Download Hi-Res ImageDownload to MS-PowerPointCite This:Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 3, 1779-1786
Environmental Impacts of Surgical Procedures: Life Cycle Assessment of Hysterectomy in the United States
- Cassandra L. Thiel ,
- Matthew Eckelman ,
- Richard Guido ,
- Matthew Huddleston ,
- Amy E. Landis ,
- Jodi Sherman ,
- Scott O. Shrake ,
- Noe Copley-Woods , and
- Melissa M. Bilec
View Author Information
† Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, 153 Benedum Hall, 3700 O’Hara Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15261, United States
‡ Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 300 Halket Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, United States
§ Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, United States
∥ Department of Anesthesiology, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, TMP 3, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, United States
⊥ School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University P.O. Box 875306, Tempe, Arizona 85287, United States
*Cassandra L. Thiel, Ph.D. E-mail: [email protected]. M: (608)387-1985. O: (412)624-9870. F: (412)624-0135.
Copyright © 2014 American Chemical Society
Abstract
The healthcare sector is a driver of economic growth in the U.S., with spending on healthcare in 2012 reaching $2.8 trillion, or 17% of the U.S. gross domestic product, but it is also a significant source of emissions that adversely impact environmental and public health. The current state of the healthcare industry offers significant opportunities for environmental efficiency improvements, potentially leading to reductions in costs, resource use, and waste without compromising patient care. However, limited research exists that can provide quantitative, sustainable solutions. The operating room is the most resource-intensive area of a hospital, and surgery is therefore an important focal point to understand healthcare-related emissions. Hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) was used to quantify environmental emissions from four different surgical approaches (abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic, and robotic) used in the second most common major procedure for women in the U.S., the hysterectomy. Data were collected from 62 cases of hysterectomy. Life cycle assessment results show that major sources of environmental emissions include the production of disposable materials and single-use surgical devices, energy used for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, and anesthetic gases. By scientifically evaluating emissions, the healthcare industry can strategically optimize its transition to a more sustainable system.
Introduction
ARTICLE SECTIONS
The healthcare sector is a leading driver of economic growth and innovation in the U.S., with spending on healthcare in 2012 reaching $2.8 trillion, or 17% of the U.S. gross domestic product.(1) Globally, spending on healthcare services is expected to increase 4.4% a year with population growth and increased life expectancy.(2) Despite the significant local, national, and global impacts of healthcare procedures and facilities, the environmental costs are often overlooked. Resource consumption across this large industry has reached unsustainable levels in multiple areas, including energy consumption, material consumption, and emissions. Environmental campaigns within hospitals typically focus on waste reduction, yet with the size and interconnectedness of U.S. healthcare, supply chain impacts, energy use, and emissions are also significant.
There is no “magic pill” to reduce the environmental impacts associated with providing healthcare. Yet the current state of healthcare treatment across the U.S. and globally, offers significant opportunity for efficiency improvements, potentially leading to reductions in costs, resource use and waste, and environmental impacts.(3) U.S. hospitals are the second most energy intensive building type, cumulatively spending $8.8 billion per year on energy.(4, 5) Hospitals generate 3.4 billion pounds of solid waste annually, relying on the $40.3 billion disposable medical supply industry.(6, 7) Hospitals are beginning to scientifically evaluate the source of negative environmental impacts in current medical practice, specifically in regards to energy, but there is little research on environmental impacts. With better information, healthcare innovators can strategically optimize the transition to a more sustainable system, while maintaining or improving the safety, comfort, and health outcomes of patients.(8, 9)
Though still rare, the adoption of life cycle assessment (LCA) is increasing as a tool to analyze the impacts of healthcare and health systems. As medical waste is the most visible form of healthcare’s environmental impacts, many studies have focused on best-practices for proper treatment and disposal.(10-13) A burgeoning field set on reducing these long-term environmental impacts is developing methods and best practices to assess and ameliorate the impacts at multiple levels.(14-16) A study focused on the impacts of birth procedures, shows that multiple components of medical procedures have significant impacts, including: energy systems and material supply chain.(17) Other studies found that even aspects of procedures that may be commonly overlooked are found to have significant impacts, such as use of anesthetic gases (potent greenhouse gases), housekeeping routines, and potentially inefficient drug delivery methods.(18-20)
This paper presents a robust analysis of the life cycle impacts of a single surgical procedure, using four different surgical methods. Because the operating room (OR) is the most resource-intensive area of a hospital, understanding the environmental impact of surgery is critical to understanding healthcare-related emissions in general.(21-23) A hysterectomy, or the removal of a woman’s uterus, is the second most common major surgery for women in the U.S.(24) and was chosen for this study based on the four surgical approaches broadly used to perform this procedure: vaginal, abdominal, laparoscopic, and robotic. These four approaches represent the evolution of modern surgery from larger incisions and small tools held in the surgeons hand to smaller incisions requiring more sophisticated technology, at times even physically separating the surgeon from the patient. The hysterectomy, still performed using vastly different technology, allows us a glimpse at how these developments might affect the resource use and environmental impact of surgery, at a time when many types of surgery now have, or are actively evolving toward, minimally invasive approaches. Medical advancements may improve patient outcomes or reduce surgical complications, but they may also have co-benefits and co-costs which, with thoughtful future development, could be modified to reduce future environmental burden. Without developing baselines, understanding the co-benefits and co-costs is difficult. Opportunities likely exist for improving design or use of these technologies that takes advantage of medical advances while reducing costs and impacts. The results of this study aim to provide an important profile of the emissions resulting from surgery, which are vital to consider at this important time in healthcare, as we make decisions about cost, reform, access, and the impact on future generations.
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
ARTICLE SECTIONS
This research utilized LCA to quantify the environmental emissions of a vaginal, an abdominal, a laparoscopic, and a robotic hysterectomy in the operating rooms (OR) at Magee-Womens Hospital (Magee) of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC). Magee is a top-ranked, 360-bed teaching hospital, which performs about 1400 hysterectomies annually.(25) The site was chosen based on the surgical volume and distribution. LCA is an assessment tool that analyzes the environmental impacts of a product or process by aggregating the emissions at all stages of the life cycle, including the raw materials production, manufacturing, use, disposal, and any transportation between these steps.(26, 27) The functional unit for this study is one hysterectomy. The boundaries encompass the raw material extraction, production, use, and end-of-life of the processes and products required to perform each type of hysterectomy from the moment the patient enters the OR to the moment she leaves the OR, Figure 1. This research used a hybrid LCA framework developed for analyzing infant birthing procedures by incorporating process LCA data and Economic Input Output LCA (EIO-LCA) data.(16, 17, 28) Waste audits were conducted, and Monte Carlo simulations were used to quantify the variability and uncertainty in emissions for each component of a hysterectomy.
Figure 1
Figure 1. Boundaries for life cycle assessment of hysterectomy. HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, MSW = municipal solid waste, Path = pathogenic, RMW = regulated medical waste.
Waste Audit
To quantify and characterize the products and materials entering Magee’s municipal solid waste and recycling streams, detailed waste audits of 62 cases of hysterectomy were conducted (15 each abdominal, vaginal, and robotic, and 17 laparoscopic). The audits involved data collection from individual patients’ medical cases; therefore, the project team applied for and received Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval under 45 CFR 46.110.(4) and 45 CFR 46.110.(5) (IRB#: PRO11010250). Patients undergoing vaginal, abdominal, laparoscopic, or robotic hysterectomies for noncancer related reasons were identified and approached for participation in the study. Waste audits were conducted over the course of 1 year, with the target goal of auditing the waste from at least 15 of each type of hysterectomy so that variability in material use could be included in the Monte Carlo Analysis. Once a patient consented to participate in the study, researchers conducted a visual inspection of the OR prior to the surgery to ensure all previously generated waste was eliminated. Immediately following the surgery, the municipal solid waste (MSW) and recycling was collected, labeled with the case identification number, and moved to a secure storage location for sorting and weighing. Regulated Medical Waste (RMW), which undergoes autoclaving prior to landfilling, was estimated by quantifying the type of “peel packs” or package labels found in the MSW. Chemo/Pathogenic waste was calculated using uterine weights, as described in the patient records. Quantities of anesthesia and abdominal insuflation were calculated from patient records, as described in the Supporting Information.
Life Cycle Inventory
To create a life cycle inventory of the data collected through waste audits and site assessment, unit processes were assigned to each data, with preference given first to U.S. based databases, i.e., USLCI(29) and then the most robust database, i.e., ecoinvent.(30) All database selections were determined by comparing the physical description and application of the material to the unit process description. Impacts due to the transportation of material wastes were calculated using distances from the hospital to the landfill and recycling facilities based on waste hauling quantity data provided by Magee’s facility management. Database selection can be seen in the Supporting Information.
Certain unit processes were modified based on literature to more accurately reflect the product or process being represented. The USLCI electricity process was modified to match the energy mix of Pennsylvania for 2012.(31) Disposable gowns, drapes, and bluewrap from the OR are a type of polypropylene fabric also known as spunbond-meltblown-spunbond or SMS PP. As this material makes up a large portion of a hysterectomy’s waste stream by weight, the USLCI unit process for PP production was modified to include the manufacture of the textile beyond pelletization of the plastic.(32)
Impacts due to production and disposal of reusable linens were allocated based on the estimated lifespan of each linen type, as listed in the Supporting Information. Reusable stainless steel instruments were estimated to have a lifespan of 300 uses, based on a 2012 study of reusable surgical instruments.(33) Previous literature was used to supplement gathered data on the sterilization process for reusable materials and linens, as seen in the Supporting Information.(17, 34-37) Characterization factors for the global warming potential of anesthetic gases were taken from previous literature, as described in the Supporting Information.(19, 38)
Hybrid LCA Approach
Certain medical equipment used in laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies was too complex and expensive to be broken down accurately into representative components. To account for the manufacturing impacts from the medical equipment, this study utilized economic input-output LCA (EIO-LCA).(28) This combination of process LCA and EIO-LCA is called hybrid LCA and is used to address issues that may be encountered using each method alone.(39, 40)
The price paid per unit for each piece of medical equipment was collected from Magee purchasing staff and matched to the number of medical equipment used in each hysterectomy based off of package labels (peel packs) found in the MSW. The monetary values were evaluated using the purchaser price model in EIO-LCA, as the prices were reflective of what the hospital paid, and not the cost to the manufacturer. For the production and disposal of complex medical devices, NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) sector 339112 Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing, and sector 562000: Waste Management and Remediation Services were used, respectively. All monetary values were converted from 2012 U.S. dollars to 2002 dollars, the basis for the most recent EIO-LCA model.(41)
Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Environmental impacts from the inputs and outputs of the four types of hysterectomy were calculated using TRACI 2.1 for both process LCA and EIO-LCA.(42) Unit conversion was necessary to match the EIO-LCA results in impact categories Acidification, Carcinogenics, NonCarcinogenics, and EcoToxicity with the process LCA results, as seen in the Supporting Information. Embodied energy, or a summation of all energy used during the material’s life cycle, was calculated using cumulative energy demand (CED) version 1.08 developed by ecoinvent version 2.0 and PRé Consultants for process LCA,(43, 44) and the energy analysis function found on the EIO-LCA online tool.(28)
Monte Carlo Analysis of Variability and Uncertainty
Monte Carlo Analysis (MCA), or random number sampling, was used to account for the uncertainty inherent in life cycle inventory data and the variability of material and energy consumption for each type of hysterectomy at this hospital. It should be noted that material use will differ at other facilities, though most U.S. hospitals contract with the same material suppliers and utilize similar custom packs for a given procedure. The use of MCA allows this study to better understand the range of potential environmental impacts resulting from a typical hysterectomy.
This MCA randomly sampled numbers from the probability distributions of materials and their impacts, resulting in an overall distribution of the impacts of a hysterectomy. Distributions of individual material processes in each type of hysterectomy were calculated from waste audit data using the Anderson–Darling test. More information on the MCA and distribution identification can be seen in the Supporting Information. The resulting distribution was calculated from 100 000 random samplings. The 5th, 50th, and 95th percentiles, as well as the means and standard deviation for all impact categories, were reported for each hysterectomy as a whole. The impacts due to recycling, because they were negative, were not included within the MCA, but were incorporated as averages in post-MCA results. MCA results are included as error bars in result figures.
Results
ARTICLE SECTIONS
The results are presented in two sections. The first shows the characterization and quantification of materials and waste from four types of hysterectomy, in order to better understand the resource use of current surgical practices and the effects of advancing technology. The second section details the life cycle environmental impacts of resource consumption and energy use in each hysterectomy, in order to help inform potential reduction strategies.
Material Footprint of Hysterectomy: Waste Audit Findings
Waste auditing of abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic, and robotic hysterectomies determined the average material composition of MSW and recycling of each hysterectomy type. Across all four surgeries, SMS PP material, or gowns, bluewrap, and drapes, composed the majority of MSW by weight, from 22% by weight for robotic hysterectomies to 35% for laparoscopic. Gloves accounted for about 5% by weight of each surgery’s waste stream. Other types of plastics, from thin film packaging wrappers to hard plastic trays, made up a minimum of 36% of MSW by weight for vaginal hysterectomies and a maximum of 46% for robotic procedures. Paper from package labeling and cardboard varied from 5% of MSW for abdominal hysterectomies to 18% for robotic. No correlation was found between duration of surgery and quantity of waste generated.
