key: cord-0057499-qd1ahaws
authors: Antoniadou, Maria; Varzakas, Theodoros; Tzoutzas, Ioannis
title: Circular Economy in Conjunction with Treatment Methodologies in the Biomedical and Dental Waste Sectors
date: 2021-03-17
journal: Circ.Econ.Sust.
DOI: 10.1007/s43615-020-00001-0
sha: d803e2ea130567b5334524d62e98f207adb6cf1d
doc_id: 57499
cord_uid: qd1ahaws

In this review, life cycle assessment (LCA) principles are coupled with circular economy (CE) in order to address LCA examples in the biomedical sector worldwide. The objectives were (1) to explore the application of LCA in the medical, pharmaceutical, and dental fields; (2) to describe the ways of biomedical waste management; (3) to emphasize on the problem of dental waste in private and public dental sectors; and (4) to propose ways of “green circulation” of the dental waste. A literature search was performed using the Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scopus search engines covering the period from January 2000 until May 2020, corresponding to articles investigating the LCA and circular economy principles and legislation for biomedical and dental waste, their management options, and modern ways of recycling. The results showed that incineration seems to be the best management way option involved despite the mentioned drawbacks in this technology. Different adopted models are well defined for the dental field based on the 3Rs’ module (reduce, reuse, recycle). Replacing disposable products with reusable ones seems to be a good way to tackle the problem of waste in medical and dental sectors. Interventions on the selection and better biomedical and dental waste management will ensure eco-medicine and eco-dentistry of the future. These new terms should be the new philosophies that will change the way these fields operate in the future for the benefit of the professionals/patients and the community. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43615-020-00001-0.

Materials and resources in every sector of human activities are not endless. Even before the economic crisis of the beginnings of the twenty-first century, professionals and governments under COVID-19 pandemic schemes, extra protective equipment has been made obligatory by national health authorities augmenting the quantities of BMW and the need for proper disposal.

The truth is that even before the pandemic and over the decades, the growth of the medical and dental sector around the globe, combined with an increase in the use of disposable and single-use products, has contributed to a large amount of medical and dental waste generated. The management of these specific types of dental waste (DW) can be considered by many as a complicated holistic issue [14] [15] [16] [17] .

Furthermore, DW needs collaborative management that certainly can be organized further. New materials are constantly entering the dental market, with most of them having been already accused of hazardous emissions when burned or evaporated. So, it is obvious that even though dental units are considered a minor source of HCW, they do generate certain amounts, environmentally interesting according to their disposal components [17, 18] . Different kinds of DW generated are domestic/municipal types, infectious, toxic, pharmaceutical and chemical, and solid or liquid wastes. All these require a specific approach for collection, treatment, and disposal [19] . In dentistry, sustainability means that all previous mentioned waste must be handled in the most environmentally friendly way possible.

It is obvious that proper care to health is very important, but what is there to be done in the health industry in order to finally balance both human health and environmental health?

Despite the environmental and hygiene importance of the issue, no specific comparison exists in the relevant literature providing information on the quantities and qualities of HCW industry nor is there data on DW from public sectors contributing to the overall problem. Further, no comparison has been made on the methodologies of waste disposal existing in various countries. Thus, the aim of this nonsystematic review paper is to compare different categories of ΒΜW with DW and discuss the ways of management, bringing up-to-date examples on this environmentally sensitive part of the function of health and dental care public units.

There are certain ways of waste disposal worldwide: (1) The first and oldest method used ever was the landfill where waste materials were buried without any recovery actions. It still exists in many places around the world, including Greece. (2) Another method is the incineration where solid organic wastes are combusted. With this method, waste is converted into heat, steam, gas, and ash reducing the volume of solid waste by 80 to 95%. It is a practical method of disposal of certain hazardous waste (such as BMW) but it affects seriously the environment through the emission of gaseous pollutants. Particular concern has focused on some very persistent organic residues such as dioxins, furans, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAHs). (3) Recycling is also another option referring to the collection and reuse of waste materials such as empty beverage containers, paper, and aluminum according to the recycling programs of each country. Reprocessing into new products is usually carried out most of the times. (4) Finally, reuse refers to biological reprocessing such as composting and anaerobic digestion (AD) methods that decompose mainly organic materials. The combustion technology can be employed to burn any kind of waste combinations with low emissions. On the other hand, anaerobic digestion converts biomass into biogas, a mixture of CO 2 and CH 4 , (by bacteria in the absence of oxygen) and compost. The biogas is partly utilized to heat the digestion reactors. The rest can be used to generate electricity and/or heat (e.g., with a gas engine). The production of a renewable energy carrier, the possibility of nutrient recycling, and reduction of waste volumes are advantages and environmental benefits of AD.

Other technologies applied for waste management include membrane separation technology that offers many advantages in its application, but with major drawbacks such as membrane clogging and delayed widespread application. Moreover, supercritical fluid extraction and subcritical water extraction are new environmentally clean technologies, used to isolate natural products from different raw materials, such as plants, food by-products, algae, and microalgae. When a fluid is forced to a pressure and temperature above its critical point, it becomes a supercritical fluid. Supercritical fluids have low viscosity and relatively high diffusivity and hence have better transport properties than liquids. These characteristics make them diffuse easily through solid materials and can therefore give faster extraction yields. In comparison, subcritical water extraction (SWE), is extraction using hot water under pressure. In general, although novel methods (bioremediation, biogas production, membrane technologies, supercritical and subcritical fluid extraction) appear to be promising and attractive alternatives, major drawbacks include high cost, for equipment and training, and are not yet applied in major business sectors [20] [21] [22] [23] .

Overall, among the different technologies available for the treatment of biowaste, AD is the one recognized to pursue a global recovery of the materials with good agronomic properties [24] [25] [26] . Environmental benefits could also be derived due to the production of mineral fertilizers such as nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorous [27, 28] . Both Antonopoulos et al. [29] , and Lundin et al. [30] reported avoidance of global warming, acidification, and resource depletion when AD is implemented for the management of BW. Ahamed et al. [31] found that AD is favored when BW has an oil content < 5% for bio-diesel production. By using a similar approach, Cremaito et al. [32] reported the positive role of AD in integrated waste management systems, for decreasing the whole environmental impact.

On the other hand, among the currently available industrial technologies, wet and dry processes, working with a total solid (TS) concentration ≤ 10% and 10% TS ≤ 20%, respectively, are credited with higher process stability and higher biogas and methane production compared to solid anaerobic digestion batch (SADB) operating with 20% TS ≤ 35% [33] . In addition, food industry waste can be used to obtain polymeric materials in the CE module. Valuable biocomposites for many uses, such as food packaging, biomedical devices and for cosmetic purposes could be produced by polymer compounds. In this context, the blending of chitosan and gelatin to formulate films has been extensively studied due to the great biocompatibility and nontoxic, biodegradable nature of the resulting materials [34, 35] .

The Green Paper of the European Commission (2008) [21] defines the biowaste (BW) as "Biodegradable garden and park waste, food and kitchen waste from households, restaurants, caterers and retail premises, and comparable waste from food processing plants. It does not include forestry or agricultural residues, manure, sewage sludge, or other biodegradable waste such as natural textiles, paper or processed wood." So, solid waste can be classified into different types depending on their source: (a) Household waste commonly classified as municipal waste, (b) industrial waste that can be either hazardous or non-hazardous, and (c) biomedical waste or hospital/clinical waste which can be either infectious or non-infectious waste. Another classification for biomedical waste is defined as (1) "hazardous" when the waste itself or the material or substances it contains are harmful to humans and/or the environment and (2) "offensive" waste, which primarily contains waste that is considered unpleasant due to its appearance and smell, for instance incontinence waste [22] ( Figure S1 ).

