| | ANALYSIS OF POST-USE HYPODERMIC NEEDLE MEDICAL WASTE |
| | 2,34 | | MB | DISPOSAL |
| | 100 | | stron |
| | 5234 | | ID | Georgia Institute of Technology |
| | 2004 | | rok |
| | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| | ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv |
| | LIST OF TABLES . ix |
| | LIST OF FIGURES xi |
| | SUMMARY xii |
| | CHAPTER 1 1 |
| | 1.1 Problem Description 1 |
| | 1.2 Research Goals 3 |
| | 1.3 Summary . 4 |
| | CHAPTER 2 6 |
| | 2.1 Previous Cost Models of Injection Equipment 6 |
| | 2.2 Injection Equipment Details 9 |
| | 2.2.1 Use of Injection Equipment 9 |
| | 2.2.2 Types of Injection Equipment 10 |
| | 2.2.2.1 Sterilizable Needles and Syringes . 10 |
| | 2.2.2.2 Disposable Needles and Syringes 10 |
| | 2.2.2.3 Auto-Disable Needles and Syringes 11 |
| | 2.2.3 Current Flow of Used Injection Equipment . 12 |
| | 2.2.4 Recommended Flow of Used Injection Equipment . 14 |
| | 2.3 Summary . 16 |
| | CHAPTER 3 18 |
| | 3.1 Cost Model 18 |
| | 3.1.1 Overall Model. 18 |
| | 3.1.2 Technological and Economic Costs . 19 |
| | 3.1.3 Burden of Disease 22 |
| | 3.1.4 Urban versus Rural. 23 |
| | 3.1.5 Needle Composition . 25 |
| | 3.2 Summary . 25 |
| | CHAPTER 4 27 |
| | 4.1 Experimental Data. 27 |
| | 4.2 Rural versus Urban 41 |
| | 4.3 Traditional versus Plastic Needles 42 |
| | 4.4 Sensitivity Analysis. 42 |
| | 4.5 Summary . 43 |
| | CHAPTER 5 44 |
| | 5.1 Model Description. 44 |
| | 5.2 Assumptions and Justifications . 45 |
| | 5.3 Results of Analysis 48 |
| | 5.4 Discussion of Results 52 |
| | 5.5 Sensitivity Analysis. 55 |
| | 5.6 Fractional Cost Estimates 58 |
| | 5.7 Summary . 61 |
| | CHAPTER 6 62 |
| | 6.1 Conclusions . 62 |
| | 6.2 Recommendations . 64 |
| | APPENDIX . 66 |
| | REFERENCES 86 |