Robotic hysterectomies produced 30% more MSW than the average of other approaches at 13.7 kg per case, as seen in Figure 2. Of that quantity, 22% by weight were gowns, drapes, and bluewrap (SMS PP), 50% were gloves and other plastics, 18% was paper, and 5% was cotton. Abdominal hysterectomies, the most common form of hysterectomy in the U.S., had an average total MSW production of 9.2 kg. Abdominal procedures produced the largest amount of cotton waste at 1 kg per average surgery or 11% of the MSW by weight.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Average material composition of nonhazardous solid waste (municipal solid waste and recycling) from a single hysterectomy by surgery type. SMS = spunbond-meltblown-spunbond.
Recycling was variable for each case, ranging from 4% of total material disposal by weight (0.4 kg) for vaginal hysterectomies to 8% of total material disposal by weight (0.9 kg) for laparoscopic hysterectomies. Researchers discovered nonhazardous, nonrecyclable materials in the recycling waste in 1 out of 15 cases for vaginal and abdominal procedures, in 3 out of 16 cases for laparoscopic procedures, and in 6 out of 15 cases for robotic procedures. Based on estimated material type and observed quantities of noninfectious MSW, recycling rates could be increased by 45 to 60% by weight for each hysterectomy type, reducing the total amount of MSW to one-third of the current average quantity by weight. A 1992 study resulted in similar estimates of recyclability of surgical wastes.(45) Unfortunately, the time and associated costs often prohibit the manual sorting of waste within the OR; however, this presents an opportunity for improved waste management models and systems.
Life Cycle Impacts of Hysterectomy
Robotic hysterectomy was found, on average, to have the largest environmental footprint over other hysterectomy types in every impact category analyzed, as seen in Figure 3. There is, however, significant overlap with laparoscopic, abdominal, and vaginal hysterectomies in the categories of smog, carcinogens, noncarcinogens, and ecotoxicity. The upper range of laparoscopic hysterectomy’s 90% confidence interval overlaps with average impacts of robotic hysterectomies in every category. Abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies show significantly smaller impacts than laparoscopic and robotic techniques in ozone depletion (ODP), acidification, respiratory, and cumulative energy demand. It should be noted that the error bars in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) are largely influenced by anesthetic choice, which varies based on anesthesiologist preference and is not indicative of the type of hysterectomy performed. Without anesthetics, abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies emit significantly less greenhouse gases, with a narrower confidence interval, than laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Total life cycle environmental impacts of an average hysterectomy by surgery type (normalized to highest hysterectomy type in impact category). Negative values reflect positive environmental impacts due to recycling; Error bars represent 90% confidence interval from Monte Carlo Analysis.
Disposable Materials
Cotton production has the largest footprint of all disposable materials, especially in toxicity and human health categories, despite cotton products making up less than 5% by weight of municipal solid waste streams. Production of SMS PP, the material used for gowns, drapes, and bluewrap, makes up about 25% by weight of an abdominal hysterectomy’s embodied energy and accounts for 1–24% of all other impact categories. Impacts of vaginal surgeries are similar, but with 20% less cotton by weight and roughly 3 times the quantity of paper, the impacts associated with the production of paper products such as paper labels and cardboard packaging makes up 1–7% of every impact category for vaginal hysterectomies. Disposal of MSW to a landfill or to an autoclave facility prior to landfilling accounts for over 40% of eutrophication and 8% of noncarcinogenic impacts for all hysterectomy types.
Anesthetics
Anesthetics are potent greenhouse gases. Selection of anesthetic varies based on anesthesiologist preference, per routine, and, as such, the results reported here are the averages of all cases surveyed. Selection of anesthetic can drastically affect the footprint of hysterectomy, as shown with the large error bars for GHGs in Figure 3. On average, anesthetic gases contributed to a third of the greenhouse gas emissions of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomies and two-thirds of abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies. For abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy, anesthetic use contributed to 98% of the ozone depletion potential. The types of inhalation anesthetics used, sevoflurane or desflurane either with or without nitrous oxide (N2O) as a carrier gas, are themselves greenhouse gases with ozone depletion potential. Desflurane has a global warming potential 20 times that of sevoflurane, as shown in Figure 4. Intravenous propofol was administered in 4 vaginal cases, and is not a greenhouse gas. As such, greenhouse gas emissions for vaginal hysterectomy from anesthetics varied drastically from case to case, from as low as 0.001 kg CO2-eq/case to 505 kg CO2-eq/case.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of anesthetics used in all hysterectomy cases based on surgery duration. Sev = sevoflurane, Des = desflurane, N2O = nitrous oxide.
Reusable Instruments
Reusable stainless steel instruments produce 8–25% of impacts for all hysterectomy types in the categories of smog, carcinogenic, noncarcinogenic, and ecotoxicity. They also account for 7–12% of respiratory impacts, acidification potential, and embodied energy of abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies. For toxicity and human health categories, this is mainly due to the production of stainless steel instruments, whereas the treatment and sterilization of the instruments is the primary contributor to the other impact categories.
Energy
Natural gas and electricity use from all hysterectomies accounts for about 40% of smog, 15–40% of acidification, and 6–10% of noncarcingenic and ecotoxicity impacts for all hysterectomy types. Energy use contributes about 28% of cumulative energy demand in abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies, 9% for laparoscopic and 6% for robotic, as the materials used in the latter two hysterectomies have a higher embodied energy.
A majority of the energy impacts, over 70%, are caused by the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) in the OR. Electricity required to run the machines in the OR makes up 10–30% of every impact category analyzed depending on the hysterectomy type. Lighting in abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies accounts for about 8% more of their environmental impacts in all categories, but only 1% in laparoscopic and robotic procedures. This is due to minimal use of OR lighting during laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies.
DISCUSSION: IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS
ARTICLE SECTIONS
Quantitative evaluations and data-driven solutions are needed to curb emissions and their resulting adverse health effects. Projecting the results of this study to the 500 000 cases of hysterectomy alone in the U.S. annually (assuming a mix of 40% abdominal, 20% vaginal, 30% laparoscopic, and 10% robotic(46)), the greenhouse gas emissions of U.S. hysterectomies is about 212 000 metric tons of CO2-eq per year. There are over 51.4 million annual inpatient procedures in the U.S.(47) Although total numbers of open vs minimally invasive procedures are unknown, the trend is toward minimally invasive surgery that drives up the amount of pollution generated within the OR.
Results of this study reveal a number of opportunities to improve the environmental sustainability of current surgical procedures, though it should be noted that the results of this study should not be used to dictate clinical care. This study considered only the narrow boundaries of the intraoperative period, without consideration for postoperative length of stay, which may be included in future studies. The footprint of specific procedures reported in this study appear to be less (and therefore preferable), but this study does not account for factors such as length of stay and postsurgical resource use, which may result in different emissions profiles.
As mentioned earlier, there is no single method to reducing environmental impacts associated with healthcare services. This study identifies aspects of surgical approaches with large environmental footprints so that informed and targeted reduction strategies may be implemented and future medical developments may be designed to minimize emissions. Table 1 lists the components of hysterectomy that contribute the most to specific impact categories as well as potential strategies to reduce surgery-associated emissions.
Developing Best Practices and Training: Selection and Delivery of Anesthetics
Life cycle assessment and other sustainability tools have a role to play in identifying and developing best practices for minimizing emissions. For materials such as anesthetics, environmentally preferred substitutions already exist and are currently being used alongside options with larger impacts. By educating anesthesiologists and appropriate staff on environmentally preferred anesthetic choice and avoiding excessive fresh gas flow rates, the ozone depletion potential and greenhouse gas emissions of hysterectomies can be reduced 65–95% for abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies. Switching to propofol or other IV or regional anesthesia techniques where clinically indicated would reduce ODP 3% in laparoscopic and 28% in robotic hysterectomies.
Impacts in the Supply Chain: Packaging and Purchasing
Most single-use disposable tools enter the OR in multiple layers of packaging. On average, about 20% by weight (∼2 kg) of the municipal solid waste for each hysterectomy originated as paper, plastic, and glass packaging for surgical supplies. This does not include plastic bluewrap, which is used to demark sterilized custom packs. Rethinking packaging strategies to reduce materials could have a significant impact.
Table 1. Components of Hysterectomy Contributing Significantly to Environmental Impacts and Potential Impact Reduction Strategies, A = Abdominal, V = Vaginal, L = Laparoscopic, R = Robotic, all = All Hysterectomy Types
Single-use disposable materials and tools accounted for a majority of environmental impacts in nearly every category. Over 95% of the single-use material impacts resulted from the production or manufacture of the items. The disposable surgical instruments used during minimally invasive surgery, in particular, incur a significant environmental and monetary cost, and health care professionals should carefully consider the impact of using increasingly disposable instruments. Reprocessing of single-use medical devices for reuse has been advocated as a strategy for cost and waste reduction. This may significantly reduce the environmental impact of surgical devices, although likely not to the same degree as reusable instruments. Approximately 3000 U.S. hospitals actively engage in third-party medical device reprocessing services, and the reprocessing industry is valued at roughly $400 million. The reprocessing industry’s current valuation represents considerable growth within the past decade, where in 2000 the reprocessing industry was valued at $20 million.(48) It would be prudent to utilize LCA to compare single-use, reprocessed, and reusable versions to ascertain the preferable environmental and cost solutions for otherwise equivalent medical devices.(49)
Though a majority of a hysterectomy’s impacts may be the result of decisions made in the product manufacturing and robotics industries, healthcare providers can drive positive change through their collective purchasing power.(50) For example, traditional cotton growing practices release many known carcinogens and toxic chemicals into the soil, air, and water. Though a hospital consumes only a handful of OR towels and laparotomy pads in a single surgery (cotton products represent only 5–10% of MSW in hysterectomies), the continued production from virgin, traditionally farmed cotton results in a quarter to half of the human health toxicity and ecotoxicity impacts in every type of hysterectomy. Hospitals can pressure their group purchasing organization (GPO) or material suppliers to manufacture OR towels with a reduced footprint or an environmentally preferred fiber.
Future of Technologies in the Surgical Landscape
Laparoscopic and robotic surgeries are minimally invasive, leaving patients with smaller incisions, less pain, and faster recovery times than patients undergoing open procedures. Although advancing medical technologies often means better outcomes, current laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomy also cost more and utilize more resources, especially packaging and plastics, and produce more waste, namely disposable electronic devices. The production of these disposable electronic devices results in significantly higher emissions related to ozone depletion, greenhouse gases, acidification, and respiratory impacts.
As technological innovation continues to improve medical care, more research should be done to ultimately reduce the environmental emissions and human health impacts of these technologies at each stage in their life cycles, including medical product design to close the circular loop of product emissions and environmental and public health concerns. Currently, medical product innovation and approvals are complex endeavors, especially in the U.S., with minimal or no incentives to reduce environmental burdens. Continuing research, such as this study, may create awareness for product designers, device manufacturers, and policy makers to enable or incentivize reprocessing, reusability, energy efficiency, and substitution of deleterious materials.
Healthcare is ready for more rigorous measurement of both greenhouse gas emissions and environmental performance. Future studies that accurately and scientifically evaluate potential solutions will help the healthcare industry strategically optimize its transition to a more sustainable system. Quantification tools such as life cycle assessment provide needed information about the source of environmental impacts and are a great asset for hospital decision-makers to set priorities for hospital and clinician practices, equipment upgrades, product sourcing priorities, and waste handling protocol. Across the whole healthcare industry, there is a profound opportunity to make healthcare services more efficient environmentally and economically without compromising safety or efficacy.
ARTICLE SECTIONS
Life cycle inventory: database selection and allocation details, economic input-output LCA setup and LCIA, Monte Carlo analysis. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
Terms & Conditions
Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.
Acknowledgment
ARTICLE SECTIONS
The authors thank Judy Focareta, Lori D’Ambrosio, Leah Swanzy, and Cassandra Jurgens for their support of this project.
| CED | Cumulative Energy Demand |
| Magee | Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC |
| LCA | Life Cycle Assessment |
| MSW | Municipal Solid Waste |
| RMW | Regulated Medical Waste |
| GHG | Greenhouse Gas |
| SMS PP | Spunbound-meltblown-spunbound polypropylene |
| ODP | Ozone Depletion Potential |
| OR | Operating Room |
References
ARTICLE SECTIONS
This article references 50 other publications.
