2024 / 03

DOI: 10.24075/rbh.2024.109
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee: Pirogov University.
This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY).

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Ecological and hygienic aspects of solid waste disposal

Staheeva AA, Zakharova AA, Umnov NM, Drugova ED, Korolik VV, Sheina NI
About authors

Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Russia

Correspondence should be addressed: Natalia I. Sheina
Ostrovityanov, 1, Moscow, 117997, Russia; ur.liam@aniehs_in

About paper

Author contribution: Staheeva AA — full-scale experiment and online surveys, study results processing and description; Zakharova AA — research and online surveys, study results processing and description; Umnov NM — study results processing and description; Drugova ED — study results processing, visual content of the article; Korolik VV — literature selection and processing, article editing; Sheina NI — article conceptualization, literature selection and processing, study results description, article authoring and formatting.

Compliance with ethical standards: anonymous online surveys did not infringe on human rights, did not endanger the participants, and met the biomedical ethics requirements.

Received: 2024-02-13 Accepted: 2024-06-11 Published online: 2024-09-28
|
Fig. 1. Distribution of students by their motivation for separate collection of SDW (%)
Table 1. Share (%) of the surveyed SDW sites in central and peripheral districts (cities of federal significance) that meet the sanitary and hygienic requirements (SanPiN 2.1.3684-21)
Note: a — asphalt, c — concrete, s — soil (types of site surface); cc — concrete, b — brick, m — metal (site fencing material); с* — cardboard, p* — plastic, сp** — cardboard and plastic.
Table 2. Average number of SDW containers, central and peripheral districts of three cities
Note: significant differences (p ≤ 0.05), as shown by the Newman–Keuls test, between cities: * — Moscow and St. Petersburg, — Moscow and Sevastopol, * — St. Petersburg and Sevastopol; significant differences (p ≤ 0.05), as shown by the Student's t-test: — between central and peripheral districts.