Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in the construction of healthcare buildings. Analysis of environmental impact

Botejara-Antúnez, Manuel; Garrido-Píriz, Pablo; Sánchez-Barroso, Gonzalo; González-Domínguez, Jaime; García-Sanz-Calcedo, Justo

doi:10.1088/1755-1315/664/1/012053

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to obtain a comprehensive vision of the impacts, LCA also needs to be performed on medical packaging, including shipping containers, sharps containers, and drug trays [23]. When considering reusable packaging materials against their disposable alternatives, it is usually found that employing reusable medical packaging produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions, consumes less water, and creates less landfill waste.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to understand the impacts of medical equipment and procedures also been done on the disposal and management of medical waste. More specifically, scientists have performed LCA analysis on the wastewater produced by the removal of pharmaceuticals and by hospital laundry, as well as solid waste treatment [23]. Ultimately, the study of the life cycle impacts of single-use vs. reusable medical devices needs to cover equipment manufacture and use, packaging, reprocessing methods, and waste disposal aspects.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

To Dispose or to Reuse? Analyzing the Life Cycle Impacts and Costs of Disposal, Sterilization, and Reuse of Electrophysiological Catheters

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the growing ecological footprint of anthropomorphic activities, considering the environmental impacts of any process is becoming increasingly important. This is especially true for the healthcare industry, whose objective of maintaining human health standards is impeded by its own unsustainable practices. To this end, life cycle analysis is particularly helpful. There have not been many life cycle analyses performed on a healthcare device or on medical procedures. Many medical devices are single use, which leads to a significant waste management problem, particularly as plastic is widely used in their composition. The objective of this study is to present a life-cycle-thinking-based approach to compare the environmental impacts associated with single-use electrophysiological catheters with the sterilization of reusable electrophysiological catheters using hydrogen peroxide, ethylene oxide, and peracetic acid. A life cycle assessment was conducted considering different use, disinfection, and disposal scenarios for electrophysiological catheters, using ReCiPe midpoint and endpoint analysis with the SimaPro software. The findings indicate that using single-use disposable electrophysiological catheters, instead of sterilizing a single catheter using either ETO or hydrogen peroxide and reusing multiple times, is preferable from a purely environmental perspective. However, the costs reduce drastically when equipment is sterilized and reused instead of disposing them after using one time. This in turn illustrates that depending on the process, sanitizing and reusing medical devices may not always be more resource-efficient than single device usage. From a cost perspective, ETO sterilization has the lowest costs, and yet it leads to an aggregate environmental impact of over 20 times compared to the single-use scenario, mainly due to the required detoxification process. The outcomes of this research will assist the health care industry in identifying the most suitable operational procedures considering patient safety, economics, and environmental stewardship, and in developing policies and guidelines for a more sustainable healthcare sector.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

To Dispose or to Reuse? Analyzing the Life Cycle Impacts and Costs of Disposal, Sterilization, and Reuse of Electrophysiological Catheters

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Carbon footprint of atrial fibrillation catheter ablation