- 1BEA. National Incomeand Product Accounts. www.bea.gov, 2011.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 2Rudish, R.; Eckstein, A.; Vettori, E.; Purdy, L.; Qu, Y.; Elbel, G.; Dhawan, A.; Lee, J.; Jaber, H.; Yap, J.; Adao, V.; Hammett, S.; George, R.; Copeland, B.; Wada, Y.; Vega, G. M.; Morris, M. 2014 Global Health Care Outlook: Shared Challenges, Shared Opportunities; Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited: London, 2014.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 3Pollard, A. S.; Taylor, T. J.; Fleming, L. E.; Stahl-Timmins, W.; Depledge, M. H.; Osborne, N. J. Mainstreaming carbon management in healthcare systems: A bottom-up modeling approach Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 47 (2) 678– 686Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 4Hendron, R.; Leach, M.; Bonnema, E.; Shekhar, D.; Pless, S. Advanced Energy Retrofit Guide (AERG): Practical Ways to Improve Energy Performance; Healthcare Facilities (Book); National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): Golden, CO, 2013.
- 5U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2007 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS); U.S. EIA: Washington, DC, 2012; Table H5, Major Fuels Usage for Large Hospitals, 2007.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 6U.S. EPA Profile of the Healthcare Industry; Report No. EPA/310-R-05-002; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 2005.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 7Freedonia Group. Disposable Medical Supplies: United States; Report No. FF40019; Freedonia Group: Cleveland, OH, 2014.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 8Costello, A.; Montgomery, H.; Watts, N. Climate change: The challenge for healthcare professionals. BMJ [Br. Med. J.] 2013, 347.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 9Kagoma, Y.; Stall, N.; Rubinstein, E.; Naudie, D. People, planet and profits: The case for greening operating rooms Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2012, 184 (17) 1905– 1911[Crossref], [CAS], Google Scholar9https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC38novVSmsQ%253D%253D&md5=a51c118ad5e9109c23b226f410a71104People, planet and profits: the case for greening operating roomsKagoma Yoan; Stall Nathan; Rubinstein Edward; Naudie DouglasCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne (2012), 184 (17), 1905-11 ISSN:.There is no expanded citation for this reference.
- 10Townend, W. K.; Cheeseman, C. R. Guidelines for the evaluation and assessment of the sustainable use of resources and of wastes management at healthcare facilities Waste Manage. Res. 2005, 23 (5) 398– 408[Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar10https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BD2MrpsFWguw%253D%253D&md5=42970770c932aa47795927cd326106e9Guidelines for the evaluation and assessment of the sustainable use of resources and of wastes management at healthcare facilitiesTownend William K; Cheeseman Christopher RWaste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA (2005), 23 (5), 398-408 ISSN:0734-242X.This paper presents guidelines that can be used by managers of healthcare facilities to evaluate and assess the quality of resources and waste management at their facilities and enabling the principles of sustainable development to be addressed. The guidelines include the following key aspects which need to be considered when completing an assessment. They are: (a) general management; (b) social issues; (c) health and safety; (d) energy and water use; (e) purchasing and supply; (f) waste management (responsibility, segregation, storage and packaging); (g) waste transport; (h) recycling and re-use; (i) waste treatment; and (j) final disposal. They identify actions required to achieve a higher level of performance which can readily be applied to any healthcare facility, irrespective of the local level of social, economic and environmental development. The guidelines are presented, and the characteristics of facilities associated with sustainable (level 4) and unsustainable (level 0) healthcare resource and wastes management are outlined. They have been used to assess a major London hospital, and this highlighted a number of deficiencies in current practice, including a lack of control over purchasing and supply, and very low rates of segregation of municipal solid waste from hazardous healthcare waste.
- 11Tudor, T. L.; Townend, W. K.; Cheeseman, C. R.; Edgar, J. E. An overview of arisings and large-scale treatment technologies for healthcare waste in the United Kingdom Waste Manage. Res. 2009, 27 (4) 374– 383[Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar11https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BD1MvktFCntw%253D%253D&md5=140e33851c183851c48e339298b95fd6An overview of arisings and large-scale treatment technologies for healthcare waste in the United KingdomTudor Terry L; Townend William K; Cheeseman Christopher R; Edgar Jen EWaste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA (2009), 27 (4), 374-83 ISSN:0734-242X.This paper reviews the current generation and management of healthcare waste in the United Kingdom, with a focus on that produced from healthcare provision in the National Health Service. While the current capacities of large-scale off-site treatment systems are adequate, there are a number of logistical factors that must be considered in future. These include variations in arisings from each country and from various regions within each country, the age and location of treatment/disposal facilities, the quantities, types and sources of healthcare waste, and the impact of waste minimization and recycling strategies. Managing UK healthcare waste is a complex issue that requires the correct technologies and capacities to be available. With increasing quantities and costs there is urgent need for future planning, and healthcare waste issues need to be addressed from a UK-wide perspective. Holistic strategies need to incorporate both minimization and segregation, with treatment using a combination of incineration and alternatives treatment technologies. The need for more research and accurate data to provide an evidence-base for future decision-making is highlighted.
- 12Allen, M. R. Effective pollution prevention in healthcare environments J. Cleaner Prod. 2006, 14 (6–7) 610– 615
- 13Zimmer, C. Minimum impact. Reducing the detrimental effects of hospital waste Health Facil. Manage. 2012, 25 (3) 43– 44
47
[PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar13https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC38rms1Sktw%253D%253D&md5=ed1885e1144e3e2357b16d7b3aeb689fMinimum impact. Reducing the detrimental effects of hospital wasteZimmer CatherineHealth facilities management (2012), 25 (3), 43-4, 47 ISSN:0899-6210.There is no expanded citation for this reference. - 14Kwakye, G.; Brat, G. A.; Makary, M. A. Green surgical practices for health care Arch. Surg. (Chicago, IL, U. S.) 2011, 146 (2) 131– 136
- 15Brown, L. H.; Buettner, P. G.; Canyon, D. V.; Crawford, J. M.; Judd, J. Estimating the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of Australian ambulance services J. Cleaner Prod. 2012, 37, 135– 141
- 16Shrake, S. O.; Thiel, C. L.; Landis, A. E.; Bilec, M. M. Life cycle assessment as a tool for improving service industry sustainability Potentials, IEEE 2012, 31 (1) 10– 15
- 17Campion, N.; Thiel, C. L.; DeBlois, J.; Woods, N. C.; Landis, A. E.; Bilec, M. M. Life cycle assessment perspectives on delivering an infant in the US Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 425 (0) 191– 198Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 18Karlsson, M.; Pigretti-Ohman, D. Climate impact of material consumption in the health care sector - Case study Region Scania Environ. Conscious Des. Inverse Manuf. 2005, 4, 724– 725
- 19Sherman, J.; Le, C.; Lamers, V.; Eckelman, M. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of anesthetic drugs Anesth. Analg. (Hagerstown, MD, U. S.) 2012, 114 (5) 1086– 1090[Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar19https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC38XlvFaksr8%253D&md5=045b518a92d126f23069f468c25ca834Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of anesthetic drugsSherman, Jodi; Le, Cathy; Lamers, Vanessa; Eckelman, MatthewAnesthesia & Analgesia (Hagerstown, MD, United States) (2012), 114 (5), 1086-1090CODEN: AACRAT; ISSN:0003-2999. (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins)Anesthesiologists must consider the entire life cycle of drugs in order to include environmental impacts into clin. decisions. In the present study we used life cycle assessment to examine the climate change impacts of 5 anesthetic drugs: sevoflurane, desflurane, isoflurane, nitrous oxide, and propofol. A full cradle-to-grave approach was used, encompassing resource extn., drug manufg., transport to health care facilities, drug delivery to the patient, and disposal or emission to the environment. At each stage of the life cycle, energy, material inputs, and emissions were considered, as well as use-specific impacts of each drug. The 4 inhalation anesthetics are greenhouse gases (GHGs), and so life cycle GHG emissions include waste anesthetic gases vented to the atm. and emissions (largely carbon dioxide) that arise from other life cycle stages. Desflurane accounts for the largest life cycle GHG impact among the anesthetic drugs considered here: 15 times that of isoflurane and 20 times that of sevoflurane on a per MAC-hour basis when administered in an O2/air admixt. GHG emissions increase significantly for all drugs when administered in an N2O/O2 admixt. For all of the inhalation anesthetics, GHG impacts are dominated by uncontrolled emissions of waste anesthetic gases. GHG impacts of propofol are comparatively quite small, nearly 4 orders of magnitude lower than those of desflurane or nitrous oxide. Unlike the inhaled drugs, the GHG impacts of propofol primarily stem from the electricity required for the syringe pump and not from drug prodn. or direct release to the environment. Our results reiterate previous published data on the GHG effects of these inhaled drugs, while providing a life cycle context. There are several practical environmental impact mitigation strategies. Desflurane and nitrous oxide should be restricted to cases where they may reduce morbidity and mortality over alternative drugs. Clinicians should avoid unnecessarily high fresh gas flow rates for all inhaled drugs. There are waste anesthetic gas capturing systems, and even in advance of reprocessed gas applications, strong consideration should be given to their use. From our results it appears likely that techniques other than inhalation anesthetics, such as total IV anesthesia, neuraxial, or peripheral nerve blocks, would be least harmful to the environment.
- 20Sherman, J.; Ryan, S. Ecological resposnibility in anesthesia practice Int. Anesthesiol. Clin. 2010, 48 (3) 139– 151[Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar20https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC3cnlvVOltQ%253D%253D&md5=5bee33b73f61a001620628369b39453fEcological responsibility in anesthesia practiceSherman Jodi D; Ryan SusanInternational anesthesiology clinics (2010), 48 (3), 139-51 ISSN:.There is no expanded citation for this reference.
- 21U. S. Air Force Institute for Environment Safety and Occupational Health Risk Analysis. Medical waste incinerator waste management plan. http://airforcemedicine.afms.mil/idc/groups/public/documents/afms/ctb_033957.pdf, 2001.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 22Goldberg, M. E.; Vekeman, D.; Torjman, M. C.; Seltzer, J. L.; Kynes, T. Medical waste in the environment: Do anesthesia personnel have a role to play? J. Clin. Anesth. 1996, 8 (6) 475– 479[Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar22https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADyaK2s%252Fis1Gjuw%253D%253D&md5=dbf3b56256e375b09a3f0953b72354f4Medical waste in the environment: do anesthesia personnel have a role to play?Goldberg M E; Vekeman D; Torjman M C; Seltzer J L; Kynes TJournal of clinical anesthesia (1996), 8 (6), 475-9 ISSN:0952-8180.STUDY OBJECTIVE: To conduct a feasibility study of the mechanics of recycling single-use anesthesia breathing systems and practices of anesthesiologists and nurse-anesthetists in a tri-state region. STUDY DESIGN: Two-part, open, prospective analysis using pre-printed questionnaire and cost/time analysis of labor and materials. SETTING: Questionnaire sent to 413 anesthesiology departments in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, and hospital/recycling facility for evaluation of time and cost. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Time to disassemble and sort the breathing circuits, analysis of costs and obtainable income from byproducts of recycling, and standard survey questionnaire concerning demographic characteristics of respondents and individual department/hospital practitioners. Data analysis included analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Pilot analysis: Sorting of circuits to economic component required ten minutes at an average cost of $1.60 Value of scraps obtainable was $3.44, leaving a gross margin of $1.84 for a box of 18 circuits. Benefit analysis: Extended reduction in the regulated medical waste in our operating room of 16,875 lb, saving $4,387.50 per year. With generation of revenue from scrap, the net gain is $5,994.64 per yr. Questionnaire: Majority (83%) of departments polled would participate in recycling implemented by suppliers. Most respondents would not consider (58%) recycling unless mandated by law. CONCLUSION: The program described is cost-effective and environmentally beneficial.
- 23Lee, B. K.; Ellenbecker, M. J.; Moure-Eraso, R. Analyses of the recycling potential of medical plastic wastes Waste Manage. 2002, 22 (5) 461– 470[Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar23https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD38XjvVelsb4%253D&md5=062e9d23b51ac67f1a3047842cd889afAnalyses of the recycling potential of medical plastic wastesLee, Byeong-Kyu; Ellenbecker, Michael J.; Moure-Eraso, RafaelWaste Management (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (2002), 22 (5), 461-470CODEN: WAMAE2; ISSN:0956-053X. (Elsevier Science B.V.)The recycling potential of plastic wastes from health care facilities was investigated. We detd. that the recycling potential of plastics generated in hospital cafeterias is much greater than from other departments.