Healthcare waste or biomedical waste is generated during the diagnosis, treatment, or immunization of human beings or animals or in research activities in these fields. Mastorakis et al. [36] defined "Biomedical waste as any solid and/or liquid waste including its container and any intermediate product, which is generated during the diagnosis, treatment or immunization of human beings or animals or in research pertaining there to or in the production or testing thereof."

BMW is composed of human anatomical waste; microbiological and biotechnological waste; sharps such as syringes, needles, scalpels, broken glass; discarded medicines and drugs; liquid wastes (blood, body fluid solutions, inorganic salts, etc.); and solid waste such as dressings, bandages, plaster casts, chemical waste, incinerator ash generated from hospitals and research centers. It can be hazardous or non-hazardous, and moreover, it can be infectious/ risk or non-infectious/non-risk. Examples of hazardous waste include discarded blood, sharps, unwanted microbiological cultures and stocks, identifiable body parts, other human or animal tissue, used bandages and dressings, discarded gloves, other medical supplies that may have been in contact with blood, saliva, and body fluids, and laboratory waste. Waste sharps include potentially contaminated used (and unused discarded) needles, scalpels, lancets, and other devices capable of penetrating skin. Common generators (or producers) of biomedical waste include hospitals, health clinics, nursing homes, medical research laboratories, offices of physicians, dentists, and veterinarians, home healthcare, and funeral homes. In healthcare facilities (i.e., hospitals, clinics, doctors' offices, veterinary hospitals, and clinical laboratories), waste with these characteristics may alternatively be called medical or clinical waste (MW). Finally, it can be solid or liquid medical waste. Liquid waste may be divided into (a) liquid reagents/chemicals discarded and (b) the cleaning and washing water channeled into the drain. Non-hazardous waste disposed of in the hazardous/clinical waste stream can often be 50-90% [37] .

As it is well understood, a proper waste management system should be required to dispose this hazardous BMW. Several methods have been employed including incineration, steam sterilization, microwave sanitation, chemical disinfection, dry heat disinfection, and superheated steam disinfection. The most used technology so far for the treatment of BMW is incineration [38] . In Figure S2 , not only incineration is depicted but also other methodologies according to the categorization of biodegradable versus non-biodegradable. The incineration process destroys pathogens and reduces waste volume by 90% and weight by 75%. Incineration usually involves the combustion of mingled solid waste with the presence of air or enough oxygen. Temperature of incinerator is more than 850°C and the waste is converted into carbon dioxide and water. The incineration of hospital wastes not only releases toxic acid gases (CO, CO 2 , NO 2 , SO 2 , etc.), dioxides, into the environment but also leaves a solid material called ash as residue including bottom ash and fly ash which increases the levels of heavy metals, inorganic salts, and organic compounds [39, 40] . For example, higher concentration of heavy metals and dioxins such as polychlorinated dibenzodioxin (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) was observed in medical waste incinerator ash [41] . Also, Zhao et al. [42] investigated the levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in different types of hospital waste incinerator ashes and found mean PAH levels in the range from 4.16 to 198.92 mg kg −1 while the mean concentration of carcinogenic PAHs ranged from 0.74 to 96.77 mg kg −1 . Also mentioned elsewhere, the incineration plants seem to be the main source of environmental damage due to the formation of dioxins and mercury [40] . Furthermore, the disposal of BMW ash in landfill may lead to contamination of groundwater due to metals presence in the leachate [40] .

The limited space and the high cost for land disposal were serious but not the only reasons for the development of recycling technologies. But certainly, such factors led to the reuse of the previous mentioned ash in different systems for the last almost two decades. This means that there was a successful utilization of biomedical waste ash in agriculture as fertilizer and in the construction sector in order to minimize leaching of the previous mentioned hazardous components [40] .

Generally, for BMW with a significant impact on health and environment due to the hazardous, infectious, and toxic materials it contains, incineration seems to be the best technology to reduce the volume of this hazardous waste as proposed by many authors. Currently, several process equipment including autoclaves, hydroclaves, pyrolysis reactors, and incineration chambers have been used for the treatment of healthcare waste. Microwave energy is another alternative option for the direct delivery of energy to microwave-absorbing materials, which allows the volumetric heating of samples. This technology raises minimal concerns regarding air, water, and solid residues. To further reduce the carbon footprint, segregation between contaminated and non-contaminated waste and the subsequent inactivation of contaminated parts might also be a good step in this direction (Tables 1 and 2). Medical waste-Incineration (rotary kiln or fixed bed). Chemical and thermal dynamics characteristics of the waste determine the size and operating condition of the incineration facility Different types of dust precipitation and absorption towers will be used for flue gas purification to ensure the stability and efficiency of the medical waste incineration.

The incineration technology can achieve environmentally sound disposal, reduction and recycling of the waste, but it has also its limitation; for example, the flue gas generated from the incineration process will cause environmental pollution.

Biowaste-AD-Landfilling, aerobic and anaerobic biological treatment, incineration and recycling Avoided global warming, acidification and resource depletion when AD is implemented for the management of bio-waste. Kumari et al.

(2013) [8] Biomedical waste-Autoclaving, shredding and incineration Different categories-colour coding for waste segregation

Cost of incineration could be minimized by segregation which reduces to 8e10% of the total waste.

Step-by-step approach for establishing Biomedical waste management (BMWM) System in tertiary level hospital. Ahamed et al.

(2016) [31] Biowaste-AD Comparison with biodiesel production AD is favored when bio-waste has an oil content <5%. Zimmermann (2017) [49] Biomedical waste-Microwave The waste should be preferably inactivated either directly at the place where it is generated, or biohazardous waste Microwave technologies allow a validated inactivation of biohazardous materials. Medical Waste-Incineration by thermal treatment. Temperature of the flue gas is at least 850°C for the non-infectious waste, and at least 1100°C for the waste with the infectious properties.

The incineration plant must contain at least one auxiliary burner. The flue gas generated during the process should be removed to the atmosphere, after its purification.

A mobile medical waste incinerator was proposed in Poland. The novelty is a waste feeder into the combustion chamber, adapted to a mobile unit. Usage of the three-stage flue gas cleaning system. Zamparas et al.

(2019) [55] Healthcare waste-Pretreatment with sodium hypochlorite substitutes. Hazardous Waste and purely infectious liquids from hospital laboratories after pre-treatment can be discharged into the drainage.

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodology was applied under pair wise comparison matrices in two stages

The AHP methodology yielded good results.

Model was based on #3Rs module.

Healthcare waste-Pyrolysis Reaction temperature (300-700°C), residence time (100-190s) and waste particle size (1-3 cm). 

Pharmaceutical packaging waste has been continuously increasing over the years due to the increase in the number of its applications in everyday life. Globally, the pharmaceutical packaging market grew from 47.8 billion USD in 2010 [61] to 71.0 billion USD in 2018 [62] . Moreover, it is projected that the pharmaceutical packaging market will reach 111.9 billion USD by 2026 following a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.75%. Waste pharmaceutical blisters (WPBs) are one of the major segments of pharmaceutical waste packaging [63, 64] and consist of an average of 80-85 wt% of plastic films and 10-20 wt % of aluminum foils [65] . They are mainly disposed of by incineration and landfilling in municipal solid waste. Incineration of plastics may cause the release of hazardous gases such as dioxins, hydrogen chloride, and nitrous oxide, with consequent environmental impacts [65] [66] [67] . That is why the sustainability of WPB recycling along with sustainability in the whole pharmaceutical industry sector has become an environmental, social, and economic concern almost everywhere [ [68] [69] [70] . Separation of aluminum from plastic laminates through exfoliation has also been studied using different solvents such as organic solvents, acid solutions, basic solutions, and water. The hydrometallurgical separation of aluminum from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) has been investigated by dissolving the aluminum from WPBs using hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide as lixiviants [65] . Zhang et al. [71] investigated the separation of aluminum-plastic laminates in Tetra Pak® using a mixed organic solvent system of benzene-ethyl alcohol-water as separation chemicals. Another separation approach for waste packaging is the application of switchable hydrophilicity solvents that are separated from the extracted product by changing their polarity, upon the addition and removal of CO 2 . Others applied N,Ndimethylcyclohexylamine (DMCHA) to separate polymer and aluminum layers from packaging materials [67, 72] .

