JMA Journal

Figure 1. (a) Chart to classify infectious medical waste and non-infectious waste in Japan, (b) RMW disposal flow, (c) Photos of RMW containers (20 L cuboid, 20 L cubic, 40 L, and 50 L volume capacities).

Figure 2. (a-f) Improper discharges of RMW containers [(a) Improper sealing, (b) Container deformation, (c) Container contamination, (d) Container damaging, (e) Overflow, (f) Needle penetration], and (g) Locations of surveyed medical institutions.

Figure 3. (a) Average discharged container volumes from small-scale medical institutions (clinic, veterinarian, nursing home, and dentist), (b) Relative frequency distribution of average waste volumes, and (c) Inspection results of RMW containers (Proper discharge, improper sealing, container deformation, overweight, container contamination, container damaging, overflow, and needle penetration).

Figure 4. Comparison of “proper discharge” and “improper discharge” containers: (a and d) Improper sealing, (b and e) Container deformation, (c and f) Overweight (Note: [a, b, and c] Container number basis, [d, e, and f] Container number basis, Error bar is standard error, and p value of Welch’s t-test for statistical difference between proper and improper discharges).

Figure 5. Average compressive force to seal RMW containers in groups of gender, age, and container volume capacity (Note: Error bar is standard error and p value of Welch’s t-test in which significant difference between two categories was identified).

Figure 6. (a) Comparison between total discharged container numbers and improper discharge rate in each medical institution, (b) Average number of discharged containers from medical institutions with different improper discharge rates (c) The numbers of “proper discharge” and “improper discharge” medical institutions, and (d) Average waste volume discharged from “proper discharge” and “improper discharge” medical institutions (Note: p value of t-test for statistical significance of the correlation).