- 24Whiteman, M.; Hillis, S.; Jamieson, D.; Morrow, B.; Podgornik, M.; Brett, K.; Marchbanks, P. Inpatient hysterectomy surveillance in the United States, 2000–2004 Obstet. Gynecol. Surv. 2008, 63 (5) 304
- 25US news and world report top-ranked hospitals for gynecology. http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/rankings/gynecology (5/28/ 2013) .Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 26ISO. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and framework; ISO 14040; International Organization for Standardization: Switzerland, 1997.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 27ISO Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and Guidelines; ISO 14044:2006; International Organization for Standardization: Switzerland, 2006.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 28Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute. Economicinput-output life cycle assessment (EIO-LCA) US 2002 (428) model. http://www.eiolca.net (April 18, 2013) .Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 29NREL. Life-Cycle Inventory Database (USLCI). http://www.nrel.gov/lci/database/.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 30Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Heck, T.; Hellweg, S.; Hischier, R.; Nemecek, T.; Rebitzer, G. The ecoinvent database: Overview and methodological framework Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2005, 10 (1) 3– 9[Crossref], [CAS], Google Scholar30https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD2MXmsFektw%253D%253D&md5=3376351179c73b8708d791075d8ac24fThe ecoinvent database: overview and methodological frameworkFrischknecht, Rolf; Jungbluth, Niels; Althaus, Hans-Joerg; Doka, Gabor; Dones, Roberto; Heck, Thomas; Hellweg, Stefanie; Hischier, Roland; Nemecek, Thomas; Rebitzer, Gerald; Spielmann, MichaelInternational Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2005), 10 (1), 3-9CODEN: IJLCFF; ISSN:0948-3349. (Ecomed Publishers AG & Co. KG)Introduction: This paper provides an overview on the content of the ecoinvent database and of selected metholodogical issues applied on the life cycle inventories implemented in the ecoinvent database. Goal, Scope and Background: In the year 2000, several Swiss Federal Offices and research institutes of the ETH domain agreed to a joint effort to harmonize and update life cycle inventory (LCI) data for its use in life cycle assessment (LCA). With the ecoinvent database and its actual data v1.1, a consistent set of more than 2500 product and service LCIs is now available. Method: Nearly all process datasets are transparently documented on the level of unit process inputs and outputs. Methodol. approaches have been applied consistently throughout the entire database content and thus guarantee for a coherent set of LCI data. This is particularly true for market and trade modeling (see, for example, electricity modeling), for the treatment of multioutput and of recycling processes, but also for the recording and reporting of elementary flows. The differentiation of diam. size for particulate matter emissions, for instance, allows for a more comprehensive impact assessment of human health effects. Data quality is quant. reported in terms of std. deviations of the amts. of input and output flows. In many cases qual. indicators are reported addnl. on the level of each individual input and output. The information sources used vary from extensive statistical works to individual (point) measurements or assumptions derived from process descriptions. However, all datasets passed the same quality control procedure and all information relevant and necessary to judge the suitability of a dataset in a certain context are provided in the database. Data documentation and exchange is based on the EcoSpold data format, which complies with the tech. specification ISO/TS 14048. Free access to process information via the Internet helps the user to judge the appropriateness of a dataset. Concluding Remarks: The existence of the ecoinvent database proves that it is possible and feasible to build up a large interlinked system of LCI unit processes. The project work proved to be demanding in terms of co-ordination efforts required and consent identification. One main characteristic of the database is its transparency in reporting to enable individual assessment of data appropriateness and to support the plurality in methodol. approaches. Outlook: Further work on the ecoinvent database may comprise work on the database content (new or more detailed datasets covering existing or new economic sectors), LCI (modeling) methodol., the structure and features of the database system (e.g. extension of Monte Carlo simulation to the impact assessment phase) or improvements in ecoinvent data supply and data query. Furthermore, the deepening and building up of international co-operations in LCI data collection and supply is in the focus of future activities.
- 31U.S. EPA. eGRID2010, Version 1.1; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 2007.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 32Ponder, C. S. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis of Medical Textiles and Their Role in Prevention of Nosocomial Infections; North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 2009.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 33McGain, F.; McAlister, S.; McGavin, A.; Story, D. A life cycle assessment of reusable and single-use central venous catheter insertion kits Anesth. Analg. (Hagerstown, MD, U. S.) 2012, 114 (5) 1073– 1080
- 34Dettenkofer, M.; Grießhammer, R.; Scherrer, M.; Daschner, F. Life-cycle assessment of single-use versus reusable surgical drapes (cellulose/polyethylene - Mixed cotton system) Der Chirurg 1999, 70 (4) 485– 492[Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar34https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADyaK1M3otlaltw%253D%253D&md5=def0f9b580ce9433ea16944b86e7769fLife-cycle assessment of single-use versus reusable surgical drapes (cellulose/polyethylene-mixed cotton system)Dettenkofer M; Griesshammer R; Scherrer M; Daschner FDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen (1999), 70 (4), 485-91; discussion 491-2 ISSN:0009-4722.Surgical drapes made of cotton are under increasing competition with various disposable products and reusable draping systems (e.g., made of synthetic fabrics like polyester). When making a choice to use one of these medical devices in practical surgery, major aspects like handling, hygienic safety and costs, but also environmental effects have to be taken into account. In this study a mixed system for patient drapes (reusable cotton drapes combined with a reduced set of impermeable single-use drapes made of cellulose/polyethylene) was compared to a system that is only based on single-use drapes with regard to ecology [life-cycle assessment (LCA)]. The medical literature was reviewed to assess important medical aspects of the use of patient drapes, resulting in the statement that there are no conclusive arguments to support a clear hygienic superiority of one of these alternatives. Based on the conditions assumed and stated, the results of the LCA indicate that the mixed draping system is associated with two times more total energy consumption. In addition, more water is needed and more CO2 emissions are produced. However, draping with the single-use product results in more clinical waste. Regarding water pollution no system proved superior. It is difficult to compare and weigh various environmental aspects like the polluting cultivation of cotton in distant countries (reusable drapes) and the higher figure of transportation necessary to deliver the single-use product within Germany. It is an important disadvantage of the mixed system that it combines the ecological burden of both cotton drapes and the single-use alternative.
- 35Bajpai, D.; Tyagi, V. Laundry detergents: An overview J. Oleo Sci. 2007, 56 (7) 327– 340[Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar35https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD2sXntlKnu7g%253D&md5=2a528a729a5dd652bc6b3e4f7a62999dLaundry detergents: an overviewBajpai, Divya; Tyagi, V. K.Journal of Oleo Science (2007), 56 (7), 327-340CODEN: JOSOAP; ISSN:1345-8957. (Japan Oil ChemistsÏ Society)A review. Nowadays laundry detergents are becoming increasingly popular as they can be metered automatically into the washing machine, impart softness, antistaticness, resiliency to fabrics, mild to eyes and skins and shows good dispersibility in water. Because it is consumed when it is used, the sale of laundry detergent is a rather large business. There are many different kinds or brands of laundry detergent sold, many of them claiming some special qualities as selling points. A Laundry detergent compn. is a formulated mixt. of raw materials that can be classified into different types based on their properties and function in the final product. The different classes of raw materials are surfactants, builders, bleaching agents, enzymes, and minors which remove dirt, stain, and soil from surfaces or textiles gave them pleasant feel and odor. The physico-chem. properties of surfactants make them suitable for laundry purposes. Laundry detergent has traditionally been a powd. or granular solid, but the use of liq. laundry detergents has gradually increased over the years, and these days use of liq. detergent equals or even exceeds use of solid detergent. This review paper describes the history, compn., types, mechanism, consumption, environmental effects and consumption of laundry detergents.
- 36Barrie, D. How hospital linen and laundry services are provided J. Hosp. Infect. 1994, 27 (3) 219– 235[Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar36https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADyaK2M%252Flt1GnsA%253D%253D&md5=a953ff0f8b74d5c698f29c8ba029c268How hospital linen and laundry services are providedBarrie DThe Journal of hospital infection (1994), 27 (3), 219-35 ISSN:0195-6701.Hospitals provide clean linen for patients and staff. This article describes the laundering process, laundry equipment, how used hospital linen differs from that of other large organizations and the Department of Health guidance on handling and laundering hospital linen. It reviews how hospital linen contracts are awarded and the responsibilities of the team which evaluates them. Methods of microbiological testing of laundered linen and the interpretation of the results are considered. The properties of different fabrics available for use in operating theatres are summarized. Measures to prevent infection and injury to staff handling used linen are given.
- 37Blackburn, R.; Payne, J. Life cycle analysis of cotton towels: Impact of domestic laundering and recommendations for extending periods between washing Green Chem. 2004, 6 (7) G59– G61Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 38Sulbaek Andersen, M. P.; Sander, S. P.; Nielsen, O. J.; Wagner, D. S.; Sanford, T. J.; Wallington, T. J. Inhalation anaesthetics and climate change Br. J. Anaesth. 2010, 105 (6) 760– 766[Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar38https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC3cbnsFCjsQ%253D%253D&md5=0a4b121b3ff63ab3dd55cf7c7e8e40f6Inhalation anaesthetics and climate changeSulbaek Andersen M P; Sander S P; Nielsen O J; Wagner D S; Sanford T J Jr; Wallington T JBritish journal of anaesthesia (2010), 105 (6), 760-6 ISSN:.BACKGROUND: Although the increasing abundance of CO(2) in our atmosphere is the main driver of the observed climate change, it is the cumulative effect of all forcing agents that dictate the direction and magnitude of the change, and many smaller contributors are also at play. Isoflurane, desflurane, and sevoflurane are widely used inhalation anaesthetics. Emissions of these compounds contribute to radiative forcing of climate change. To quantitatively assess the impact of the anaesthetics on the forcing of climate, detailed information on their properties of heat (infrared, IR) absorption and atmospheric lifetimes are required. METHODS: We have measured the IR spectra of these anaesthetics and conducted calculations of their contribution to radiative forcing of climate change recognizing the important fact that radiative forcing is strongly dependent on the wavelength of the absorption features. RESULTS: Radiative efficiencies of 0.453, 0.469, and 0.351 W m(-2) ppb(-1) and global warming potentials (GWPs) of 510, 1620, and 210 (100 yr time horizon) were established for isoflurane, desflurane, and sevoflurane, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the derived 100 yr GWPs, the average climate impact per anaesthetic procedure at the University of Michigan is the same as the emission of ∼22 kg CO(2). We estimate that the global emissions of inhalation anaesthetics have a climate impact which is comparable with that from the CO(2) emissions from one coal-fired power plant or 1 million passenger cars.
- 39Lenzen, M. Uncertainty in impact and externality assessments: Implications for decision-making Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2006, 11 (3) 189– 199[Crossref], [CAS], Google Scholar39https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD28Xls1Cktbg%253D&md5=8926e64b5da053507dc584dd7b4503a6Uncertainty in impact and externality assessments. Implications for decision-makingLenzen, ManfredInternational Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2006), 11 (3), 189-199CODEN: IJLCFF; ISSN:0948-3349. (Ecomed Publishers AG & Co. KG)Many disciplines, amongst them LCIA, environmental impact and external cost assessments, are often faced with evaluating trade-offs between two or more alternative options in terms of a range of incommensurable indicators. Using process modeling and valuation, these indicators are quantified at mid- or endpoint levels. Recent discussion amongst LCA experts showed that because of the mutually exclusive aspects of uncertainty and relevance, the midpoint/endpoint debate is controversial and difficult to reconcile. This article is aimed at a more quant. anal. of mid- and endpoint impacts, and the implications of uncertainty for decision-making. The consequences for decision-making of uncertainties of endpoints are analyzed quant. for the example of ExternE results, by employing statistical hypothesis testing. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is then used to demonstrate the use of multi-criteria techniques at midpoint levels. Statistical hypothesis testing at the end-point level shows that for the ExternE example, probabilities of mistakenly favoring one alternative over another when they are in reality indistinguishable can be as high as 80%. Therefore, the best est. of external cost is inadequate for most policy making purposes. Indicators at midpoint levels are more certain, but since they are only 'proxy attributes', they carry a hidden uncertainty in their relevance. If endpoint information is too uncertain to allow a decision to be made with reasonable confidence, then the assessment can be carried out in midpoint terms. However, midpoint indicators are generally further removed from people's experience, and less relevant to the question that people actually want to solve. Nevertheless, if this ultimate question is unanswerable (within the certainty required by the decision-maker), a decision can be made on the basis of stakeholders' subjective judgments about the more certain midpoint levels. The crucial point is that these judgments are able to intuitively incorporate many aspects that impact modeling and valuation has trouble quantifying, such as perceived risk, distribution of burdens and benefits, equity, ethical, moral, religious and political beliefs and principles, immediacy and reversibility of potential impacts, voluntariness, controllability and familiarity of exposure, or perceived incompleteness of human knowledge.