Further, electrohydraulic fragmentation (EHF) or high-voltage pulse crushing, or shockwave technology is an emerging liberation technique, where shockwaves are generated between electrodes using a high-voltage pulse generator, propagating waves in a liquid medium. The shockwaves pass through the solid (the target material placed in the liquid medium) spherically breaking it down into small fragments from the mechanical weak points or interface of metal and nonmetals. EHF is recently investigated for the separation of aluminum from the polymer in WPBs in order to make Al available for direct recycling at a secondary Al facility [73] . It was then reported that the investigated fractions of WPBs consisted of approximately 10-12 wt% of aluminum, with the clear majority of waste blister mass in the polymer fractions (88-90 wt%), which consisted of two overlapping layers [73] .

To add more, van Leeuwen et al. [74] , presented the creation of the Energy & Raw Materials Factory (ERMF) of the Dutch Water Authorities, known as the Resource Factory. Resources like cellulose, bioplastics, phosphate, alginate-like exopolymers from aerobic granular sludge (bio-ALE), and biomass can be recovered from municipal wastewater. Also, cellulose can be recycled from toilet paper. The recovered cellulose can be used in road construction, but further markets still must be developed. Bioplastics are formed using a complicated process during which volatile fatty acids (VFAs) are firstly produced and these VFAs are later fed to microbes which form the wanted building blocks for bioplastics. This can be considered as a form of up-cycling.

Phosphate can be recovered as, e.g., struvite (MgNH 4 PO 4 ·6H 2 O). In this way, phosphorus becomes available again since the recovered struvite can be applied as fertilizer. The extraction of bio-ALE from aerobic granular sludge can be considered as up-cycling since a more valuable product is produced from waste. At the end, the organic waste stream can be digested into biogas (energy). Bio-ALE is an alginate-like polymer of sugars and proteins and can be used in agriculture and horticulture, the paper industry, medical, and construction industries. Application in the Netherlands show that the concept of the ERMF is viable and adds to the creation of CE [74] . For the moment, these technologies are not adequate for full-scale use worldwide. It should finally be mentioned that the value of a resource in the CE is determined by the degree to which a recovered resource means an up-cycling of the original resource, and so far, this is not the case in these entities.

Plastic can either be "synthetic" or "biobased." Synthetic plastics are derived from crude oil, natural gas, or coal. While biobased plastics come from renewable products such as carbohydrates, starch, vegetable fats and oils, bacteria, and other biological substances. Most of the plastic in use today is synthetic because of the ease of manufacturing methods involved in the processing of crude oil. The strength, flexibility, and light weight of traditional oilderived plastics make them ideal materials for many applications, including packaging, medical devices, building, and transportation. Examples of synthetic plastics are the following: polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), and other plastics including acrylic, polycarbonates, polylactic acid (PLA), fibers, and nylon. Most produced synthetic plastics are single-use plastics, which, coupled with a throw-away culture, leads to the accumulation of plastic waste and pollution, as well as the loss of valuable resources. The growing demand for limited oil reserves is driving a need for newer plastics from renewable resources such as waste biomass or animal waste products from the industry. Narancic and O'Connor [75] discussed the advances and possibilities in the biotransformation and biodegradation of oil-based plastics. They reviewed biobased and biodegradable polymers and highlighted the importance of end-of-life management of biodegradables. Biobased polymers (bioplastics) are partly or completely made of biomass-derived raw materials. However, the biobased origin does not reflect the opinion that biobased plastic is also biodegradable. One hundred percent biobased polyethylene (bio-PE) and biobased polyethylene terephthalate (bio-PET) are not fully biodegradable [76, 77] . Biodegradable plastics such as thermoplastic starch (TPS), PLA, and polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) can be derived from renewable resources and are thus biobased and biodegradable plastics. However, there are also other biodegradables derived from fossil carbon, e.g., polycaprolactone (PCL) and polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT) [77] .

Chen and Tsai [78] evaluated the operational problems and risks of BMW by means of a failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA). In this case, the BMW life cycle was divided into seven processes: production, classification, packaging, sterilization, weighing, storage, and transportation. Twenty main failure modes were identified in these phases and risks were assessed based on their risk priority numbers. The highest proportion of the risk priority number score (27.7%) was due to failure modes in the production phase. The highest risk priority number score in the packaging phase (high severity rating) was attributed to the failure mode "sharp articles not placed in solid containers." The sterilization process had the lowest priority risk number in the treatment of infectious and non-infectious BMW and failure modes in the sterilization phase were mainly attributed to human factors (operators).

Additionally, in the Republic of Korea, the economic growth, environmental protection, science technology, art, social justice, and mutual voluntarism were applied to medical waste management [79] . Four systems were evaluated: incineration, incineration with heat recovery, steam sterilization, and microwave disinfection. Results showed that incineration with heat recovery is the best solution for BMW. However, when heat recovery is impossible, incineration without heat recovery becomes the next best alternative. That is the reason that 95% of BMW within the Republic of Korea is currently treated by both incineration and incineration with heat recovery.

In Pakistan, a life cycle assessment (LCA) was applied for the estimation of different impacts of current and alternative hospital solid waste (HSW) treatment practices [80] . Two of the scenarios used, referred either to incineration or direct landfilling of HSW. The third scenario included the use of pyrolysis and chemical disinfection of waste derived from both public and private hospitals. It was interesting to report that public hospitals produced a larger amount of HSW (74%) compared to private ones (24%). The researchers reported that poor regulations and absence of clear obligations for the collection, disposal, and management of waste are the main obstacles in order to implement good practices. The current established practices of the first two scenarios turned out to be the worst for all aspects such as human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, marine aquatic eco-toxicity, terrestrial eco-toxicity, acidification potential, climate change, eutrophication, and photochemical oxidation. In particular, the largest impact of all was recorded for human toxicity generated by incineration as mentioned before. The third scenario (alternative up-to-date practices) would generate lower impacts. It is important to mention that the highest value was recorded for marine aquatic ecotoxicity in relation to pyrolysis. It was then suggested that applying the third scenario, it would be possible to recover plastics, paper, and sharps. Moreover, they concluded that energy could be recovered from the pyrolysis process.

From the above, it seems that the establishment of rules to manage HSW and healthcare waste (HCW), which include waste from all private and public health sectors and not only in a solid form, is a great challenge. Regulatory agencies must ensure the safety of waste management alternatives for two very different profiles of generators: (a) hospitals, and (b) small sectors, such as clinics, small private offices, and pharmacies for two different profiles of HCW generators. Soares et al. [81] evaluated three management scenarios for small sector HCW generators. Each scenario consisted of a disinfection technique which included (a) microwave, (b) autoclave, and (c) lime. The disinfection technique was followed by landfilling and transportation was also included. Using an LCA and cost analysis, the decision-making tools aimed to determine the technique with the best environmental performance. This consisted of evaluating the eco-efficiency of each scenario. Based on the LCA, microwaving had the lowest environmental impact (12.64 Pt) followed by autoclaving (48.46 Pt). The cost analyses indicated values of US$ 0.12 kg −1 for the waste treated with microwaves. As a result of this study, the microwave disinfection presented the best eco-efficiency performance among those studied.

