重复使用支气管镜与一次性支气管镜对环境影响的比较研究

B. Sørensen, Henrik Grüttner
{"title":"重复使用支气管镜与一次性支气管镜对环境影响的比较研究","authors":"B. Sørensen, Henrik Grüttner","doi":"10.11648/J.AJEP.20180704.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The introduction of single-use alternatives has stressed the need for environmental comparisons between reusable and single-use devises in the healthcare sector. Discarding of single-use devices intuitively causes concern among staff in hospitals, other users and people with environmental concerns as to whether the single use is environmentally friendly. This study aims to compare carbon dioxide (CO2)-equivalent emissions and resource consumption from a single-use bronchoscope (Ambu® aScopeTM 4) to a reusable flexible bronchoscope. The comparison is made using a simplified life-cycle-assessment methodology. The analysis shows that the materials used for the cleaning operations of the reusable scopes are a key factor affecting the impact factors assessed; energy consumption, emission of CO2-equivalent and consumption of scarce resources. Initially, it is assumed that each reusable scope is cleaned using one set of personal protective equipment (PPE) per cleaning operation, but since cleaning practice may vary the consequence of cleaning more scopes with one set of PPE is also assessed. Using one set of protective wear per operation and the materials for cleaning and disinfection determine that reusable scopes have comparable or higher material and energy consumption as well as higher emissions of CO2-equivalents and values of resource consumption. Cleaning two or more reusable scopes per set of PPE makes the impacts fairly comparable. Other aspects that may impact the results are also assessed, including energy consumption for washing and drying units, differences in use of PPE and differences in the disposal of PPE or single-use scopes. As the three assessed parameters are highly dependent on cleaning procedures and the use of protective equipment, it cannot be concluded from these results which type of bronchoscope affects the environmental factors investigated here the most.","PeriodicalId":8987,"journal":{"name":"BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"34","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Study on Environmental Impacts of Reusable and Single-use Bronchoscopes\",\"authors\":\"B. Sørensen, Henrik Grüttner\",\"doi\":\"10.11648/J.AJEP.20180704.11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The introduction of single-use alternatives has stressed the need for environmental comparisons between reusable and single-use devises in the healthcare sector. Discarding of single-use devices intuitively causes concern among staff in hospitals, other users and people with environmental concerns as to whether the single use is environmentally friendly. This study aims to compare carbon dioxide (CO2)-equivalent emissions and resource consumption from a single-use bronchoscope (Ambu® aScopeTM 4) to a reusable flexible bronchoscope. The comparison is made using a simplified life-cycle-assessment methodology. The analysis shows that the materials used for the cleaning operations of the reusable scopes are a key factor affecting the impact factors assessed; energy consumption, emission of CO2-equivalent and consumption of scarce resources. Initially, it is assumed that each reusable scope is cleaned using one set of personal protective equipment (PPE) per cleaning operation, but since cleaning practice may vary the consequence of cleaning more scopes with one set of PPE is also assessed. Using one set of protective wear per operation and the materials for cleaning and disinfection determine that reusable scopes have comparable or higher material and energy consumption as well as higher emissions of CO2-equivalents and values of resource consumption. Cleaning two or more reusable scopes per set of PPE makes the impacts fairly comparable. Other aspects that may impact the results are also assessed, including energy consumption for washing and drying units, differences in use of PPE and differences in the disposal of PPE or single-use scopes. As the three assessed parameters are highly dependent on cleaning procedures and the use of protective equipment, it cannot be concluded from these results which type of bronchoscope affects the environmental factors investigated here the most.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8987,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"34\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11648/J.AJEP.20180704.11\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11648/J.AJEP.20180704.11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 34

摘要

一次性替代品的引入强调了在医疗保健部门对可重复使用设备和一次性设备进行环境比较的必要性。一次性设备的丢弃直观地引起医院工作人员、其他用户和关注环境的人的关注,即一次性使用是否环保。本研究旨在比较一次性支气管镜(Ambu®aScopeTM 4)与可重复使用的柔性支气管镜的二氧化碳(CO2)当量排放和资源消耗。采用简化的生命周期评估方法进行比较。分析表明,可重复使用范围的清洗操作所用的材料是影响评价影响因子的关键因素;能源消耗、二氧化碳当量排放和稀缺资源消耗。最初,假设每次清洁操作使用一套个人防护装备(PPE)清洁每个可重复使用的范围,但由于清洁实践可能会有所不同,因此还评估了使用一套PPE清洁多个范围的后果。每次操作使用一套防护服和用于清洁和消毒的材料,确定可重复使用的范围具有相当或更高的材料和能源消耗,以及更高的二氧化碳当量排放和资源消耗值。每套个人防护用品清洗两个或多个可重复使用的范围,使影响具有相当的可比性。还评估了可能影响结果的其他方面,包括洗涤和干燥装置的能耗、个人防护装备使用的差异以及个人防护装备或一次性使用范围的处置差异。由于这三个评估参数高度依赖于清洁程序和防护装备的使用,因此无法从这些结果中得出哪种类型的支气管镜对所研究的环境因素影响最大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparative Study on Environmental Impacts of Reusable and Single-use Bronchoscopes
The introduction of single-use alternatives has stressed the need for environmental comparisons between reusable and single-use devises in the healthcare sector. Discarding of single-use devices intuitively causes concern among staff in hospitals, other users and people with environmental concerns as to whether the single use is environmentally friendly. This study aims to compare carbon dioxide (CO2)-equivalent emissions and resource consumption from a single-use bronchoscope (Ambu® aScopeTM 4) to a reusable flexible bronchoscope. The comparison is made using a simplified life-cycle-assessment methodology. The analysis shows that the materials used for the cleaning operations of the reusable scopes are a key factor affecting the impact factors assessed; energy consumption, emission of CO2-equivalent and consumption of scarce resources. Initially, it is assumed that each reusable scope is cleaned using one set of personal protective equipment (PPE) per cleaning operation, but since cleaning practice may vary the consequence of cleaning more scopes with one set of PPE is also assessed. Using one set of protective wear per operation and the materials for cleaning and disinfection determine that reusable scopes have comparable or higher material and energy consumption as well as higher emissions of CO2-equivalents and values of resource consumption. Cleaning two or more reusable scopes per set of PPE makes the impacts fairly comparable. Other aspects that may impact the results are also assessed, including energy consumption for washing and drying units, differences in use of PPE and differences in the disposal of PPE or single-use scopes. As the three assessed parameters are highly dependent on cleaning procedures and the use of protective equipment, it cannot be concluded from these results which type of bronchoscope affects the environmental factors investigated here the most.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Anaesthesia practice in the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States: a population-based cohort study Use of sildenafil in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonitis Silver linings: will the COVID-19 pandemic instigate long overdue mental health support services for healthcare workers? Absent visitors: the wider implications of COVID-19 on cardiothoracic ICU staff: the VINCI Study Injury-prone: peripheral nerve injuries associated with prone positioning for COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome
×
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