- 40Bilec, M.; Ries, R.; Matthews, H. S.; Sharrard, A. L. Example of a hybrid life-cycle assessment of construction processes J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2006, 12 (4) 207– 215
- 41BLS. Producer Price Index Industry Data; U.S. Department of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics: Washington, DC, 2013.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 42Bare, J. C.; Norris, G. A.; Pennington, D. W.; McKone, T. TRACI: The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts J. Ind. Ecol. 2003, 6 (3–4) 49– 78
- 43Frischknecht R, J. N., Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods; Swiss Centre for LCI.: Duebendorf, CH, 2003.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 44Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H.; Doka, G.; Heck, T.; Hellweg, S.; Hischier, R.; Nemecek, T.; Rebitzer, G.; Spielmann, M.Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods, v2.0; Ecoinvent Report No. 3; Ecoinvent: Zurich, 2007.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 45Tieszen, M. E.; Gruenberg, J. C. A quantitative, qualitative, and critical assessment of surgical waste: Surgeons venture through the trash can J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1992, 267 (20) 2765– 2768[Crossref], [CAS], Google Scholar45https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADyaK383ltF2gug%253D%253D&md5=4f527282ff05b3c0ae00cdfe079c45eeA quantitative, qualitative, and critical assessment of surgical waste. Surgeons venture through the trash canTieszen M E; Gruenberg J CJAMA (1992), 267 (20), 2765-8 ISSN:0098-7484.OBJECTIVES: To quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate the surgical waste produced from several common surgical procedures, define categories of waste that might be readily separated for alternative disposal practices or substitution, and determine the change in surgical waste output that elimination or alternative handling methods may effect. DESIGN: A case series evaluating the surgical waste from five types of surgical procedures including operations of the back, heart, abdomen, hip and knee, and herniorrhaphies, prospectively identified and allocated at the availability of the investigator. SETTING: A single tertiary community teaching hospital. OUTCOME MEASURES: Weight, volume, and percentage of disposable linen, paper, and plastic plus miscellaneous material from surgical waste with a later subset separating plastics from miscellaneous items to completely identify all categories. RESULTS: Surgical waste weighing 610.5 lb (274.7 kg) and occupying 171.6 cu ft (5.1 m3) from 27 cases was examined. Disposable linens accounted for 39% of the weight; paper, 7%; plastic, 26%; and miscellaneous waste, 27%. By volume, disposable linen and paper accounted for 69%; plastic, 23%; and miscellaneous waste, 7%. Disposable linen, paper, and recyclable plastic accounted for 73% +/- 7% (mean +/- SD) by weight and 93% +/- 4% by volume of total surgical waste. CONCLUSION: Nationally, annual surgical waste from these five procedures weighs 5.1 x 10(7) lb (2.3 x 10(7) kg) and occupies 1.4 x 10(7) cu ft (4.0 x 10(5) m3). By using reusable linen products and engaging in recycling methods currently available and feasible, we estimate that weight reductions of 73% and volume reductions of 93% in surgical waste are possible.
- 46Wright, J. D.; Ananth, C. V.; Lewin, S. L.; Burke, W. M.; Lu, Y.-S.; Neugut, A. I.; Herzog, T. J.; Hershman, D. L. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease JAMA 2013, 309 (7) 689– 698Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 47U.S. CDC. Number of all-listed procedures for dischargesfrom short-stay hospitals, by procedure category and age: United States,2010. In CDC/NCHS National Hospital Discharge Survey; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Washington, DC, 2010.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 48AMDR. Third-Party Medical Device Reprocessing; Association of Medical Devices Reprocessors: Washington, DC, 2012.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 49Eckelman, M.; Mosher, M.; Gonzalez, A.; Sherman, J. Comparative life cycle assessment of disposable and reusable laryngeal mask airways Anesth. Analg. (Hagerstown, MD, U. S.) 2012, 114 (5) 1067– 1072
- 50Kaiser, B.; Eagan, P. D.; Shaner, H. Solutions to health care waste: Life-cycle thinking and “green” purchasing Environ. Health Perspect. 2001, 109 (3) 205– 207Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
Cited By
This article is cited by 71 publications.
- Zoe Rammelkamp, Jane Dirnberger, George Johnson, Steven Waisbren. An Audit of All Waste Leaving the Operating Room: Can the Surgical Suite Be More Environmentally Sustainable?. World Medical & Health Policy 2021, 23 https://doi.org/10.1002/wmh3.397
- Ramesha Chandrappa, Diganta Bhusan Das. Introduction to Medical Sciences. 2021,,, 175-216. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64480-2_5
- Fidelis O. Ajibade, Bashir Adelodun, Kayode H. Lasisi, Oluniyi O. Fadare, Temitope F. Ajibade, Nathaniel A. Nwogwu, Ishaq D. Sulaymon, Adamu Y. Ugya, Hong Cheng Wang, Aijie Wang. Environmental pollution and their socioeconomic impacts. 2021,,, 321-354. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-821199-1.00025-0
- Christin Seifert, Lisa Koep, Patrick Wolf, Edeltraud Guenther. Life cycle assessment as decision support tool for environmental management in hospitals: A literature review. Health Care Management Review 2021, 46 (1) , 12-24. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0000000000000248
- Chantelle Rizan, Mahmood F. Bhutta, Malcom Reed, Rob Lillywhite. The carbon footprint of waste streams in a UK hospital. Journal of Cleaner Production 2020, , 125446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125446
- Chantelle Rizan, Ingeborg Steinbach, Rosamond Nicholson, Rob Lillywhite, Malcolm Reed, Mahmood F. Bhutta. The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations. Annals of Surgery 2020, 272 (6) , 986-995. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003951
- Swapna Gayam. Environmental Impact of Endoscopy: “Scope” of the Problem. American Journal of Gastroenterology 2020, 115 (12) , 1931-1932. https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000001005
- Ana Catarina Sousa, Anabela Veiga, Ana Collete Maurício, Maria Ascensão Lopes, José Domingos Santos, Belmira Neto. Assessment of the environmental impacts of medical devices: a review. Environment, Development and Sustainability 2020, 2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01086-1
- Marisa F. Martin, Katherine E. Maturen. On Green Radiology. Academic Radiology 2020, 27 (11) , 1601-1602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2020.04.017
- Alvaro Sanabria, Luiz P. Kowalski, Iain J. Nixon, Ashok Shaha, Remco De Bree, Antti A. Mäkitie, Alessandra Rinaldo, Alfio Ferlito. Considerations for environmentally sustainable head and neck surgical oncology practice. American Journal of Otolaryngology 2020, 41 (6) , 102719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102719
- Forbes McGain, Jane Muret, Cathy Lawson, Jodi D. Sherman. Environmental sustainability in anaesthesia and critical care. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2020, 125 (5) , 680-692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2020.06.055
- Jodi D. Sherman, Cassandra Thiel, Andrea MacNeill, Matthew J. Eckelman, Robert Dubrow, Harriet Hopf, Robert Lagasse, Joseph Bialowitz, Anthony Costello, McGain Forbes, Rachel Stancliffe, Paul Anastas, Laura Anderko, Mark Baratz, Stefi Barna, Urvashi Bhatnagar, Jason Burnham, Yizhen Cai, Andy Cassels-Brown, Alexander F.P. Cimprich, Heidi Cole, Lorea Coronado-Garcia, Brett Duane, Gabriella Grisotti, Arthy Hartwell, Varshini Kumar, Ann Kurth, Michael Leapman, Daniel S. Morris, Michael Overcash, Abhijeet G. Parvatker, David Pencheon, Adam Pollard, Bernard Robaire, Karl Rockne, Blair L. Sadler, Beth Schenk, Tushar Sethi, L. Scott Sussman, Jeff Thompson, Janet M. Twomey, Sten H. Vermund, Daniel Vukelich, Natasha Wasim, Debbie Wilson, Steven B. Young, Julie Zimmerman, Melissa M. Bilec. The Green Print: Advancement of Environmental Sustainability in Healthcare. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2020, 161 , 104882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104882
- Renee N Salas, Edward Maibach, David Pencheon, Nick Watts, Howard Frumkin. A pathway to net zero emissions for healthcare. BMJ 2020, 12 , m3785. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3785
- Maria-Alexandra Petre, Lisa Bahrey, Mark Levine, Adriaan van Rensburg, Mark Crawford, Clyde T. Matava. Anesthesia environmental sustainability programs—a survey of Canadian department chiefs and residency program directors. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie 2020, 67 (9) , 1190-1200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-020-01738-w
- Ulli Weisz, Peter-Paul Pichler, Ingram S. Jaccard, Willi Haas, Sarah Matej, Florian Bachner, Peter Nowak, Helga Weisz. Carbon emission trends and sustainability options in Austrian health care. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2020, 160 , 104862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104862
- Maria-Alexandra Petre, Stephan Malherbe. Environmentally sustainable perioperative medicine: simple strategies for anesthetic practice. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie 2020, 67 (8) , 1044-1063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-020-01726-0
- Laura M. Donahue, Stephen Hilton, Sarah G. Bell, Brent C. Williams, Gregory A. Keoleian. A comparative carbon footprint analysis of disposable and reusable vaginal specula. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2020, 223 (2) , 225.e1-225.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2020.02.007
- Cassandra L. Thiel, Andy Cassels-Brown, Hena Goel, Rachel Stancliffe, Ingeborg Steinbach, Peter Thomas, Jorge Vendries. Utilizing off-the-shelf LCA methods to develop a ‘triple bottom line’ auditing tool for global cataract surgical services. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2020, 158 , 104805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104805
- . AORN Position Statement on Environmental Responsibility. AORN Journal 2020,,, 667-674. https://doi.org/10.1002/aorn.13063
- David Flowers. The Environmental Impact of IR: A Matter of Concern?. CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology 2020, 43 (6) , 916-917. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-020-02468-8
- Sara Wohlford, Nathalia Esteves-Fuentes, Kimberly Ferren Carter. Reducing Waste in the Clinical Setting. AJN, American Journal of Nursing 2020, 120 (6) , 48-55. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000668744.36106.24
- Guo Yong Yew, Thing Chai Tham, Pau-Loke Show, Yeek-Chia Ho, Siew Kooi Ong, Chung Lim Law, Changnian Song, Jo-Shu Chang. Unlocking the Secret of Bio-additive Components in Rubber Compounding in Processing Quality Nitrile Glove. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 2020, 191 (1) , 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-019-03207-7
- Alexander Leiden, Felipe Cerdas, David Noriega, Jörg Beyerlein, Christoph Herrmann. Life cycle assessment of a disposable and a reusable surgery instrument set for spinal fusion surgeries. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2020, 156 , 104704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104704
- Scott McAlister, Alexandra L Barratt, Katy JL Bell, Forbes McGain. The carbon footprint of pathology testing. Medical Journal of Australia 2020, 212 (8) , 377-382. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.50583
- Zelda J. Ghersin, Michael R. Flaherty, Phoebe Yager, Brian M. Cummings. Going green: decreasing medical waste in a paediatric intensive care unit in the United States. The New Bioethics 2020, 26 (2) , 98-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2020.1767916
- Cheryl C. Macpherson, Elise Smith, Travis N. Rieder. Does Health Promotion Harm the Environment?. The New Bioethics 2020, 26 (2) , 158-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2020.1767918
- Maximilian Andreas Storz. Will the plant-based movement redefine physicians’ understanding of chronic disease?. The New Bioethics 2020, 26 (2) , 141-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2020.1767921
- Sarah A. Sanchez, Matthew J. Eckelman, Jodi D. Sherman. Environmental and economic comparison of reusable and disposable blood pressure cuffs in multiple clinical settings. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2020, 155 , 104643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104643
- Eric Vozzola, Michael Overcash, Evan Griffing. An Environmental Analysis of Reusable and Disposable Surgical Gowns. AORN Journal 2020, 111 (3) , 315-325. https://doi.org/10.1002/aorn.12885
- O. Alam, A. Mosharraf. A preliminary life cycle assessment on healthcare waste management in Chittagong City, Bangladesh. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 2020, 17 (3) , 1753-1764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-019-02585-z
- Fadhel Alshqaqeeq, M. Amin Esmaeili, Michael Overcash, Janet Twomey. Quantifying hospital services by carbon footprint: A systematic literature review of patient care alternatives. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2020, 154 , 104560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104560
- Lysanne Rivard, Pascale Lehoux, Fiona A Miller. Double burden or single duty to care? Health innovators’ perspectives on environmental considerations in health innovation design. BMJ Innovations 2020, 6 (1) , 4-9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2019-000348
- Alexander Cimprich, Jair Santillán‐Saldivar, Cassandra L. Thiel, Guido Sonnemann, Steven B. Young. Potential for industrial ecology to support healthcare sustainability: Scoping review of a fragmented literature and conceptual framework for future research. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2019, 23 (6) , 1344-1352. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12921
- Matthew J. Eckelman, John Basl, Christopher Bosso, Jacqueline A. Isaacs, Kathleen Eggleson. Case Studies of Product Life Cycle Environmental Impacts for Teaching Engineering Ethics. 2019,,, 291-312. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108616188.020
- Duncan A. Meiklejohn, Vanina M. Chavarri. Cold Technique in Adult Tonsillectomy Reduces Waste and Cost. Ear, Nose & Throat Journal 2019, 102 , 014556131988277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145561319882779
- Javid Manzoor, Manoj Sharma. Impact of Biomedical Waste on Environment and Human Health. Environmental Claims Journal 2019, 31 (4) , 311-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/10406026.2019.1619265
- Jenna Tauber, Ijeoma Chinwuba, David Kleyn, Michael Rothschild, Jonathan Kahn, Cassandra L. Thiel. Quantification of the Cost and Potential Environmental Effects of Unused Pharmaceutical Products in Cataract Surgery. JAMA Ophthalmology 2019, 137 (10) , 1156. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.2901