Additionally, Sanchez et al. [82] assessed the environmental and economic impacts of reusable and disposable blood pressure cuffs. Out-patient clinic and ambulatory procedure rooms and 5-day in-patient regular ward and intensive care unit (ICU) healthcare encounters were used. Environmental modeling using LCA was employed to estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other environmental impacts. Cuff, cleaning, and packaging materials were identified and weighed directly. Both per-encounter and per-day low-level disinfection scenarios were performed. Life cycle costs were determined with hospital data, including procurement, labor (time-motion observations), and waste disposal. It was found out that for all use and cleaning scenarios, the reusable cuff was environmentally preferable in terms of GHG emissions and other impact categories and in some cases by a factor of 40. Disposable cuffs are slightly lower cost in the in-patient setting where reusable BP cuffs are shared among patients and therefore require frequent cleaning. However, reusable cuffs are also more economical in the in-patient settings when patients have dedicated personal equipment (i.e., stays with them during their entire healthcare encounter).

Another issue of plastic pollution is single-use plastics for food beverages in hospitals that have attracted much attention in terms of elimination and mitigation measures in the health sector. Leissner and Ryan-Fogarty [83] examined single-use food packaging plastic waste in Irish maternity hospital settings, through a case study of ready-to-use infant formula bottles. A quantitative and qualitative assessment of single-use plastics arising from infant feeding bottles was presented. Quantitative examination revealed a high variability in materials used for bottles, teats, and associated packaging, thus creating difficulties in standardizing labeling and identifying appropriate waste treatment options. Quantitative calculations revealed the extent of plastic waste generated by this single-use product. Possible mitigation options included demand reduction for single-use bottles in the first place, alternative solutions to eliminate single-use bottles, opportunities for manufacturers to address product design, and impetus for policy makers to act on coherent labeling systems for materials and improved overall waste management.

To add more, a government study in the UK confirmed medical waste containers are among the top 20 items that account for more than 70% of the supply chain footprint. To reduce the footprint, it was suggested that manufacturers should report footprints of their products, reductions in quantity purchased, and sourcing of low carbon alternatives [84] .

Overall, nο specific guidelines are published for recycling and disposal of BMW in public health, although the need for reduction, reuse, and recycle of these wastes is discussed. In general, it seems there is a certain level of confusion at hospital and household sectors as to the best waste management method. The need for targeted collaborative research utilizing sectoral best practice, waste hierarchy, and CE principles is prioritized.

Dental waste (DW) consists of different categories of items and materials to dispose ( Figure S3 ). Basically, DW consists of paper, plastics, and cardboard that can be collected and disposed of with municipal solid waste that contains domestic-type, general waste [17, 85, 86] , or recycled materials if cleaned. Latex and nitrile gloves, sharps with visible traces of blood or other human body fluids, and discarded dental materials or equipment that have been exposed to blood and its derivatives [17, 87, 88] are considered infectious wastes. Infectious waste is classified as hazardous BMW as mentioned before [86, [89] [90] [91] . Blood-soaked/ dripping gauzes are also BMW and part of DW. They should be enclosed in a yellow biomedical waste bag covered with a double bag, labeled with a biohazard symbol, and refrigerated onsite for more than 4 days [92] . Dental practices produce also certain amounts of metals and chemical compounds with health hazards to people and the environment. Dental amalgam, fixer solutions, and chemical disinfectants [93, 94] are the common sources of such hazardous waste at dental clinics. Dental amalgam is a solid restorative material used in dental restorations for almost 200 years [95] . Amalgam consists of mercury and silver for more than 70% w/w and because of this, it is regulated as a hazardous waste. These metals can accumulate in the food chain and impose adverse health risks [96] . In January 2013, in Japan, delegates from over 140 countries after 3 years of negotiations finally signed the Minamata convention on Mercury. This is a new multilateral environmental agreement that addresses specific human activities which are contributing to widespread mercury pollution [97] . The treaty aimed to curb the significant health and environmental impacts of mercury pollution and included provisions addressing mining, export and import, storage, and waste management of products containing mercury. Importantly, a provision heavily negotiated in the treaty, addressed the use of dental fillings using mercury amalgam. Interesting to be reported is the directive 146163/12, which suggests that "dangerous chemical residues and waste with high content of mercury or cadmium should be placed separately into special resistant waterproof containers. Every container should be noticeably labeled according to content and different dangerous chemical waste should never be blended. Broken mercury column pressure indicators, impaired lead chest sand, damaged medical equipment should be all collected separately according to manufacturer's directions." The Hellenic Dental Association also highlights the fact that the waste of dental amalgam into the drainage or together with the domestic waste is an unacceptable and irresponsible action that puts the public health in danger [95] .

Other hazardous waste streams typically found in dental practices are fixer and developer solutions from X-ray processing units. Wastes from conventional radiography can be broadly categorized as solid wastes and effluents. The solid waste components associated with conventional radiography are the film box made of cardboard, vinyl wrap, black paper, lead foil, film, end boards, used lead aprons, lead boxes, and packaging components of processing solutions [92, 98] . The liquid waste products that are discharged into a body of water and are associated with radiography, consist of unused/used developer solution, used fixer solution, wash water, and developer tank cleaning solutions. Wastes having a silver concentration of 5.0 parts per million (ppm) or more are considered hazardous due to their toxicity content. Wastes that typically contain silver in concentrations greater than 5 ppm include (a) fixer (a solution normally used for the processing of dental radiographs), (b) rinse waters following fixer baths, and (c) solutions from cleaning developer tanks [99] . Silver is another heavy metal that can enter the water system via improper disposal of dental office waste. Of course, dental offices generate a very low amount of silver waste relative to other photographic processing facilities. According to published data, a batch-replenished processing of 450 size 2 dental films and eight 35-mm film strips, each 250 mm long, yields 830 mL of used fixer solution with a silver concentration of 10.90 g/L. Silver concentrations in used fixer solutions generally range from 8 to 12 g/L [88] . An additional by-product of traditional radiography is the lead shields contained in each film packet. Although the lead shields themselves are relatively small, the cumulative waste produced can be measurable. Reduction of lead waste could be evaluated by the replacement of the procedure with digital radiography which is in favor of use the past 10 years.

Except of the previously mentioned metals, dental study molds contain gypsum which, when landfilled with biodegradable waste, can produce hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S) gas. Hydrogen sulfide gas is highly toxic and malodorous. Also, gypsum has been banned from normal landfilling processes (containing biodegradable waste) and must be diverted to a separate cell for high sulfate waste [100] .

To add further, various impression materials containing polyvinysiloxane and polyethers are of great concern, because they are extremely stable, and the disintegration time is extremely long exceeding up to 20 years. Unfortunately, their future substitutes by means of 3D printing materials produce large amounts of breath hazardous emissions, requiring special infrastructure in order to minimize the volatile compounds emitted indoors, during their preparation. It is reported that more than one million kilograms of polyvinyl siloxane is used per year for dental purposes and more than 1.7 million liters of sodium alginate is used for relevant purposes in the EU [101] .

Finally, there are other chemicals, disinfectants, and sterilizing agents in the dental setting needed to be discussed here. It is reported that halogenated sterilants have a detrimental effect on environment while ignitable sterilants should not be poured down the drain as they have potency to explode. HCHO sterilants should also not be disposed down a drain. Pouring sterilants into a septic system, may significantly disrupt the bacteria which normally breakdown wastes [102, 103] .

Disinfectants are also widely used in healthcare settings to prevent cross contamination, outbreak of diseases, and hospital-acquired infections. Yet, the biocidal active substances that are so effective at disinfecting products, surfaces, and skin also pose a variety of potential hazards to human health and the environment. Recent studies indicate that biocidal active substances pose potential occupational health hazards and environmental threats and can even contribute to the spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) which is a global threat. The most reported occupational hazards related to the use of disinfectants are acute illnesses, respiratory issues and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), skin problems, eye irritation, migraine, or other neurologic symptoms [104, 105] . Some disinfectant ingredients are also allergens and have been identified as CMR (carcinogenic, mutagenic, and repro-toxic) [106] or endocrine disrupting [100, 107] . In terms of environmental impact, certain disinfectants have adverse effects on the aquatic systems due to high aquatic toxicity and/or low biodegradability [108] . Substituting these pollutants in the healthcare sector is therefore important to reduce the sector's environmental burden on sewage treatment plants and surface waters [109] .

