Life Cycle Optimization for Synthetic Rubber Glove Manufacturing

Poh, Gary K. X.; Chew, Irene Mei Leng; Tan, Jully

doi:10.1002/ceat.201800476

Cited by 17 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…7 A list of suppliers awarded UK contracts for PPE is available in a UK National Audit Office report, but this does not provide data on volumes supplied or distributed, or country of origin 3 and our model was based on best available information on the country of origin of products. 7 Electricity consumption during the manufacturing process was modelled on best available secondary data for comparable products, [8][9][10][11] and electricity inventory processes chosen and weighted based on country of origin(s). We excluded water and fuel during manufacture because such data were not available and were unlikely to materially affect results.…”

Section: Parameters For Life Cycle Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental impact of personal protective equipment distributed for use by health and social care services in England in the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To quantify the environmental impact of personal protective equipment (PPE) distributed for use by the health and social care system to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in England, and model strategies for mitigating the environmental impact. Design Life cycle assessment was used to determine environmental impacts of PPE distributed to health and social care in England during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The base scenario assumed all products were single-use and disposed of via clinical waste. Scenario modelling was used to determine the effect of environmental mitigation strategies: (1) eliminating international travel during supply; (2) eliminating glove use; (3) reusing gowns and face shields; and (4) maximal recycling. Setting Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, UK. Main outcome measures The carbon footprint of PPE distributed during the study period totalled 106,478 tonnes CO2e, with greatest contributions from gloves, aprons, face shields and Type IIR surgical masks. The estimated damage to human health was 239 DALYs (disability-adjusted life years), impact on ecosystems was 0.47 species.year (loss of local species per year), and impact on resource depletion was costed at US $12.7m (GBP £9.3m). Scenario modelling indicated UK manufacture would have reduced the carbon footprint by 12%, eliminating gloves by 45%, reusing gowns and gloves by 10% and maximal recycling by 35%. Results A combination of strategies may have reduced the carbon footprint by 75% compared with the base scenario, and saved an estimated 183 DALYS, 0.34 species.year and US $7.4m (GBP £5.4m) due to resource depletion. Conclusion The environmental impact of PPE is large and could be reduced through domestic manufacture, rationalising glove use, using reusables where possible and optimising waste management.

show abstract

Section: Parameters For Life Cycle Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental impact of personal protective equipment distributed for use by health and social care services in England in the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7Where a type of product was procured from more than one country, a weighted average was applied to our calculations on the assumption that equal numbers of the product were supplied from each listed supplier. 7Electricity consumption during the manufacturing process was modelled on best available secondary data for comparable products, (8)(9)(10)(11) and electricity inventory processes were chosen and weighted based on the COI(s). We excluded water and fuel during manufacture because such data were not available, and are unlikely to materially affect results.…”

Section: Selection Of Representative Ppe Items and Determination Of Mmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental impact of Personal Protective Equipment supplied to health and social care services in England in the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic

Rizan

Reed

Bhutta

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) has been central to controlling spread of SARS-CoV2. This study aims to quantify the environmental impact of this, and to model strategies for its reduction. Methods Life cycle assessment was used to determine environmental impacts of PPE supplied to health and social care in England during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The base scenario assumed all products were single-use, air freighted, and disposed via clinical waste. Scenario modelling was used to determine the effect of 1) switching mode of, or eliminating, international travel during supply, 2) reducing glove use 3) using reusable alternatives, 4) maximal recycling. Results The carbon footprint of PPE supplied during the study period totalled 158,838 tonnes CO2e, with greatest contributions from gloves, aprons, face shields, and Type IIR surgical masks. The estimated damage to human health was 314 DALYs (disability adjusted life years), impact on ecosystems was 0.67 species.year (loss of local species per year), and impact on resource depletion costing US $ 20.4 million. Scenario modelling indicated one-third of the carbon footprint could be avoided through switching to shipping, and by 41% through manufacturing PPE in the UK. The carbon footprint was reduced by 83% compared with the base scenario through a combination of UK manufacturing, reducing glove use, using reusable gowns and reuse of face shields, and maximal recycling, estimated to save 259 DALYS, 0.54 species.year, and US $ 15 million due to resource depletion. Conclusions The environmental impact of PPE could be reduced through shipping supplies or domestic manufacture, rationalising glove use, using reusables where possible, and optimising waste management.

show abstract

“…Consequently, the environmental performance of NR and nitrile gloves cannot be quantitatively compared based on the available reports. [10,11] The present study fills this gap.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…LCA is an environmental management tool that evaluates inputs, outputs, and potential environmental impacts associated with a product during its entire life cycle. [8,9] Although separate LCA of NR gloves and nitrile gloves have been used to assess their environmental impacts, [10,11] the specific types (e.g., medical examination, food processing, or industrial grade) of gloves used in these evaluations were not specified. [10,11] LCA is affected by the glove type because, depending on intended application, their production requires different amounts of raw materials (e.g., rubber and other chemicals) and energy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental impacts of examination gloves made of natural rubber and nitrile rubber, identified by life‐cycle assessment

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Medical examination gloves made of natural rubber (NR; powdered and nonpowdered) and synthetic nitrile rubber (NBR) were compared in terms of their environmental impact using life cycle assessments spanning material extraction, transportation to the glove production factory, the production process, and disposal by total incineration. ReCiPe Midpoint (H) V1.13/World Recipe H life cycle assessment method implemented using the SimaPro 9.0.0.48, was used.Single scores of each glove type and stage were determined by using weighting factors specifically obtained from a 2014 survey in Thailand. With current technologies, the overall environmental impact, or the total single score, of NR gloves was higher than of NBR gloves, because the glove production stage of NR gloves required more energy and sulfur use. In addition, the overall environmental impact of both types of gloves was found to be lower if powder coating was used rather than chlorination to reduce stickiness, and if glove production relied on natural gas for energy rather than coal. The single score approach revealed the hotspots for potential improvements for each glove type.

show abstract

Life Cycle Optimization for Synthetic Rubber Glove Manufacturing

Cited by 17 publications

References 16 publications

Environmental impact of personal protective equipment distributed for use by health and social care services in England in the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic

Environmental impact of personal protective equipment distributed for use by health and social care services in England in the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic

Environmental impact of Personal Protective Equipment supplied to health and social care services in England in the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic

Environmental impacts of examination gloves made of natural rubber and nitrile rubber, identified by life‐cycle assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About