- Forbes McGain, Scott CY Ma, Rob H Burrell, Vanessa G Percival, Peter Roessler, Andrew D Weatherall, Ingo A Weber, Eugenie A Kayak. Why be sustainable? The Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists Professional Document PS64: Statement on Environmental Sustainability in Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine Practice and its accompanying background paper. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care 2019, 47 (5) , 413-422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0310057X19884075
- Christin Seifert, Edeltraud Guenther. Prevention is better than cure-Environmental management measures in hospitals. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 2019, 26 (4) , 781-790. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1720
- Ronald S. Jones, Eleanor West. Environmental sustainability in veterinary anaesthesia. Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia 2019, 46 (4) , 409-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaa.2018.12.008
- Riaz Ahmad, Gengyuan Liu, Remo Santagata, Marco Casazza, Jingyan Xue, Kifayatullah Khan, Javed Nawab, Sergio Ulgiati, Massimiliano Lega. LCA of Hospital Solid Waste Treatment Alternatives in a Developing Country: The Case of District Swat, Pakistan. Sustainability 2019, 11 (13) , 3501. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133501
- Louise Brown, Julianne Munro, Suzy Rogers. Use of personal protective equipment in nursing practice. Nursing Standard 2019, 34 (5) , 59-66. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.2019.e11260
- Verena Rauchenwald, Mark D. Rollins, Susan M. Ryan, Alex Voronov, John R. Feiner, Karolis Šarka, Matthew S. Johnson. New Method of Destroying Waste Anesthetic Gases Using Gas-Phase Photochemistry. Anesthesia & Analgesia 2019, Publish Ahead of Print https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000004119
- Timur J.-P. Özelsel, Rakesh V. Sondekoppam, Vivian H. Y. Ip, Ban C. H. Tsui. Re-defining the 3R’s (reduce, refine, and replace) of sustainability to minimize the environmental impact of inhalational anesthetic agents. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie 2019, 66 (3) , 249-254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-018-01279-3
- Cassandra L. Thiel, Rafaela Fiorin Carvalho, Lindsay Hess, Joelle Tighe, Vincent Laurence, Melissa M. Bilec, Mark Baratz. Minimal Custom Pack Design and Wide-Awake Hand Surgery: Reducing Waste and Spending in the Orthopedic Operating Room. HAND 2019, 14 (2) , 271-276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558944717743595
- Milena Stevanovic, Karen Allacker, Stéphane Vermeulen. Development of an Approach to Assess the Life Cycle Environmental Impacts and Costs of General Hospitals through the Analysis of a Belgian Case. Sustainability 2019, 11 (3) , 856. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030856
- Kerstin H. Wyssusek, Maggie T. Keys, André A. J. van Zundert. Operating room greening initiatives – the old, the new, and the way forward: A narrative review. Waste Management & Research 2019, 37 (1) , 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X18793937
- Jodi D. Sherman, Brian Barrick. Total Intravenous Anesthetic Versus Inhaled Anesthetic. Anesthesia & Analgesia 2019, 128 (1) , 13-15. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000003898
- Sathvik Namburar, Manju Pillai, George Varghese, Cassandra Thiel, Alan L. Robin. Waste generated during glaucoma surgery: A comparison of two global facilities. American Journal of Ophthalmology Case Reports 2018, 12 , 87-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajoc.2018.10.002
- Amin Esmaeili, Charles McGuire, Michael Overcash, Kamran Ali, Seyed Soltani, Janet Twomey. Environmental impact reduction as a new dimension for quality measurement of healthcare services. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance 2018, 31 (8) , 910-922. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-10-2016-0153
- Alexander Cimprich, Karim S. Karim, Steven B. Young. Extending the geopolitical supply risk method: material “substitutability” indicators applied to electric vehicles and dental X-ray equipment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2018, 23 (10) , 2024-2042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1418-4
- Shaobin Li, Courtney Kinser, Rami M.M. Ziara, Bruce Dvorak, Jeyamkondan Subbiah. Environmental and economic implications of food safety interventions: Life cycle and operating cost assessment of antimicrobial systems in U.S. beef packing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 2018, 198 , 541-550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.020
- Jodi D. Sherman, Lewis A. Raibley, Matthew J. Eckelman. Life Cycle Assessment and Costing Methods for Device Procurement. Anesthesia & Analgesia 2018, 127 (2) , 434-443. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002683
- Boubaker Elleuch, Farah Bouhamed, Mabrouk Elloussaief, Madi Jaghbir. Environmental sustainability and pollution prevention. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2018, 25 (19) , 18223-18225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0619-5
- Cassandra L. Thiel, Noe C. Woods, Melissa M. Bilec. Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Laparoscopic Surgery. American Journal of Public Health 2018, 108 (S2) , S158-S164. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304397
- Katharine Zywert. Human health and social-ecological systems change: Rethinking health in the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene Review 2017, 4 (3) , 216-238. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019617739640
- Cassandra L. Thiel, Emily Schehlein, Thulasiraj Ravilla, R.D. Ravindran, Alan L. Robin, Osamah J. Saeedi, Joel S. Schuman, Rengaraj Venkatesh. Cataract surgery and environmental sustainability: Waste and lifecycle assessment of phacoemulsification at a private healthcare facility. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery 2017, 43 (11) , 1391-1398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.08.017
- Scott R Unger, Troy A Hottle, Shakira R Hobbs, Cassandra L Thiel, Nicole Campion, Melissa M Bilec, Amy E Landis. Do single-use medical devices containing biopolymers reduce the environmental impacts of surgical procedures compared with their plastic equivalents?. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 2017, 22 (4) , 218-225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819617705683
- Brandon Goulet, Lars Olson, Brooke Mayer. A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment between a Metered Dose Inhaler and Electric Nebulizer. Sustainability 2017, 9 (10) , 1725. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101725
- Cassandra Thiel, Paula Duncan, Noe Woods. Attitude of US obstetricians and gynaecologists to global warming and medical waste. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 2017, 22 (3) , 162-167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819617697353
- Weibin Kong, Qi Miao, Peiyong Qin, Jan Baeyens, Tianwei Tan. Environmental and economic assessment of vegetable oil production using membrane separation and vapor recompression. Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering 2017, 11 (2) , 166-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-017-1616-4
- F McGain, D Story, T Lim, S McAlister. Financial and environmental costs of reusable and single-use anaesthetic equipment. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2017, 118 (6) , 862-869. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aex098
- Wouter De Soete, Concepción Jiménez-González, Phil Dahlin, Jo Dewulf. Challenges and recommendations for environmental sustainability assessments of pharmaceutical products in the healthcare sector. Green Chemistry 2017, 19 (15) , 3493-3509. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7GC00833C
- Forbes McGain, Graham Moore, Jim Black. Steam sterilisation’s energy and water footprint. Australian Health Review 2017, 41 (1) , 26. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH15142
- Mustafa Ali, Wenping Wang, Nawaz Chaudhry. Application of life cycle assessment for hospital solid waste management: A case study. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 2016, 66 (10) , 1012-1018. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2016.1196263
- Scott R. Unger, Nicole Campion, Melissa M. Bilec, Amy E. Landis. Evaluating quantifiable metrics for hospital green checklists. Journal of Cleaner Production 2016, 127 , 134-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.167
- Matthew J. Eckelman, Jodi Sherman, . Environmental Impacts of the U.S. Health Care System and Effects on Public Health. PLOS ONE 2016, 11 (6) , e0157014. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157014
- Jodi Sherman, Forbes McGain. Environmental Sustainability in Anesthesia. Advances in Anesthesia 2016, 34 (1) , 47-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aan.2016.07.004
- A. L. Hicks, R. B. Reed, T. L. Theis, D. Hanigan, H. Huling, T. Zaikova, J. E. Hutchison, J. Miller. Environmental impacts of reusable nanoscale silver-coated hospital gowns compared to single-use, disposable gowns. Environmental Science: Nano 2016, 3 (5) , 1124-1132. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6EN00168H
- Rengaraj Venkatesh, Suzanne W. van Landingham, Ashish M. Khodifad, Aravind Haripriya, Cassandra L. Thiel, Pradeep Ramulu, Alan L. Robin. Carbon footprint and cost–effectiveness of cataract surgery. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology 2016, 27 (1) , 82-88. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0000000000000228
- Nicole Campion, Cassandra L. Thiel, Noe C. Woods, Leah Swanzy, Amy E. Landis, Melissa M. Bilec. Sustainable healthcare and environmental life-cycle impacts of disposable supplies: a focus on disposable custom packs. Journal of Cleaner Production 2015, 94 , 46-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.076
Abstract
Figure 1
Figure 1. Boundaries for life cycle assessment of hysterectomy. HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, MSW = municipal solid waste, Path = pathogenic, RMW = regulated medical waste.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Average material composition of nonhazardous solid waste (municipal solid waste and recycling) from a single hysterectomy by surgery type. SMS = spunbond-meltblown-spunbond.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Total life cycle environmental impacts of an average hysterectomy by surgery type (normalized to highest hysterectomy type in impact category). Negative values reflect positive environmental impacts due to recycling; Error bars represent 90% confidence interval from Monte Carlo Analysis.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of anesthetics used in all hysterectomy cases based on surgery duration. Sev = sevoflurane, Des = desflurane, N2O = nitrous oxide.
References
ARTICLE SECTIONSThis article references 50 other publications.
- 1BEA. National Incomeand Product Accounts. www.bea.gov, 2011.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 2Rudish, R.; Eckstein, A.; Vettori, E.; Purdy, L.; Qu, Y.; Elbel, G.; Dhawan, A.; Lee, J.; Jaber, H.; Yap, J.; Adao, V.; Hammett, S.; George, R.; Copeland, B.; Wada, Y.; Vega, G. M.; Morris, M. 2014 Global Health Care Outlook: Shared Challenges, Shared Opportunities; Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited: London, 2014.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 3Pollard, A. S.; Taylor, T. J.; Fleming, L. E.; Stahl-Timmins, W.; Depledge, M. H.; Osborne, N. J. Mainstreaming carbon management in healthcare systems: A bottom-up modeling approach Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 47 (2) 678– 686Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 4Hendron, R.; Leach, M.; Bonnema, E.; Shekhar, D.; Pless, S. Advanced Energy Retrofit Guide (AERG): Practical Ways to Improve Energy Performance; Healthcare Facilities (Book); National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): Golden, CO, 2013.
- 5U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2007 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS); U.S. EIA: Washington, DC, 2012; Table H5, Major Fuels Usage for Large Hospitals, 2007.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 6U.S. EPA Profile of the Healthcare Industry; Report No. EPA/310-R-05-002; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 2005.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 7Freedonia Group. Disposable Medical Supplies: United States; Report No. FF40019; Freedonia Group: Cleveland, OH, 2014.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 8Costello, A.; Montgomery, H.; Watts, N. Climate change: The challenge for healthcare professionals. BMJ [Br. Med. J.] 2013, 347.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 9Kagoma, Y.; Stall, N.; Rubinstein, E.; Naudie, D. People, planet and profits: The case for greening operating rooms Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2012, 184 (17) 1905– 1911[Crossref], [CAS], Google Scholar9https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC38novVSmsQ%253D%253D&md5=a51c118ad5e9109c23b226f410a71104People, planet and profits: the case for greening operating roomsKagoma Yoan; Stall Nathan; Rubinstein Edward; Naudie DouglasCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne (2012), 184 (17), 1905-11 ISSN:.There is no expanded citation for this reference.
- 10Townend, W. K.; Cheeseman, C. R. Guidelines for the evaluation and assessment of the sustainable use of resources and of wastes management at healthcare facilities Waste Manage. Res. 2005, 23 (5) 398– 408[Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar10https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BD2MrpsFWguw%253D%253D&md5=42970770c932aa47795927cd326106e9Guidelines for the evaluation and assessment of the sustainable use of resources and of wastes management at healthcare facilitiesTownend William K; Cheeseman Christopher RWaste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA (2005), 23 (5), 398-408 ISSN:0734-242X.This paper presents guidelines that can be used by managers of healthcare facilities to evaluate and assess the quality of resources and waste management at their facilities and enabling the principles of sustainable development to be addressed. The guidelines include the following key aspects which need to be considered when completing an assessment. They are: (a) general management; (b) social issues; (c) health and safety; (d) energy and water use; (e) purchasing and supply; (f) waste management (responsibility, segregation, storage and packaging); (g) waste transport; (h) recycling and re-use; (i) waste treatment; and (j) final disposal. They identify actions required to achieve a higher level of performance which can readily be applied to any healthcare facility, irrespective of the local level of social, economic and environmental development. The guidelines are presented, and the characteristics of facilities associated with sustainable (level 4) and unsustainable (level 0) healthcare resource and wastes management are outlined. They have been used to assess a major London hospital, and this highlighted a number of deficiencies in current practice, including a lack of control over purchasing and supply, and very low rates of segregation of municipal solid waste from hazardous healthcare waste.