Finally, there are metallic or plastic cutting dental burs that can be reused or used once and then disposed. A comparative LCA was carried out by Unger and Landis [110] to evaluate the disparities in environmental impacts of such disposable and reusable dental burs. The functional unit was defined as one reusable dental bur, where the maximum instances reused was 30 (or in the case of a disposable, the equivalent functional unit would be 30 disposable dental burs). Reusable burs had 40% less of an environmental impact than burs used on a disposable basis when ultrasonic and autoclave were loaded optimally. When these treatments were loaded to approximately two-third capacity, four environmental impact categories (ozone depletion, smog, respiratory effects, eco-toxicity) favored reusable burs and four impact categories (acidification, eutrophication, carcinogenics, and non-carcinogenics) the environmentally favored disposables. As reported elsewhere, single-use products are not less expensive and do not necessarily benefit the environment from the waste management perspectives [110] .

Suitable management options can be achieved by the identification of the quantity and composition of dental waste [111] . Hence, many studies on dental waste have been reported in different countries [112] [113] [114] [115] . Most of them have concentrated on waste composition. Kizlary et al. [85] reported that dental waste consisted of approx. 94.7% infectious waste, 2.0% non-infectious waste, and 3.3% domestic-type waste by weight. Ozbek and Sanin [112] also reported on dental solid waste (rubber gloves and paper) in eight clinics of a dental school. Eighty percent of total dental waste is infectious waste (including blood-contaminated paper towels, saliva-contaminated paper towels, saliva-contaminated cotton, extracted teeth (some of them having restorations with materials such as the dental amalgam or composite resins materials), blood-contaminated gauze, inseparable components, nylon and latex gloves, tongue blades, saliva ejector, and blood-contaminated cotton). Koolivand et al. [116] described that the domestic, potentially infectious, toxic, and chemical and pharmaceutical wastes constituted 35.46, 34.24, 11.83, and 5.56% of total waste, respectively. In a province of Greece, it was also reported a mean daily production in a private unit of 30.4 ± 48.7 g/day/unit for domestic, for the potentially infectious 336.9 ± 264.5 g/day/unit, and for the toxic 13.4 ± 13.7 g/day/unit [17] .

Regarding the real quantity of waste, Nabizadeh et al. [111] reported that production per capita of dental waste in general and specialist dentist offices in Iran were 48.72 and 65.87 g/day/patient, respectively. It seems that the generation rate of dental waste possibly depends on cultural, economic, national legislative, and learned dental procedures. Also, the variety of dental materials used is an important factor for the difference in the quantity, quality and rhythm of waste production. Comparing the previous mentioned results in Iran, with other countries such as Greece, it should be mentioned that there are differences as follows: (a) production per capita of 51.2 ± 19.1 g/day/person for the dentists trained in Greece, (b) 64.0 ±21.7 g/day/person for those trained in Turkey, and (c) 54.3±46.8 g/day/person for those trained in other countries [17] .

Generally, there is no effective activity for waste minimization, separation, reuse, and recycling in dental settings worldwide. In Iran [116] , the management of sharps, potentially infectious, and other hazardous dental wastes was not carried out properly, and these items were collected and disposed along with domestic waste. These findings agreed well with other studies where dental waste of 35.7% of dental centers is disposed into municipal solid waste without segregation and disinfection [114] . In Brazil, it was also reported that the waste management activities were confirmed as poor and unsuitable and far from the philosophy of CE [114] .

According to WHO and CE regulations, all health units should consider ways of waste management [117] . In this road, a larger healthcare facility should aim to establish a formal waste management plan. This plan should contain combined knowledge and decisions for all involved in the production, handling and treatment of wastes. A senior person at a healthcare facility should be chosen and made responsible for preparing the plan, collecting ideas from others, and, once agreed, promoting the way healthcare waste should be managed to medical and ancillary staff. At a smaller health center, the local plan would be a shorter description of the waste management arrangements that should be put in place in each medical area, as well as identifying who is responsible for good practices in each department, where the waste will go, and how it should be disposed of after it has been removed by a cleaner or porter. As such, for example, the Dental School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, which is a public sector, has an organized infection control committee consisted of four (4) academic persons which collaborates with auxiliary personnel (5 university employees) for the collection and disposal of the DW of the school. They come in terms with the local authorities and the recycling company for the disposal of the hazardous waste. Finally, they guarantee the sanitary chain within the dental school. In an early article of Tzoutzas et al. [118] , it is mentioned that dental clinics of the Dental School of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens produced daily large quantities of solid and liquid wastes. Until 2003, the typical practice performed by the dental personnel, i.e., dentists, dental chairside assistants, and the janitors was to dump most of dental solid wastes into household disposal cans and landfills, without any separation, sterilization, or even disinfection process. Used sharps (needles, scalpels, and burs) separated and stored in labeled yellow plastic boxes and instrument were also deposited in the municipal disposal areas. The law proposed a mandatory management scheme, describing the appropriate mode for collecting and handling the hazardous and infected medical wastes, commissioning either incineration or heat disinfection (sterilization) system. This law has been followed for the past 5 years at the Dental School and a university contract is in issue with a relevant disposal company.

In the after COVID-19 era, the necessity of such committees in all private and public health units nationwide and worldwide will excel. There should be clear delineation of responsibilities and funding that takes place chiefly at the planning stage. Planning should cover six objectives [119] : (1) develop the legal and regulatory framework for healthcare waste management, (2) rationalize the waste management practices within the healthcare facility, (3) develop specific financial investment and operational resources dedicated to waste management, (4) launch capacity building and training measures, (5) set up a monitoring plan, and (6) reduce the pollution associated with waste management. Climate change is a significant global health threat requiring concerted action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Duane et al. [120] provided the first systematic attempt to quantify the carbon emissions of a national dental service. Carbon accounting combined a top-down approach using input-output analysis for indirect emissions (procurement) and a process analysis (bottom-up) approach for direct emissions (building energy, travel, waste, and water). Energy and water consumption were based on meter readings, waste-related emissions from collection contracts and travel from staff and patient questionnaires. Dental companies were approached for carbon footprint data on their products. The carbon footprint for the service was 1798.9 tones CO 2 eq per annum. Travel was the greatest source (45.1%), followed by procurement (35.9%) and building energy (18.3%). Perhaps counter-intuitively older clinics had lower footprints than newer clinics as they are less energy intensive. Extrapolating the data suggests that Scotland's NHS dental service annually generates 0.16 mega tones (Mt) CO 2 eq (4%) of the total Scottish NHS carbon footprint.

To mention another case, in Greece for example, in the pre-COVID-19 era, the Dental School of Athens, produced daily approximately 700 L of waste. This waste was either hazardous or infected solid waste, containing paper, plastic, latex, various metals, glass, and remnants of dental materials. Heat sterilization was the most cost-effective method for handling infected solid waste, but it was necessary to create protocols for the safe collecting, separating, and sealing in proper colored bags in order to prevent human contact with them. So the Committee for Infectious Control of the School came up a with a strict protocol for the disposal of a large variety of dental materials used, such as composite and acrylic polymerics, metals, latex, nitrile, and vinyl as well as packaging materials such as paper, glass, various plastics, polystyrene, polypropylene, and cellulose ( Figure S4 ). Before the COVID-19 pandemic, in only one academic semester, almost 100 packaging (boxes 20 × 20 × 30 cm with dental packaging materials) were collected, of a gross weight 151.1 kg and net weight of 129.32 kg ( Figure S5 ). The materials collected were mainly polypropylene, polystyrene, polyethylene, and paper. After COVID-19 national legislation guidelines, all COVID-19-related waste should be treated, preferably onsite and then safely disposed. Due to the donning and undonning requirements related to the COVID-19 and the additional materials used for semi-critical surfaces covering, the quantity of daily produced disposals has been tremendously increased (almost tripled). For that reason, new, special construction, color coded, and relatively labeled large disposal bins of 120 L capacity have been additionally installed inside every clinic for the easier collection and disposal of the DW of the School.

