Amid COVID-19, there have been rampant increase in the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) kits by frontline health and sanitation communities, to reduce the likelihoods of infections. The used PPE kits, potentially being infectious, pose a threat to human health, terrestrial, and marine ecosystems, if not scientifically handled and disposed. However, with stressed resources on treatment facilities and lack of training to the health and sanitation workers, it becomes vital to vet different options for PPE kits disposal, to promote environmentally sound management of waste. Given the various technology options available for treatment and disposal of COVID-19 patients waste, Life Cycle Assessment, i.e., cradle to grave analysis of PPE provides essential guidance in identifying the environmentally sound alternatives. In the present work, Life Cycle Assessment of PPE kits has been performed using GaBi version 8.7 under two disposal scenarios, namely landfill and incineration (both centralized and decentralized) for six environmental impact categories covering overall impacts on both terrestrial and marine ecosystems, which includes Global Warming Potential (GWP), Human Toxicity Potential (HTP), Eutrophication Potential (EP), Acidification Potential (AP), Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential (FAETP) and Photochemical Ozone Depletion Potential (POCP). Considering the inventories of PPE kits, disposal of PPE bodysuit has the maximum impact, followed by gloves and goggles, in terms of GWP. The use of metal strips in face-mask has shown the most significant HTP impact. The incineration process (centralized−3816 kg CO2 eq. and decentralized−3813 kg CO2 eq.) showed high GWP but significantly reduced impact w.r.t. AP, EP, FAETP, POCP and HTP, when compared to disposal in a landfill, resulting in the high overall impact of landfill disposal compared to incineration. The decentralized incineration has emerged as environmentally sound management option compared to centralized incinerator among all the impact categories, also the environmental impact by transportation is significant (2.76 kg CO2 eq.) and cannot be neglected for long-distance transportation. Present findings can help the regulatory authority to delineate action steps for safe disposal of PPE kits.

No abstract

Decision making in any field, like all other economic issues, involves allocating scarce resources to meet various needs. Since ages decision making has always intrigued the mankind. A host of research study has been conducted in past few decades on economics of decision making. A number of very effective decision tools have been suggested which falls under the category of multiple criteria decision making. The paper presents one such decision making tool called Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP), a technique for complex decision making used for large-scale, multi-party, multi-criteria decision analysis. AHP converts comparative evaluations to numerical values that can be processed and weighed over the entire range of the problem. A numerical weight or priority is derived for each element of the hierarchy, allowing diverse and often incommensurable elements to be compared to one another in a rational and consistent way. The objectives of the article are to understand the interrelationship between considered criteria and available alternatives, to grasp the basics of decision making and decision analysis and to use decision making and decision analysis in assessing the scope for cost-reduction (economics of decision making). The outcome of the study is a mathematical solution to the perennial subjective decision making process in the form of a structured methodology culled out from varied disciplines of economics, psychology and mathematics. The applicability of the AHP Model is demonstrated with an illustrative real life example.

PurposeSupplier evaluation and selection is an essential (multi-criteria decision-making) MCDM process that considers qualitative and quantitative factors. This research work attempts to use a MCDM technique based on merging fuzzy Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (F-TOPSIS) and Quality Function Deployment (QFD) ideas. The study attempts to find the supplier's attributes (HOWs) to accomplish its goals after determining the product's characteristics to suit the company's needs (WHATs).Design/methodology/approachThe proposed research methodology comprises the following four steps: Step 1: Determine the product purchase requirements (“WHATs”) and those pertinent to supplier evaluation (“HOWs”). In Step 2, the relative importance of the “WHAT-HOW” correlation scores is determined and also the resulting weights of “HOWs”. In Step 3, linguistic evaluations of possible suppliers in comparison to subjective criteria are given to the decision-makers. Step 4 combines the QFD and F-TOPSIS techniques to select suppliers.FindingsA fuzzy MCDM method based on fusing and integrating fuzzy information and QFD is presented to solve the drawbacks of conventional decision-making strategies used in supplier selection. Using the F-TOPSIS method, fuzzy positive ideal solution (FPIS) and fuzzy negative ideal solution (FNIS), the relative closeness coefficient values for all alternatives are computed. The suppliers are ranked by relating the closeness of coefficient values. This method permits the combination of ambiguous and subjective data expressed as fuzzy-defined integers or linguistic variables.Originality/valueQFD and TOPSIS, two widely used approaches, are combined in this article to rank and evaluate suppliers based on the traits that the suppliers choose to prioritize. This study demonstrates that the method employed could address multiple-criteria decision-making scenarios in a computationally efficient manner. The effectiveness and applicability of the method are illustrated using an example.

No abstract