- 11Tudor, T. L.; Townend, W. K.; Cheeseman, C. R.; Edgar, J. E. An overview of arisings and large-scale treatment technologies for healthcare waste in the United Kingdom Waste Manage. Res. 2009, 27 (4) 374– 383[Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar11https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BD1MvktFCntw%253D%253D&md5=140e33851c183851c48e339298b95fd6An overview of arisings and large-scale treatment technologies for healthcare waste in the United KingdomTudor Terry L; Townend William K; Cheeseman Christopher R; Edgar Jen EWaste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA (2009), 27 (4), 374-83 ISSN:0734-242X.This paper reviews the current generation and management of healthcare waste in the United Kingdom, with a focus on that produced from healthcare provision in the National Health Service. While the current capacities of large-scale off-site treatment systems are adequate, there are a number of logistical factors that must be considered in future. These include variations in arisings from each country and from various regions within each country, the age and location of treatment/disposal facilities, the quantities, types and sources of healthcare waste, and the impact of waste minimization and recycling strategies. Managing UK healthcare waste is a complex issue that requires the correct technologies and capacities to be available. With increasing quantities and costs there is urgent need for future planning, and healthcare waste issues need to be addressed from a UK-wide perspective. Holistic strategies need to incorporate both minimization and segregation, with treatment using a combination of incineration and alternatives treatment technologies. The need for more research and accurate data to provide an evidence-base for future decision-making is highlighted.
- 12Allen, M. R. Effective pollution prevention in healthcare environments J. Cleaner Prod. 2006, 14 (6–7) 610– 615
- 13Zimmer, C. Minimum impact. Reducing the detrimental effects of hospital waste Health Facil. Manage. 2012, 25 (3) 43– 44
47
[PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar13https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC38rms1Sktw%253D%253D&md5=ed1885e1144e3e2357b16d7b3aeb689fMinimum impact. Reducing the detrimental effects of hospital wasteZimmer CatherineHealth facilities management (2012), 25 (3), 43-4, 47 ISSN:0899-6210.There is no expanded citation for this reference. - 14Kwakye, G.; Brat, G. A.; Makary, M. A. Green surgical practices for health care Arch. Surg. (Chicago, IL, U. S.) 2011, 146 (2) 131– 136
- 15Brown, L. H.; Buettner, P. G.; Canyon, D. V.; Crawford, J. M.; Judd, J. Estimating the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of Australian ambulance services J. Cleaner Prod. 2012, 37, 135– 141
- 16Shrake, S. O.; Thiel, C. L.; Landis, A. E.; Bilec, M. M. Life cycle assessment as a tool for improving service industry sustainability Potentials, IEEE 2012, 31 (1) 10– 15
- 17Campion, N.; Thiel, C. L.; DeBlois, J.; Woods, N. C.; Landis, A. E.; Bilec, M. M. Life cycle assessment perspectives on delivering an infant in the US Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 425 (0) 191– 198Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 18Karlsson, M.; Pigretti-Ohman, D. Climate impact of material consumption in the health care sector - Case study Region Scania Environ. Conscious Des. Inverse Manuf. 2005, 4, 724– 725
- 19Sherman, J.; Le, C.; Lamers, V.; Eckelman, M. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of anesthetic drugs Anesth. Analg. (Hagerstown, MD, U. S.) 2012, 114 (5) 1086– 1090[Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar19https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC38XlvFaksr8%253D&md5=045b518a92d126f23069f468c25ca834Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of anesthetic drugsSherman, Jodi; Le, Cathy; Lamers, Vanessa; Eckelman, MatthewAnesthesia & Analgesia (Hagerstown, MD, United States) (2012), 114 (5), 1086-1090CODEN: AACRAT; ISSN:0003-2999. (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins)Anesthesiologists must consider the entire life cycle of drugs in order to include environmental impacts into clin. decisions. In the present study we used life cycle assessment to examine the climate change impacts of 5 anesthetic drugs: sevoflurane, desflurane, isoflurane, nitrous oxide, and propofol. A full cradle-to-grave approach was used, encompassing resource extn., drug manufg., transport to health care facilities, drug delivery to the patient, and disposal or emission to the environment. At each stage of the life cycle, energy, material inputs, and emissions were considered, as well as use-specific impacts of each drug. The 4 inhalation anesthetics are greenhouse gases (GHGs), and so life cycle GHG emissions include waste anesthetic gases vented to the atm. and emissions (largely carbon dioxide) that arise from other life cycle stages. Desflurane accounts for the largest life cycle GHG impact among the anesthetic drugs considered here: 15 times that of isoflurane and 20 times that of sevoflurane on a per MAC-hour basis when administered in an O2/air admixt. GHG emissions increase significantly for all drugs when administered in an N2O/O2 admixt. For all of the inhalation anesthetics, GHG impacts are dominated by uncontrolled emissions of waste anesthetic gases. GHG impacts of propofol are comparatively quite small, nearly 4 orders of magnitude lower than those of desflurane or nitrous oxide. Unlike the inhaled drugs, the GHG impacts of propofol primarily stem from the electricity required for the syringe pump and not from drug prodn. or direct release to the environment. Our results reiterate previous published data on the GHG effects of these inhaled drugs, while providing a life cycle context. There are several practical environmental impact mitigation strategies. Desflurane and nitrous oxide should be restricted to cases where they may reduce morbidity and mortality over alternative drugs. Clinicians should avoid unnecessarily high fresh gas flow rates for all inhaled drugs. There are waste anesthetic gas capturing systems, and even in advance of reprocessed gas applications, strong consideration should be given to their use. From our results it appears likely that techniques other than inhalation anesthetics, such as total IV anesthesia, neuraxial, or peripheral nerve blocks, would be least harmful to the environment.
- 20Sherman, J.; Ryan, S. Ecological resposnibility in anesthesia practice Int. Anesthesiol. Clin. 2010, 48 (3) 139– 151[Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar20https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC3cnlvVOltQ%253D%253D&md5=5bee33b73f61a001620628369b39453fEcological responsibility in anesthesia practiceSherman Jodi D; Ryan SusanInternational anesthesiology clinics (2010), 48 (3), 139-51 ISSN:.There is no expanded citation for this reference.
- 21U. S. Air Force Institute for Environment Safety and Occupational Health Risk Analysis. Medical waste incinerator waste management plan. http://airforcemedicine.afms.mil/idc/groups/public/documents/afms/ctb_033957.pdf, 2001.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 22Goldberg, M. E.; Vekeman, D.; Torjman, M. C.; Seltzer, J. L.; Kynes, T. Medical waste in the environment: Do anesthesia personnel have a role to play? J. Clin. Anesth. 1996, 8 (6) 475– 479[Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar22https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADyaK2s%252Fis1Gjuw%253D%253D&md5=dbf3b56256e375b09a3f0953b72354f4Medical waste in the environment: do anesthesia personnel have a role to play?Goldberg M E; Vekeman D; Torjman M C; Seltzer J L; Kynes TJournal of clinical anesthesia (1996), 8 (6), 475-9 ISSN:0952-8180.STUDY OBJECTIVE: To conduct a feasibility study of the mechanics of recycling single-use anesthesia breathing systems and practices of anesthesiologists and nurse-anesthetists in a tri-state region. STUDY DESIGN: Two-part, open, prospective analysis using pre-printed questionnaire and cost/time analysis of labor and materials. SETTING: Questionnaire sent to 413 anesthesiology departments in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, and hospital/recycling facility for evaluation of time and cost. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Time to disassemble and sort the breathing circuits, analysis of costs and obtainable income from byproducts of recycling, and standard survey questionnaire concerning demographic characteristics of respondents and individual department/hospital practitioners. Data analysis included analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Pilot analysis: Sorting of circuits to economic component required ten minutes at an average cost of $1.60 Value of scraps obtainable was $3.44, leaving a gross margin of $1.84 for a box of 18 circuits. Benefit analysis: Extended reduction in the regulated medical waste in our operating room of 16,875 lb, saving $4,387.50 per year. With generation of revenue from scrap, the net gain is $5,994.64 per yr. Questionnaire: Majority (83%) of departments polled would participate in recycling implemented by suppliers. Most respondents would not consider (58%) recycling unless mandated by law. CONCLUSION: The program described is cost-effective and environmentally beneficial.
- 23Lee, B. K.; Ellenbecker, M. J.; Moure-Eraso, R. Analyses of the recycling potential of medical plastic wastes Waste Manage. 2002, 22 (5) 461– 470[Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar23https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD38XjvVelsb4%253D&md5=062e9d23b51ac67f1a3047842cd889afAnalyses of the recycling potential of medical plastic wastesLee, Byeong-Kyu; Ellenbecker, Michael J.; Moure-Eraso, RafaelWaste Management (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (2002), 22 (5), 461-470CODEN: WAMAE2; ISSN:0956-053X. (Elsevier Science B.V.)The recycling potential of plastic wastes from health care facilities was investigated. We detd. that the recycling potential of plastics generated in hospital cafeterias is much greater than from other departments.
- 24Whiteman, M.; Hillis, S.; Jamieson, D.; Morrow, B.; Podgornik, M.; Brett, K.; Marchbanks, P. Inpatient hysterectomy surveillance in the United States, 2000–2004 Obstet. Gynecol. Surv. 2008, 63 (5) 304
- 25US news and world report top-ranked hospitals for gynecology. http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/rankings/gynecology (5/28/ 2013) .Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 26ISO. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and framework; ISO 14040; International Organization for Standardization: Switzerland, 1997.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 27ISO Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and Guidelines; ISO 14044:2006; International Organization for Standardization: Switzerland, 2006.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 28Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute. Economicinput-output life cycle assessment (EIO-LCA) US 2002 (428) model. http://www.eiolca.net (April 18, 2013) .Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 29NREL. Life-Cycle Inventory Database (USLCI). http://www.nrel.gov/lci/database/.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 30Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Heck, T.; Hellweg, S.; Hischier, R.; Nemecek, T.; Rebitzer, G. The ecoinvent database: Overview and methodological framework Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2005, 10 (1) 3– 9[Crossref], [CAS], Google Scholar30https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD2MXmsFektw%253D%253D&md5=3376351179c73b8708d791075d8ac24fThe ecoinvent database: overview and methodological frameworkFrischknecht, Rolf; Jungbluth, Niels; Althaus, Hans-Joerg; Doka, Gabor; Dones, Roberto; Heck, Thomas; Hellweg, Stefanie; Hischier, Roland; Nemecek, Thomas; Rebitzer, Gerald; Spielmann, MichaelInternational Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2005), 10 (1), 3-9CODEN: IJLCFF; ISSN:0948-3349. (Ecomed Publishers AG & Co. KG)Introduction: This paper provides an overview on the content of the ecoinvent database and of selected metholodogical issues applied on the life cycle inventories implemented in the ecoinvent database. Goal, Scope and Background: In the year 2000, several Swiss Federal Offices and research institutes of the ETH domain agreed to a joint effort to harmonize and update life cycle inventory (LCI) data for its use in life cycle assessment (LCA). With the ecoinvent database and its actual data v1.1, a consistent set of more than 2500 product and service LCIs is now available. Method: Nearly all process datasets are transparently documented on the level of unit process inputs and outputs. Methodol. approaches have been applied consistently throughout the entire database content and thus guarantee for a coherent set of LCI data. This is particularly true for market and trade modeling (see, for example, electricity modeling), for the treatment of multioutput and of recycling processes, but also for the recording and reporting of elementary flows. The differentiation of diam. size for particulate matter emissions, for instance, allows for a more comprehensive impact assessment of human health effects. Data quality is quant. reported in terms of std. deviations of the amts. of input and output flows. In many cases qual. indicators are reported addnl. on the level of each individual input and output. The information sources used vary from extensive statistical works to individual (point) measurements or assumptions derived from process descriptions. However, all datasets passed the same quality control procedure and all information relevant and necessary to judge the suitability of a dataset in a certain context are provided in the database. Data documentation and exchange is based on the EcoSpold data format, which complies with the tech. specification ISO/TS 14048. Free access to process information via the Internet helps the user to judge the appropriateness of a dataset. Concluding Remarks: The existence of the ecoinvent database proves that it is possible and feasible to build up a large interlinked system of LCI unit processes. The project work proved to be demanding in terms of co-ordination efforts required and consent identification. One main characteristic of the database is its transparency in reporting to enable individual assessment of data appropriateness and to support the plurality in methodol. approaches. Outlook: Further work on the ecoinvent database may comprise work on the database content (new or more detailed datasets covering existing or new economic sectors), LCI (modeling) methodol., the structure and features of the database system (e.g. extension of Monte Carlo simulation to the impact assessment phase) or improvements in ecoinvent data supply and data query. Furthermore, the deepening and building up of international co-operations in LCI data collection and supply is in the focus of future activities.