From the economic part of the equation, during the COVID-19 pandemic challenge, professionals worldwide are doubted to fulfill the prerequisites for amalgam separators, ventilators, and sanitary options for addressing the pandemic. These guidelines are estimated to almost triple the disposal waste costs. Unfortunately, if no cheap bio-eco-recyclable materials are used in the dental field soon, a lot of dental units across Europe and globally will not be able to be in legal eco-function.

Overall, the lack of comprehensive data on quantities of dental waste reduces the ability to effectively manage environmental emissions. Consideration needs to be given also to the impact of patient travel, staff travel, and new clinic construction/renovation on the carbon footprint. It is at least a promising step nowadays that medical suppliers are encouraged to provide LCA for dental products in order to imply CE regulations.

All clinical waste handling and disposal procedures must comply with certain regulations. In the UK, these regulations are the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (including the Duty of Care Regulations), the Controlled Waste Regulations 2012, the Hazardous Waste Directive 2011, and the Carriage of Dangerous Goods Regulations. In the EU, the Communication of 28 January 2005 from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council entitled "Community Strategy Concerning Mercury," as reviewed on 7 December 2010 ("the Strategy"), aimed at minimizing and, where feasible, ultimately eliminating global anthropogenic mercury releases to air, water, and land [19] . In the past 10 years, significant progress has been achieved in the EU in the field of mercury management following the adoption of the Strategy and of a wide range of measures concerning mercury emissions, supply, demand and use, and the management of mercury surplus and stocks.

The EU Regulation 2017/852 reports six (6) main points: (1) Since 1 January 2019, dental amalgam shall only be used in pre-dosed encapsulated form. The use of mercury in bulk form by dental practitioners shall be prohibited. (2) Since 1 July 2018, dental amalgam is not to be used for dental treatment of deciduous teeth of children under 15 years and of pregnant or breastfeeding women, except when deemed strictly necessary by the dental practitioner based on the specific medical needs of the patient. (3) Since 1 July 2019, each Member State must have set out a national plan concerning the measures it intends to implement to phase down the use of dental amalgam. Member States must have already organized their national plans publicly available on the internet and shall have them transmitted to the Commission within 1 month of their adoption. (4) Since 1 January 2019, operators of dental facilities in which dental amalgam is used or dental amalgam fillings or teeth containing such fillings are removed shall ensure that their facilities are equipped with amalgam separators for the retention and collection of amalgam particles, including those contained in used water. Such operators shall ensure that (a) amalgam separators are put into service (since 1 January 2018) and provide a retention level of at least 95% of amalgam particles and (b) from 1 January 2021, all amalgam separators in use should provide the retention level specified in point (a).

Amalgam separators shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions to ensure the highest practicable level of retention. (5) Capsules and amalgam separators complying with European standards, or with other national or international standards that provide an equivalent level of quality and retention, shall be presumed to satisfy the requirements set out in points (1) and (4) . (6) Dental practitioners shall ensure that their amalgam waste, including amalgam residues, particles and fillings, and teeth, or parts thereof, contaminated by dental amalgam, is handled and collected by an authorized waste management establishment or undertaking.

In the USA, EPA [121] promulgated pretreatment standards in 2017 to reduce discharges of mercury from dental offices into publicly owned treatment works. The Dental Office Category regulation is codified at 40 CFR Part 441. EPA expects that compliance with this final rule will annually reduce the discharge of mercury by 5.1 tons as well as 5.3 tons of other metals found in DW [121] .

In Greece, the DW guidelines have been handed to dentists by the Hellenic Dental Association [122] , which under EU legislation is forcing each dental unit all over the country to have a contract with a local disposal company. Almost 13 years ago, a great number of dentists did not seem to incorporate the law [123] , something that has not change radically nowadays.

The European Council has held since 2014, a public orientation debate, on a legislative proposal amending six directives addressing the management of various types of waste (11598/14). The aim of this proposal is to improve waste management in the European Union, with a view to protect the quality of the environment and ensuring prudent and rational use of natural resources. More specifically, it reviews the legally binding targets contained in Directives 2008/98/EC on Waste, 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste, and 1999/31/EC on the Landfill of Waste, with a view to improving resource efficiency in line with the Resource Efficiency Roadmap (14632/11) and the 7th Environment Action Programme [24] . Other proposed measures include harmonization of definitions and calculation methods, simplification of reporting requirements, setting minimum operating conditions for Extended Producer Responsibility, and the setting up of an early-warning system to monitor target compliance. The proposal forms part of the Commission's Circular Economy Package (presented in July 2014), which also comprises a Communication on "Towards a Circular Economy: a Zero Waste Programme for Europe" (11592/1/14 REV 1) and a Communication on "Resource Efficiency Opportunities in the Building Sector" (11609/14). The Ministers' discussion was based on three questions prepared by the Presidency (14060/1/14 REV 1) and last December 2017, a new Directive on Waste was under construction [24] . There it was mentioned that the establishments and undertakings referred to in Article 23(1), the producers of hazardous waste, and the establishments and undertakings which collect or transport hazardous waste on a professional basis, or act as dealers and brokers of hazardous waste, should keep a chronological record of (a) the quantity, nature, and origin of that waste and the quantity of products and materials resulting from preparing for reuse, recycling, or other recovery operations and (b) where relevant, the destination, frequency of collection, mode of transport, and treatment method foreseen in respect of the waste [24] . Recently, in December 2019, the European Commission published a Roadmap based on the scheduled Circular Economy Policy of the EU, aiming to speed up the transition, from the linear economy to a sustainable products policy, since EU market for secondary raw materials remains to be further developed [6] .

The Dental profession in Europe, as expressed by the Council of European Dentists (CED), states that a clarification is needed describing who should make the data available to the competent authorities through the electronic registry or registries-the establishments and undertakings which collect or transport hazardous waste on a professional basis, or act as dealers and brokers of hazardous waste. Generally, it seems that the dental waste management in modern dental private or public settings is the new entity of educational and administrative management that will flourish the next decade asking from professionals to improvise or take advantage of extra funding from companies or national dental associations.

The future dental waste philosophy would be the three R's philosophy (reduce, reuse, recycle). So, from this day on, effective measures must be applied, such as reducing, reusing, and recycling (3Rs) or recovering energy mainly from plastic wastes from dental packaging.

To ensure the future proper management of solid waste, Thailand has established the National 3R Strategy and the National Master Plan for Waste Management (2016-2021). Furthermore, Thailand also launched a "Plastic Debris Management Plan 2017-2021," which comprises promotion and introduction of eco-packaging design and eco-friendly plastic substitution, development of the material flow for plastic containers and packaging inventory, implementation of the 3Rs strategy for plastic debris management, and the promotion of education for relevant stakeholders in the field of plastics and its alternative materials [124] . Moreover, more effective plastic waste management can be created by implementation of legislation or revision of the laws to improve the efficiency and reduce the amount of plastic waste, such as imposing plastic bag fees, strengthening the 3Rs measures, and encouraging the implementation of CE in plastic value chains.

In Japan, there are several laws/legislations for plastic waste management. The Packaging Waste Management Law, which was enforced in 1997, established a shared consumer responsibility approach for separating waste for collection, municipalities responsible for its collection, and industries responsible for recycling the collected materials. The Containers and Packaging Recycling Law in 2006, mentioned objectives such as the discharge of waste by consumers, separate collection of containers and packaging by municipalities, and recycling of containers and packaging by businesses that manufacture and use them. This resulted in the effective use of 62% of plastic waste as resources [125] .