Ditac

Cottinet

et al. 2022

EP Europace

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims Climate change represents the biggest global health threat of the 21st century. Health care system is itself a large contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In cardiology, atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation is an increasing activity using numerous non-reusable materials that could contribute to GHG emission. Determining a detailed carbon footprint analysis of an AF catheter ablation procedure allows the identification of the main polluting sources that give opportunities for reduction of environmental impact. To assess the carbon footprint of AF catheter ablation procedure. To determine priority actions to decrease pollution. Methods and results An eco-audit method used to predict the GHG emission of an AF catheter ablation procedure was investigated. Two workstations were considered including surgery and anaesthesia. In the operating room, every waste produced by single-use medical devices, pharmaceutical drugs, and energy consumption during intervention were evaluated. All analyses were limited to the operating room. Thirty procedures were analysed over a period of 8 weeks: 18 pulmonary veins isolation RF ablations, 7 complex RF procedures including PVI, roof and mitral isthmus lines, ethanol infusion of the Marshall vein and cavo tricuspid isthmus line, and 5 pulmonary vein isolation with cryoballoon. The mean emission during AF catheter ablation procedures was 76.9 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e). The operating field accounted for 75.4% of the carbon footprint, while only 24.6% for the anaesthesia workstation. On one hand, material production and manufacturing were the most polluting phases of product life cycle which, respectively, represented 71.3% (54.8 kg of CO2-e) and 17.0% (13.1 kg of CO2-e) of total pollution. On the other hand, transport contributed in 10.6% (8.1 kg of CO2-e), while product use resulted in 1.1% (0.9 kg of CO2-e) of GHG production. Electrophysiology catheters were demonstrated to be the main contributors of environmental impact with 29.9 kg of CO2-e (i.e. 38.8%). Three dimensional mapping system and electrocardiogram patches were accounting for 6.8 kg of CO2-e (i.e. 8.8% of total). Conclusion AF catheter ablation involves a mean of 76.9 kg of CO2-e. With an estimated 600 000 annual worldwide procedures, the environmental impact of AF catheter ablation activity is estimated equal to 125 tons of CO2 emission each day. It represents an equivalent of 700 000 km of car ride every day. Electrophysiology catheters and patches are the main contributors of the carbon footprint. The focus must be on reducing, reusing, and recycling these items to limit the impact of AF ablation on the environment. A road map of steps to implement in different time frames is proposed.

show abstract

Carbon footprint of Nepalese healthcare system: A study of Dhulikhel Hospital

Adhikari,

Dangal,

Pandey

et al. 2023

F1000Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Though direct greenhouse gas emissions cannot be observed in health care sectors, there can exist indirect emissions contributing to global climate change. This study addresses the concept of the carbon footprint and its significance in understanding the environmental impact of human activities, with a specific emphasis on the healthcare sector through gate-to-gate (GtoG) life cycle assessment. Transportation, energy consumption, and solid waste generated by hospitals are the primary sources of carbon emissions. Methods: Different standards, guidelines and parameters were used to estimate emissions from both the primary and secondary data. All steps and sub-steps involved in GtoG were accessed and analyzed within the standard ISO 14040:44 guideline. An extensive review of existing literature was carried out for the evaluation and verification of secondary data. Results: The total carbon footprint of generators, electricity consumption, transportation activities, LPG cylinders, PV systems was found to be 58,780 kg-CO2-eq/yr, 519,794 kg-CO2-eq/yr, 272,375 kg-CO2-eq/yr, 44,494 kg-CO2-eq/yr, 35,283 kg-CO2-eq/yr respectively and the emissions from non-biodegradable solid waste was found to be 489,835 kg-CO2/yr. Local air pollutants such as PM10, CO, SO2, NOX, and VOCs generated by generators and transportation were also estimated. The CH4 emissions from liquid waste were 1177.344 kg CH4/BOD yr, and those from biodegradables were 3821.6954 kg CH4/yr. Conclusions: Healthcare professionals and policymakers can take action to reduce the sector's carbon footprint by implementing best practices and encouraging sustainable behavior. This study can be taken as foundation for further exploration of indirect emissions from healthcare sectors not only in Nepal but also in south Asian scenario.

show abstract

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in the construction of healthcare buildings. Analysis of environmental impact

Cited by 4 publications

References 42 publications

To Dispose or to Reuse? Analyzing the Life Cycle Impacts and Costs of Disposal, Sterilization, and Reuse of Electrophysiological Catheters

To Dispose or to Reuse? Analyzing the Life Cycle Impacts and Costs of Disposal, Sterilization, and Reuse of Electrophysiological Catheters

Carbon footprint of atrial fibrillation catheter ablation

Carbon footprint of Nepalese healthcare system: A study of Dhulikhel Hospital

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About