- 31U.S. EPA. eGRID2010, Version 1.1; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 2007.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 32Ponder, C. S. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis of Medical Textiles and Their Role in Prevention of Nosocomial Infections; North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 2009.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 33McGain, F.; McAlister, S.; McGavin, A.; Story, D. A life cycle assessment of reusable and single-use central venous catheter insertion kits Anesth. Analg. (Hagerstown, MD, U. S.) 2012, 114 (5) 1073– 1080
- 34Dettenkofer, M.; Grießhammer, R.; Scherrer, M.; Daschner, F. Life-cycle assessment of single-use versus reusable surgical drapes (cellulose/polyethylene - Mixed cotton system) Der Chirurg 1999, 70 (4) 485– 492[Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar34https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADyaK1M3otlaltw%253D%253D&md5=def0f9b580ce9433ea16944b86e7769fLife-cycle assessment of single-use versus reusable surgical drapes (cellulose/polyethylene-mixed cotton system)Dettenkofer M; Griesshammer R; Scherrer M; Daschner FDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen (1999), 70 (4), 485-91; discussion 491-2 ISSN:0009-4722.Surgical drapes made of cotton are under increasing competition with various disposable products and reusable draping systems (e.g., made of synthetic fabrics like polyester). When making a choice to use one of these medical devices in practical surgery, major aspects like handling, hygienic safety and costs, but also environmental effects have to be taken into account. In this study a mixed system for patient drapes (reusable cotton drapes combined with a reduced set of impermeable single-use drapes made of cellulose/polyethylene) was compared to a system that is only based on single-use drapes with regard to ecology [life-cycle assessment (LCA)]. The medical literature was reviewed to assess important medical aspects of the use of patient drapes, resulting in the statement that there are no conclusive arguments to support a clear hygienic superiority of one of these alternatives. Based on the conditions assumed and stated, the results of the LCA indicate that the mixed draping system is associated with two times more total energy consumption. In addition, more water is needed and more CO2 emissions are produced. However, draping with the single-use product results in more clinical waste. Regarding water pollution no system proved superior. It is difficult to compare and weigh various environmental aspects like the polluting cultivation of cotton in distant countries (reusable drapes) and the higher figure of transportation necessary to deliver the single-use product within Germany. It is an important disadvantage of the mixed system that it combines the ecological burden of both cotton drapes and the single-use alternative.
- 35Bajpai, D.; Tyagi, V. Laundry detergents: An overview J. Oleo Sci. 2007, 56 (7) 327– 340[Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar35https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD2sXntlKnu7g%253D&md5=2a528a729a5dd652bc6b3e4f7a62999dLaundry detergents: an overviewBajpai, Divya; Tyagi, V. K.Journal of Oleo Science (2007), 56 (7), 327-340CODEN: JOSOAP; ISSN:1345-8957. (Japan Oil ChemistsÏ Society)A review. Nowadays laundry detergents are becoming increasingly popular as they can be metered automatically into the washing machine, impart softness, antistaticness, resiliency to fabrics, mild to eyes and skins and shows good dispersibility in water. Because it is consumed when it is used, the sale of laundry detergent is a rather large business. There are many different kinds or brands of laundry detergent sold, many of them claiming some special qualities as selling points. A Laundry detergent compn. is a formulated mixt. of raw materials that can be classified into different types based on their properties and function in the final product. The different classes of raw materials are surfactants, builders, bleaching agents, enzymes, and minors which remove dirt, stain, and soil from surfaces or textiles gave them pleasant feel and odor. The physico-chem. properties of surfactants make them suitable for laundry purposes. Laundry detergent has traditionally been a powd. or granular solid, but the use of liq. laundry detergents has gradually increased over the years, and these days use of liq. detergent equals or even exceeds use of solid detergent. This review paper describes the history, compn., types, mechanism, consumption, environmental effects and consumption of laundry detergents.
- 36Barrie, D. How hospital linen and laundry services are provided J. Hosp. Infect. 1994, 27 (3) 219– 235[Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar36https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADyaK2M%252Flt1GnsA%253D%253D&md5=a953ff0f8b74d5c698f29c8ba029c268How hospital linen and laundry services are providedBarrie DThe Journal of hospital infection (1994), 27 (3), 219-35 ISSN:0195-6701.Hospitals provide clean linen for patients and staff. This article describes the laundering process, laundry equipment, how used hospital linen differs from that of other large organizations and the Department of Health guidance on handling and laundering hospital linen. It reviews how hospital linen contracts are awarded and the responsibilities of the team which evaluates them. Methods of microbiological testing of laundered linen and the interpretation of the results are considered. The properties of different fabrics available for use in operating theatres are summarized. Measures to prevent infection and injury to staff handling used linen are given.
- 37Blackburn, R.; Payne, J. Life cycle analysis of cotton towels: Impact of domestic laundering and recommendations for extending periods between washing Green Chem. 2004, 6 (7) G59– G61Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 38Sulbaek Andersen, M. P.; Sander, S. P.; Nielsen, O. J.; Wagner, D. S.; Sanford, T. J.; Wallington, T. J. Inhalation anaesthetics and climate change Br. J. Anaesth. 2010, 105 (6) 760– 766[Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar38https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC3cbnsFCjsQ%253D%253D&md5=0a4b121b3ff63ab3dd55cf7c7e8e40f6Inhalation anaesthetics and climate changeSulbaek Andersen M P; Sander S P; Nielsen O J; Wagner D S; Sanford T J Jr; Wallington T JBritish journal of anaesthesia (2010), 105 (6), 760-6 ISSN:.BACKGROUND: Although the increasing abundance of CO(2) in our atmosphere is the main driver of the observed climate change, it is the cumulative effect of all forcing agents that dictate the direction and magnitude of the change, and many smaller contributors are also at play. Isoflurane, desflurane, and sevoflurane are widely used inhalation anaesthetics. Emissions of these compounds contribute to radiative forcing of climate change. To quantitatively assess the impact of the anaesthetics on the forcing of climate, detailed information on their properties of heat (infrared, IR) absorption and atmospheric lifetimes are required. METHODS: We have measured the IR spectra of these anaesthetics and conducted calculations of their contribution to radiative forcing of climate change recognizing the important fact that radiative forcing is strongly dependent on the wavelength of the absorption features. RESULTS: Radiative efficiencies of 0.453, 0.469, and 0.351 W m(-2) ppb(-1) and global warming potentials (GWPs) of 510, 1620, and 210 (100 yr time horizon) were established for isoflurane, desflurane, and sevoflurane, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the derived 100 yr GWPs, the average climate impact per anaesthetic procedure at the University of Michigan is the same as the emission of ∼22 kg CO(2). We estimate that the global emissions of inhalation anaesthetics have a climate impact which is comparable with that from the CO(2) emissions from one coal-fired power plant or 1 million passenger cars.
- 39Lenzen, M. Uncertainty in impact and externality assessments: Implications for decision-making Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2006, 11 (3) 189– 199[Crossref], [CAS], Google Scholar39https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD28Xls1Cktbg%253D&md5=8926e64b5da053507dc584dd7b4503a6Uncertainty in impact and externality assessments. Implications for decision-makingLenzen, ManfredInternational Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2006), 11 (3), 189-199CODEN: IJLCFF; ISSN:0948-3349. (Ecomed Publishers AG & Co. KG)Many disciplines, amongst them LCIA, environmental impact and external cost assessments, are often faced with evaluating trade-offs between two or more alternative options in terms of a range of incommensurable indicators. Using process modeling and valuation, these indicators are quantified at mid- or endpoint levels. Recent discussion amongst LCA experts showed that because of the mutually exclusive aspects of uncertainty and relevance, the midpoint/endpoint debate is controversial and difficult to reconcile. This article is aimed at a more quant. anal. of mid- and endpoint impacts, and the implications of uncertainty for decision-making. The consequences for decision-making of uncertainties of endpoints are analyzed quant. for the example of ExternE results, by employing statistical hypothesis testing. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is then used to demonstrate the use of multi-criteria techniques at midpoint levels. Statistical hypothesis testing at the end-point level shows that for the ExternE example, probabilities of mistakenly favoring one alternative over another when they are in reality indistinguishable can be as high as 80%. Therefore, the best est. of external cost is inadequate for most policy making purposes. Indicators at midpoint levels are more certain, but since they are only 'proxy attributes', they carry a hidden uncertainty in their relevance. If endpoint information is too uncertain to allow a decision to be made with reasonable confidence, then the assessment can be carried out in midpoint terms. However, midpoint indicators are generally further removed from people's experience, and less relevant to the question that people actually want to solve. Nevertheless, if this ultimate question is unanswerable (within the certainty required by the decision-maker), a decision can be made on the basis of stakeholders' subjective judgments about the more certain midpoint levels. The crucial point is that these judgments are able to intuitively incorporate many aspects that impact modeling and valuation has trouble quantifying, such as perceived risk, distribution of burdens and benefits, equity, ethical, moral, religious and political beliefs and principles, immediacy and reversibility of potential impacts, voluntariness, controllability and familiarity of exposure, or perceived incompleteness of human knowledge.
- 40Bilec, M.; Ries, R.; Matthews, H. S.; Sharrard, A. L. Example of a hybrid life-cycle assessment of construction processes J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2006, 12 (4) 207– 215
- 41BLS. Producer Price Index Industry Data; U.S. Department of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics: Washington, DC, 2013.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 42Bare, J. C.; Norris, G. A.; Pennington, D. W.; McKone, T. TRACI: The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts J. Ind. Ecol. 2003, 6 (3–4) 49– 78
- 43Frischknecht R, J. N., Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods; Swiss Centre for LCI.: Duebendorf, CH, 2003.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 44Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H.; Doka, G.; Heck, T.; Hellweg, S.; Hischier, R.; Nemecek, T.; Rebitzer, G.; Spielmann, M.Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods, v2.0; Ecoinvent Report No. 3; Ecoinvent: Zurich, 2007.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 45Tieszen, M. E.; Gruenberg, J. C. A quantitative, qualitative, and critical assessment of surgical waste: Surgeons venture through the trash can J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1992, 267 (20) 2765– 2768[Crossref], [CAS], Google Scholar45https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADyaK383ltF2gug%253D%253D&md5=4f527282ff05b3c0ae00cdfe079c45eeA quantitative, qualitative, and critical assessment of surgical waste. Surgeons venture through the trash canTieszen M E; Gruenberg J CJAMA (1992), 267 (20), 2765-8 ISSN:0098-7484.OBJECTIVES: To quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate the surgical waste produced from several common surgical procedures, define categories of waste that might be readily separated for alternative disposal practices or substitution, and determine the change in surgical waste output that elimination or alternative handling methods may effect. DESIGN: A case series evaluating the surgical waste from five types of surgical procedures including operations of the back, heart, abdomen, hip and knee, and herniorrhaphies, prospectively identified and allocated at the availability of the investigator. SETTING: A single tertiary community teaching hospital. OUTCOME MEASURES: Weight, volume, and percentage of disposable linen, paper, and plastic plus miscellaneous material from surgical waste with a later subset separating plastics from miscellaneous items to completely identify all categories. RESULTS: Surgical waste weighing 610.5 lb (274.7 kg) and occupying 171.6 cu ft (5.1 m3) from 27 cases was examined. Disposable linens accounted for 39% of the weight; paper, 7%; plastic, 26%; and miscellaneous waste, 27%. By volume, disposable linen and paper accounted for 69%; plastic, 23%; and miscellaneous waste, 7%. Disposable linen, paper, and recyclable plastic accounted for 73% +/- 7% (mean +/- SD) by weight and 93% +/- 4% by volume of total surgical waste. CONCLUSION: Nationally, annual surgical waste from these five procedures weighs 5.1 x 10(7) lb (2.3 x 10(7) kg) and occupies 1.4 x 10(7) cu ft (4.0 x 10(5) m3). By using reusable linen products and engaging in recycling methods currently available and feasible, we estimate that weight reductions of 73% and volume reductions of 93% in surgical waste are possible.
- 46Wright, J. D.; Ananth, C. V.; Lewin, S. L.; Burke, W. M.; Lu, Y.-S.; Neugut, A. I.; Herzog, T. J.; Hershman, D. L. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease JAMA 2013, 309 (7) 689– 698Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 47U.S. CDC. Number of all-listed procedures for dischargesfrom short-stay hospitals, by procedure category and age: United States,2010. In CDC/NCHS National Hospital Discharge Survey; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Washington, DC, 2010.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 48AMDR. Third-Party Medical Device Reprocessing; Association of Medical Devices Reprocessors: Washington, DC, 2012.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 49Eckelman, M.; Mosher, M.; Gonzalez, A.; Sherman, J. Comparative life cycle assessment of disposable and reusable laryngeal mask airways Anesth. Analg. (Hagerstown, MD, U. S.) 2012, 114 (5) 1067– 1072
- 50Kaiser, B.; Eagan, P. D.; Shaner, H. Solutions to health care waste: Life-cycle thinking and “green” purchasing Environ. Health Perspect. 2001, 109 (3) 205– 207Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
Supporting Information
ARTICLE SECTIONSLife cycle inventory: database selection and allocation details, economic input-output LCA setup and LCIA, Monte Carlo analysis. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
Terms & Conditions
Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.