The hygiene product waste conundrum

Emma Thompson-Brewster; Zoie Symons

doi:10.1071/CJv32n2abs

Objective: There is a global shift towards a circular economy prioritising resource recovery and waste minimisation (Fig. 1). Within health and care systems, this transition is particularly challenging. Health care workers and carers are acutely aware of the trade-off between infection control, dignity, and safety on the one hand, and the large volumes of waste generated by single-use absorbent hygiene products (AHPs) on the other. AHP waste outcomes are not determined by individual choice alone, but by the systems in which products are designed, supplied, collected, and managed. Addressing AHP waste requires a shift in responsibility away from users and carers, and towards supply chains, policy frameworks, and waste management systems. This article reviews the major drivers of AHP waste management systems in Australia. Review: The first driver is that our waste management strategies are not explicitly designed to address AHPs. National and State waste policies – which form the requirements for local level waste management – tend to focus on priority streams such as food organics, garden organics, packaging plastics, and single-use items. AHPs are composite products, containing plastics, cellulose, fibres, superabsorbent polymers, and human excreta. As a result, AHPs fall between regulatory categories and remain largely invisible within the targets that guide local government waste services. A second facet is a lack of awareness that adult use is a much higher producer of AHP waste than infant use, and the large volume of this waste. AHPs make up as much as 30% of the leftover residual (non-recyclable) waste volume.1 Most of these users are still living at home,2 making point source collection challenging. Additional collections increase costs and greenhouse gas emissions from transport, thereby reducing feasibility. Furthermore, recycling adult AHPs presents additional challenges due to regulatory compliance and market acceptance of recovered materials. Finally, the alternatives to landfilling AHPs are incineration, recycling or a system shift to only biodegradable products which go to biological processing. Incineration of residual waste (not clinical) has historically had low uptake in Australia and is an unlikely to replace landfilling here. Recycling requires both consistent feedstock and stable, high-value markets for recovered outputs – conditions that are difficult to achieve across Australia's population. A transition to fully biodegradable AHPs compatible with biological treatment requires major changes to product standards, supply chains, and procurement pathways, which are not yet viable at scale. Despite these challenges, significant progress is underway. Full-scale AHP recycling facilities exist internationally and within Australia, biodegradable AHPs are already on the market, and alternative approaches and continuously being studied. Conclusions: To enable a national shift in AHP waste management, three conditions are critical: (a) economic and regulatory incentives through policy drivers, (b) secure supply of feed (used AHPs) and viable markets for recovered products, and (c) locally tailored solutions that align with the operational strengths of councils and existing waste systems. Continence researchers and practitioners have a key role in informing evidence-based policy, advocating for system-level change, and ensuring that waste management reforms support dignity, equity, and quality of care for people managing incontinence

The hygiene product waste conundrum

Files and links (1)

Related links

Metrics

Abstract

Details

The hygiene product waste conundrum

Files and links (1)

Related links

Metrics

Abstract

Details

Southern Cross University Social media