Does reusable mean green? Comparison of the environmental impact of reusable operating room bed covers and lift sheets versus single-use

{"title":"Does reusable mean green? Comparison of the environmental impact of reusable operating room bed covers and lift sheets versus single-use","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.surge.2024.05.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>As hospitals strive to reduce their environmental footprint, there is an ongoing debate over the environmental implications of reusable versus disposable linens in operating rooms (ORs). This research aimed to compare the environmental impact of reusable versus single-use OR bed covers and lift sheets using life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>LCA is an established tool with rigorous methodology that uses science-based processes to measure environmental impact. This study compared the impacts of three independent system scenarios at a single large academic hospital: reusable bed covers with 50 laundry cycles and subsequent landfill disposal (System 1), single-use bed covers with waste landfill disposal (System 2), and single-use bed covers with waste disposal using incineration (System 3).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The total carbon footprint of System 1 for 50 uses was 19.83 ​kg carbon dioxide equivalents (CO<sub>2</sub>-eq). System 2 generated 64.99 ​kg CO<sub>2</sub>-eq. For System 3, the total carbon footprint was 108.98 ​kg CO<sub>2</sub>-eq. The raw material extraction for all the material to produce an equivalent 50 single-use OR bed cover kits was tenfold more carbon-intensive than the reusable bed cover. Laundering one reusable OR bed cover 50 times was more carbon intensive (12.12 ​kg CO2-eq) than landfill disposal of 50 single-use OR bed covers (2.52 ​kg CO2-eq).</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>Our analysis demonstrates that one reusable fabric-based OR bed cover laundered 50 times, despite the carbon and water-intensive laundering process, exhibits a markedly lower carbon footprint than its single-use counterparts. The net difference is 45.16 ​kg CO2-eq, equivalent to driving 115 miles in an average gasoline-powered passenger vehicle. This stark contrast underscores the efficacy of adopting reusable solutions to mitigate environmental impact within healthcare facilities.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49463,"journal":{"name":"Surgeon-Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland","volume":"22 4","pages":"Pages 236-241"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1479666X24000581/pdfft?md5=80777cfcba3a43430e967d8046b277c9&pid=1-s2.0-S1479666X24000581-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgeon-Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1479666X24000581","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

As hospitals strive to reduce their environmental footprint, there is an ongoing debate over the environmental implications of reusable versus disposable linens in operating rooms (ORs). This research aimed to compare the environmental impact of reusable versus single-use OR bed covers and lift sheets using life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology.

Methods

LCA is an established tool with rigorous methodology that uses science-based processes to measure environmental impact. This study compared the impacts of three independent system scenarios at a single large academic hospital: reusable bed covers with 50 laundry cycles and subsequent landfill disposal (System 1), single-use bed covers with waste landfill disposal (System 2), and single-use bed covers with waste disposal using incineration (System 3).

Results

The total carbon footprint of System 1 for 50 uses was 19.83 ​kg carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-eq). System 2 generated 64.99 ​kg CO2-eq. For System 3, the total carbon footprint was 108.98 ​kg CO2-eq. The raw material extraction for all the material to produce an equivalent 50 single-use OR bed cover kits was tenfold more carbon-intensive than the reusable bed cover. Laundering one reusable OR bed cover 50 times was more carbon intensive (12.12 ​kg CO2-eq) than landfill disposal of 50 single-use OR bed covers (2.52 ​kg CO2-eq).

Discussion

Our analysis demonstrates that one reusable fabric-based OR bed cover laundered 50 times, despite the carbon and water-intensive laundering process, exhibits a markedly lower carbon footprint than its single-use counterparts. The net difference is 45.16 ​kg CO2-eq, equivalent to driving 115 miles in an average gasoline-powered passenger vehicle. This stark contrast underscores the efficacy of adopting reusable solutions to mitigate environmental impact within healthcare facilities.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
可重复使用是否意味着绿色环保?可重复使用手术室床罩和床单与一次性使用对环境影响的比较。
导言:随着医院努力减少对环境的影响,关于手术室(OR)中可重复使用和一次性床单对环境的影响一直存在争议。这项研究旨在利用生命周期评估(LCA)方法,比较可重复使用和一次性使用的手术室床罩和床单对环境的影响:生命周期评估是一种具有严格方法论的成熟工具,使用基于科学的流程来衡量对环境的影响。本研究比较了一家大型学术医院的三个独立系统方案的影响:可重复使用床罩,50 次洗衣周期,随后填埋处理(系统 1);一次性使用床罩,废物填埋处理(系统 2);一次性使用床罩,废物焚烧处理(系统 3):系统 1 使用 50 次的总碳足迹为 19.83 千克二氧化碳当量(CO2-eq)。系统 2 产生 64.99 千克二氧化碳当量。系统 3 的总碳足迹为 108.98 千克二氧化碳当量。生产 50 套一次性手术床罩所需的所有材料的碳密集度是可重复使用床罩的十倍。将一个可重复使用的手术床罩洗涤 50 次的碳密集度(12.12 千克二氧化碳当量)比填埋处理 50 个一次性手术床罩的碳密集度(2.52 千克二氧化碳当量)要高:我们的分析表明,一个可重复使用的织物手术床罩经过 50 次洗涤后,尽管在洗涤过程中需要耗费大量的碳和水,但其碳足迹却明显低于一次性使用的同类床罩。净差值为 45.16 千克二氧化碳当量,相当于普通汽油乘用车行驶 115 英里。这种鲜明的对比突出表明,采用可重复使用的解决方案可以有效减轻医疗设施对环境的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
158
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Since its establishment in 2003, The Surgeon has established itself as one of the leading multidisciplinary surgical titles, both in print and online. The Surgeon is published for the worldwide surgical and dental communities. The goal of the Journal is to achieve wider national and international recognition, through a commitment to excellence in original research. In addition, both Colleges see the Journal as an important educational service, and consequently there is a particular focus on post-graduate development. Much of our educational role will continue to be achieved through publishing expanded review articles by leaders in their field. Articles in related areas to surgery and dentistry, such as healthcare management and education, are also welcomed. We aim to educate, entertain, give insight into new surgical techniques and technology, and provide a forum for debate and discussion.
期刊最新文献
Enhancements in artificial intelligence for medical examinations: A leap from ChatGPT 3.5 to ChatGPT 4.0 in the FRCS trauma & orthopaedics examination. A boost to concentration or a distracting noise? A systematic review of surgeon and anaesthetist perspectives of the benefit of intra-operative music. List of editors Surgeon ability to predict physical activity and sedentary time: Comparison of self-reported and measured activity Sensitivity and specificity of surgeons' intra-operative diagnosis of appendicitis. A systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1