do you throw fluorescent tubes and batteries in the trash bin? | 99 (74.4) | 34 (25.6) |
| Do you put x-ray shields foils or aprons in the trash bin? | 58 (43.6) | 75 (56.4) |
| Questions | Options | (%) | P-value |
| Which of the following classifications for tooth extraction? |
Infectious waste Cytotoxic waste Infected/cytotoxic waste I don’t know |
76 (57.1) 21 (15.8) 23 (17.3) 13 (9.8) |
< 0.001 |
| What are the categories for needle and syringe disposal? | Infected waste Sharps Chemical General |
36 (27.1) 81 (60.9) 12 (9.0) 4 (3.0) |
< 0.001 |
| Which a category for disposal of expired drugs is? | Chemical Cytotoxic waste Biotechnological waste I don’t know |
51 (38.3) 59 (44.4) 9 (6.8) 14 (10.5) |
< 0.001 |
| Category of dental mould and cotton | Solid waste Soiled waste Infectious waste I don’t know |
19 (14.3) 68 (51.1) 26 (19.5) 20 (15) |
< 0.001 |
| Human anatomical wastes should be disposed in? | Yellow container Red container Blue/white container I don’t know |
16 (12.0) 40 (30.1) 19 (14.3) 58 (43.6) |
< 0.001 |
| Sharps should be disposed in? | Yellow container Red container Blue/white container Don’t know |
78 (58.6) 25 (18.8) 13 (9.8) 17 (12.8) |
< 0.001 |
| How do you store extra amalgam | Trash bin Close container with water Close container other(don’t use / in a fixer) |
44 (33.1) 25 (18.8) 34 (25.6) 30 (22.6) |
0.119 |
| How do you dispose infected needles | Trash bin Break the needle & dispose needle burner puncture- resistant container |
31 (23.3) 25 (18.8) 39 (29.3) 38 (28.6) |
0.276 |
| How do you dispose developer and fixer | Direct in sewer After diluting the sewage poured Return to producer Others(recycle…) |
59 (44.4) 58 (43.6) 2 (1.5) 14 (10.5) |
< 0.001 |
| How do you dispose X‑ray film lead foils | Trash bin Maintenance & disposal separately Burial in the soil Silver recycling buyers |
70 (52.6) 47 (35.3) 7 (5.3) 9 (6.8) |
< 0.001 |
| How dental orthodontic wires and hooks are disposed | Trash bin Deformation & disposal Recycle or reuse Other |
65 (48.9) 40 (30.1) 8 (6.0) 20 (15.0) |
< 0.001 |
| How to dispose of expired medicines | Trash bin Deformation & disposal Burial in the soil secure burial |
80 (60.2) 33 (24.8) 3 (2.3) 17 (12.8) |
< 0.001 |
| What is the final disposal of dental waste | Municipal waste bin Authentic collector Recycling Center Valid & authorized landfill |
36 (27.1) 60 (45.1) 10 (7.5) 27 (20.3) |
< 0.001 |
