Table 4.

Different treatment techniques for COVID-19 induced hazardous waste.

Sl. No.	Treatment techniques	Efficiency	Challenges
1.0	Thermal treatment	­Total destruction of COVID-19 related hazardous waste ­Simple operation technique with ∼90.0 % reduction in waste volume	­Generation of secondary pollutants (i.e. dioxin, furans, bottom ash) ­Energy intensive process with higher capital cost
2.0	Pyrolysis	­Total destruction of hazardous waste volume along with toxins (i.e. dioxin, furan) ­Savings in energy	­Specific requirement needed to be defined for heat value of the loaded wastes ­Higher capital cost
3.0	Microwave	­Less energy required due to low action temperature ­Can be used as mobile on-site treatment facility ­Less environmental impacts due to low gas emissions and less residual waste	­Sometimes autoclaving is required due to low spectrum of disinfection process
4.0	Dry heat	­Compatible with waste items which are polymeric ­Ensure the reprocessing capability of the materials used ­Reusability of PPEs are possible which can effectively manage the contaminated waste challenges associated with these items	­Decontamination of viruses (enclosed in particles) trapped in all layers is questionable
5.0	Chemical	­Effective control of virus through the destruction of its spores ­Quick and steady operation procedure with effective and broad disinfection spectrum ­Viable consideration during the manual waste handling (i.e. collection, storage, and transportation) application	­No reduction in the waste volume ­Absorbance of atomized particles of chemical disinfectants into skin can cause carcinogenic disease

Source: Ilyas et al. [54],Wang et al. [50].