Waste packaging that accounts for 33% of garbage is obvious that needs to be reduced. Many manufacturers are already cutting down on the amount of packaging for their products or making more of the packaging reusable or recyclable.

In this environmentally friendly way, many high-tech innovations in dentistry help reduce waste, like oral cancer diagnostics that create less waste than oral cancer rinse screenings. Further actions could involve purchasing often-used items in bulk (like prophy paste, gloves, masks, cotton squares, alcohol, antiseptics), requesting supply companies to combine orders in a way to cut down on shipping boxes, setting printers for double-sided printing, implementing digital technology for imaging, digital impressions, cancer screening, charting, marketing, branding, and using steam sterilization eliminating the use of hazardous chemicals. Also, by reusing dental equipment and materials, the need to transport it "away," the need to store it as trash, and the need to create a new item are eliminated. Single-use infection control items are the biggest source of trash in the dental office, sending billions of pieces of paper and plastic trash into the environment every year [126]. Paper and plastic pouches for sterilization, plastic chair barriers, plastic tray covers, and plastic head rest covers are tossed by the hundreds every week in the typical dental practice. Much of this plastic waste can be reduced by switching to cloth infection control and sterilization, which has been used in high-end hospital operating rooms for decades. By switching to reusable, a typical single-dentist practice can divert as much as 4,680 paper and plastic autoclave bags annually [127] . By transitioning from the twoply paper, one-ply plastic patient bibs to reusable ones, a practice can divert as much as 40,800 pieces of paper and 20,400 pieces of plastic from landfill each year [3, 4, 127] . Other plastic, single-use items can be replaced with stainless-steel ones that can be sterilized and reused for years, like impression trays. So it could be suggested turning to cloth sterilization bags and patient barriers, wearing cloth lab coats instead of paper ones, using a reusable face shield, reusing lab and shipping boxes, switching to stainless steel impression trays, suction tips, providing glass or ceramic "rinse & swish" cups, and using washable dishes and cutlery in the staff break room. Finally, recycling should be carried out more sufficiently in dental waste generators. Eighty-five percent of the water bottles only in the USA are not recycled every year, and most of the dental settings worldwide due to the time consumed do not recycle the paper and plastic packages of dental materials, a lot of waste would have been eliminated. Recycling in the dental units would consist of participating in an instrument recycling program, using a sharps disposal service that recycles them into building materials, recycling copy paper and choosing a medical shredding service that recycles the shredded paper, and providing recycling bins for staff break room waste. A good idea of recycling could be the use of aluminum foil as barriers instead of plastic. Aluminum foil is 100% recyclable. Recycling aluminum saves about 95% of the energy that would be needed to make new aluminum [127] .

Alternatively, to the previous suggestions, dentistry could benefit extensively if new biodegradable plastic-like products will evolve. Compostable/biodegradable bags have been developed and might be an option for barriers in the dental office. There are several alternatives to the regular plastic bag used as barriers. Compostable bags or toothbrushes are made from corn, potato, and soy starches which can break down in a natural environment in a matter of weeks. Other plastic bags are made with chemical additives that allow the bag to break down into smaller pieces faster with the use of UV light exposure and high temperatures. There are also new forms of textiles for medical/dental scrubs that can be autoclaved and reused in order to minimize the volume of wastes for both private and public dental sectors [22] .

So, eco-dentistry is the new philosophy that should change the way dentistry is produced in the future. From marketing and branding (e.g., bamboo toothbrushes and biodegradable floss picks as gifts to patients, plastic recycling container in the office, recycling signs in the reception area or check out, information cards on the dental equipment explaining that the business is committed to reduce single-use plastics) to the therapy session itself, the minimizing of the environmental footprint will thrive the profession to the next step and educate patients in green dental economy while at the same time will definitely improve the branding of the office. Maybe this is another aspect of the social offer dentists could bring into the field. This will ultimately have an economic impact well appreciated in society's facing the COVID-19 recession worldwide.

It is obvious that the circular economy is replacing linear waste economy through working groups and legislation in the EU and worldwide.

The BMW has different methodologies for disposal depending on the infectious or hazardous type of wastes. Landfilling of healthcare waste mainly contributes to the groundwater aquatic eco-toxicity and terrestrial eco-toxicity potential. Also, incineration is so far the best option involved in biomedical waste, but it contributes to the global warming and human toxicity potential. Finally, the three R's philosophy (reduce, reuse, recycle) needs to be employed all along the medical, pharmaceutical, and dental sectors.

DW management in modern dental private or public settings is the new entity of educational and administrative management that will flourish the next decade. Outdated incineration plants need to be replaced with autoclaving, steam sterilization, and comparatively reasonable new practice of pyrolysis to avoid the emission of toxic gases into the environment. Further, the replacing of disposable products with reusable ones seems to be a good way to tackle the problem of greenhouse and ensure resources for future generations.

Eco-medicine and eco-dentistry should be the new philosophies that will change the way these fields operate in the future for the benefit of the professionals/patients and the community.

Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s43615-020-00001-0.

Abbreviations LCA, life cycle assessment; CE, circular economy; BMW, biomedical waste; BW, biowaste; HCW, healthcare waste; HW, hospital waste; HSW, hospital solid waste; DW, dental waste; PAHs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; AD, anaerobic digestion; SWE, subcritical water extraction; WWM, ways of waste management; PCDDs, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins; PCDFs, polychlorinated dibenzofurans; WPBs, waste pharmaceutical blisters; PVC, polyvinyl chloride; DMCHA, n,n-dimethylcyclohexylamine; EHF, electrohydraulic fragmentation; ERMF, Energy and Raw Materials Factory; VFAs, volatile fatty acids; PET, polyethylene terephthalate; PVC, polyvinyl chloride; HDPE, high-density polyethylene; LDPE, low-density polyethylene; PP, polypropylene; PS, polystyrene, other plastics including acrylic, polycarbonates; PLA, polylactic acid; bio-PE, biobased polyethylene; bio-PET, biobased polyethylene terephthalate, TPS, thermoplastic starch; PLA, polylactic acid; PHA polyhydroxyalkanoate; PCL polycaprolactone; PBAT polybutylene adipate terephthalate; FMEA, failure mode and effects analysis; GHG, greenhouse gas; AMR, antimicrobial resistance; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CMR, carcinogenic mutagenic repro-toxic; NHS, National Health System; CED, Council of European Dentists Author Contribution All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. The authors declare their equal contribution in the work reported.

The economics of the coming spaceship Earth

Economic theory and exhaustible resources

EC (2011a) A resource-efficient Europe -flagship initiative under the Europe

EC (2011b) Road map to a more resource efficient Europe

COM (2020) 98 final Βrussels

Report: Treatment of medical waste in Nisava and Toplica districts, Serbia

Establishing biomedical waste management system in Medical University of India. A successful practical approach

World Health Organisation and health care without harm. Healthy hospitals, healthy planet, healthy people

Hazardous medical waste generation rates of different categories of healthcare facilities

Healthcare waste management: public health benefits, and the need for effective environmental regulatory surveillance in Federal Republic of Nigeria

Survey of medical waste characterization and management in Iran: a case study of Sistan and Baluchestan Province

The environmental impact of dentistry

Site investigation on medical waste management practices in Northern Jordan

Healthcare waste management: current practices in selected healthcare facilities

Composition, production rate and characterization of Greek dental solid waste

Evaluation of dental waste management in two cities in Palestine

on mercury and repealing Regulation

Vegetable waste treatment: comparison & critical presentation of methods, and treatment

On the management of biowaste in the European Union. Brussels, 3.12

Why reduces waste. Reveal marketing solutions

Are EU waste-to-energy technologies effective for exploiting the energy in bio-waste?

Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. The role of waste-to-energy in the circular economy

Investigating the effects of anaerobic and aerobic post-treatment on quality and stability of organic fraction of municipal solid waste as soil amendment

The effectiveness of anaerobic digestion of bio-waste in replacing primary energies: an EU28 case study

Using LCA to evaluate impacts and resource conservation potential of composting: a case study of the Asti District in Italy

Life cycle analysis of incineration compared to anaerobic digestion followed by composting for managing organic waste: the influence of system components for an Italian district

Applying waste management scenarios in the Peloponnese region in Greece: a critical analysis in the frame of life cycle assessment

Environmental and economic assessment of sewage sludge handling options

Life cycle assessment of the present and proposed food waste management technologies from environmental and economic impact perspectives

Environmental impact of municipal solid waste management using life cycle assessment: the effect of anaerobic digestion, materials recovery and secondary fuels production

A sustainability assessment for use on land or wastewater treatment of the digestate from bio-waste

Preparation and functional properties of fish gelatinchitosan blend edible films

Thermal analysis of gelatin-chitosan edible film mixed with plant ethanolic extracts

Holistic approach of biomedical waste management system about health and environmental risks

Common biomedical waste treatment and disposal facility

Medical waste management in Korea

Heavy metal pollution from medical waste incineration at Islamabad and Rawalpindi, Pakistan

An overview on characterization, utilization and leachate analysis of biomedical waste incinerator ash

Characterization and hazard evaluation of bottom ash produced from incinerated hospital waste

Chemical properties of rare earth elements in typical medical waste incinerator ashes in China

Overview of biomedical waste management in selected Governorates in Egypt: a pilot study

Utilizing a 'systems' approach to improve the management of waste from healthcare facilities: best practice case studies from England and Wales

Management of hazardous medical waste in Croatia

Comparative life cycle assessments of incineration and non-incineration treatments for medical waste

Health care waste management in Cameroon: a case study from the Southwestern Region

The 7th International Conference on Waste Management and Technology Key issues study on the operation management of medical waste incineration disposal facilities

Microwave as an emerging technology for the treatment of biohazardous waste: a mini-review

The impact on life cycle carbon footprint of converting from disposable to reusable sharps containers in a large US hospital geographically distant from manufacturing and processing facilities

Healthcare waste management in Asian developing countries: a mini review

Waste flow analysis and life cycle assessment of integrated waste management systems as planning tools: application to optimise the system of the City of Bologna

Dynamic assessment of economic and environmental performance index and generation, composition, environmental and human health risks of hospital solid waste in developing countries; a state of the art of review

Proposal of a mobile medical waste incinerator with application of automatic waste feeder and heat recovery system as a novelty in Poland

Novel composite materials as P-adsorption agents and their potential application as fertilizers

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) formation during the fast pyrolysis of hazardous health-care waste

Life cycle assessment of advanced wastewater treatment processes: Involving 126 pharmaceuticals and personal care products in life cycle inventory

Life cycle assessment of a very small organic Rankine cycle and municipal solid waste incinerator for infectious medical waste

O, Mosharraf A (2020) A preliminary life cycle assessment on healthcare waste management in Chittagong City

A bi-level and robust optimization-based framework for a hazardous waste management problem: A real-world application

Environmental Impact of the Pharmaceutical Packaging

Pharmaceutical Packaging Market Report; Contract Pharma

Recent trends and future of pharmaceutical packaging technology

Separation of aluminum and plastic by metallurgy method for recycling waste pharmaceutical blisters

Influence of temperature on the composition and calorific value of gases produced during the pyrolysis of waste pharmaceutical blisters

Kinetics and leaching behaviors of aluminum from pharmaceutical blisters in sodium hydroxide solution

Cleaner and profitable industrial technology for full recovery of metallic and non-metallic fraction of waste pharmaceutical blisters using switchable hydrophilicity solvents

Rx for smart hospital purchasing decisions: The impact of package design within US hospital supply chain

Eco friendly pharmaceutical packaging material

Economic cost recovery in the recycling of packaging waste: the case of Portugal

Separation properties of aluminium-plastic laminates in postconsumer Tetra Pak with mixed organic solvent

Application of switchable hydrophilicity solvents for recycling multilayer packaging materials

Electrohydraulic fragmentation of aluminum and polymer fractions from waste pharmaceutical blisters

The energy & raw materials factory: role and potential contribution to the circular economy of the Netherlands

Plastic waste as a global challenge: are biodegradable plastics the answer to the plastic waste problem? Microbiol

Biobased plastics and bionanocomposites: current status and future opportunities

Evaluating the operational risks of biomedical waste using failure mode and effects analysis

Sustainability and shared smart and mutual green growth (SSaM-GG) in Korean medical waste management

LCA of hospital solid waste treatment alternatives in a developing country: the case of District Swat

Applications of life cycle assessment and cost analysis in health care waste management

Environmental and economic comparison of reusable and disposable blood pressure cuffs in multiple clinical settings

Challenges and opportunities for reduction of single use plastics in healthcare: a case study of single use infant formula bottles in two Irish maternity hospitals

Identifying high greenhouse gas intensity procured items for the NHS in England

Composition and production rate of dental solid waste in Xanthi, Greece: variability among dentist groups

Economia circular e Medicina Dentaria Maxillaris

Medical waste management in Turkey: a case study of Istanbul

Dental office waste -public health and ecological risk

Biomedical waste management in nursing homes and smaller hospitals in Delhi

Healthcare waste management in the capital city of Mongolia

WHO (2005) Management of solid healthcare waste at primary health-care centers: a decision-making guide

Waste management in dental office

Amalgam waste management

Still using amalgam? The dental amalgam controversy. (English/Greek)

The Minamata Convention on Mercury: attempting to address the global controversy of dental amalgam use and mercury waste disposal

Radiographic waste management-an overlooked necessity

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2003) Managing photographic and X ray waste. Waste/Hazardous Waste #4

Regulated medical waste (RMW) minimization strategies. Step 7. Review specialty RMW streams: sharps management

Standards of clinical waste management in UK hospitals

Biomedical waste management for health care industry

Health problems and disinfectant product exposure among staff at a large multispecialty hospital

Association of Occupational Exposure to Disinfectants with Incidence of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease among US Female Nurses

Vienna City Administration (2012) The Viennese Database for Disinfectants (WIDES)

Occupational exposure to pesticides and other biocides and risk of thyroid cancer

Toxicity on aquatic organisms exposed to secondary effluent disinfected with chlorine, peracetic acid, ozone and UV radiation

Disinfection by-products formation and ecotoxicological effects of effluents treated with peracetic acid: a review

Comparative life cycle assessment of reused versus disposable dental burs

Composition and production rate of dental solid waste and associated management practices in Hamedan

A study of the dental solid waste produced in a school of dentistry in Turkey

Dental health care waste disposal among private dental practices in Bangalore City

Dental waste management in municipal health clinics in Belo Horizonte

Investigating solid waste production and associated management practices in private dental units

Investigating composition and production rate of health care waste and associated management practices in Bandar Abbass

Safe management of wastes from health-care activities

The disposal of solid dental waste in the Dental School of the University of Athens

World Health Organization (WHO) (2004) Review of health impacts from microbiological hazards in health-care wastes

Taking a bite out of Scotland's dental carbon emissions in the transition to a low carbon future

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2017) Dental effluent guidelines

Dental amalgam. Survival under restrictions or withdrawal? Hellenic Dental Association eds

Investigation of the dental waste production in dental units of Thessaloniki

2019) 3Rs policy and plastic waste management in Thailand

World atlas (2017) The concept of eco-efficiency: why is it so important for the modern world?

COM. Green paper on the management of bio-waste in the European Union Circular Economy and Sustainability