Five Misperceptions Surrounding the Environmental Impacts of Single-Use Plastic

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (22) ◽  
pp. 14143-14151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shelie A. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Impacts ◽  
Single Use

Environmental impacts of reusable nanoscale silver-coated hospital gowns compared to single-use, disposable gowns

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 1124-1132 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. L. Hicks ◽  
R. B. Reed ◽  
T. L. Theis ◽  
D. Hanigan ◽  
H. Huling ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Impacts ◽  
Antimicrobial Properties ◽  
Hospital Gowns ◽  
Single Use

Nanoscale silver has been incorporated into a variety of products where its antimicrobial properties enhance their functionality.

scholarly journals Environmental impact and life cycle financial cost of hybrid (reusable/single-use) instruments versus single-use equivalents in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chantelle Rizan ◽  
Mahmood F. Bhutta
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Environmental Impacts ◽  
Carbon Footprint ◽  
Surgical Instruments ◽  
Financial Cost ◽  
Laparoscopic Instruments ◽  
Single Use ◽  
Hybrid Instruments

Abstract Background Hybrid surgical instruments contain both single-use and reusable components, potentially bringing together advantages from both approaches. The environmental and financial costs of such instruments have not previously been evaluated. Methods We used Life Cycle Assessment to evaluate the environmental impact of hybrid laparoscopic clip appliers, scissors, and ports used for a laparoscopic cholecystectomy, comparing these with single-use equivalents. We modelled this using SimaPro and ReCiPe midpoint and endpoint methods to determine 18 midpoint environmental impacts including the carbon footprint, and three aggregated endpoint impacts. We also conducted life cycle cost analysis of products, taking into account unit cost, decontamination, and disposal costs. Results The environmental impact of using hybrid instruments for a laparoscopic cholecystectomy was lower than single-use equivalents across 17 midpoint environmental impacts, with mean average reductions of 60%. The carbon footprint of using hybrid versions of all three instruments was around one-quarter of single-use equivalents (1756 g vs 7194 g CO2e per operation) and saved an estimated 1.13 e−5 DALYs (disability adjusted life years, 74% reduction), 2.37 e−8 species.year (loss of local species per year, 76% reduction), and US $ 0.6 in impact on resource depletion (78% reduction). Scenario modelling indicated that environmental performance of hybrid instruments was better even if there was low number of reuses of instruments, decontamination with separate packaging of certain instruments, decontamination using fossil-fuel-rich energy sources, or changing carbon intensity of instrument transportation. Total financial cost of using a combination of hybrid laparoscopic instruments was less than half that of single-use equivalents (GBP £131 vs £282). Conclusion Adoption of hybrid laparoscopic instruments could play an important role in meeting carbon reduction targets for surgery and also save money.

scholarly journals Environmental impact and life cycle financial cost of hybrid (reusable/ single-use) instruments versus single-use equivalents in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chantelle Rizan ◽  
Mahmood F Bhutta
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Environmental Impacts ◽  
Carbon Footprint ◽  
Surgical Instruments ◽  
Laparoscopic Instruments ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Single Use ◽  
Hybrid Instruments

ABSTRACTBackgroundHybrid surgical instruments contain both single-use and reusable components, potentially bringing together advantages from both approaches.MethodsWe used Life Cycle Assessment to evaluate environmental impact of hybrid laparoscopic clip appliers, scissors and ports used for a laparoscopic cholecystectomy, comparing these with single-use equivalents. We modelled this using SimaPro to determine 18 midpoint environmental impacts including the carbon footprint, and three aggregated endpoint impacts. We also conducted life cycle cost analysis, taking into account unit cost, decontamination, and disposal costs.FindingsThe environmental impact of using hybrid instruments for a laparoscopic cholecystectomy was lower than single-use equivalents across 17 midpoint environmental impacts, with mean average reductions of 60%, and costing less than half that of single-use equivalents (GBP £131 versus £282). The carbon footprint of using hybrid versions of all three instruments was around one-quarter of single-use equivalents (1,756 g versus 7,194 g CO2e per operation), and saved an estimated 1.13 e-5 DALYs (disability associated life years, 74% reduction), 2.37 e-8 species.year (loss of local species per year, 76% reduction), and US $ 0.6 in impact on resource depletion (78% reduction). Scenario modelling indicated environmental performance of hybrid instruments was better even given low number of reuses of instruments, decontamination with separate packaging of certain instruments, decontamination using fossil-fuel rich energy sources, or changing carbon intensity of instrument transportation.InterpretationAdoption of hybrid laparoscopic instruments could play an important role in meeting carbon reduction targets for surgery, whilst saving money.FundingThis work was funded by Surgical Innovations Ltd who manufacture hybrid laparoscopic instruments.

scholarly journals Do single-use medical devices containing biopolymers reduce the environmental impacts of surgical procedures compared with their plastic equivalents?

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 218-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott R Unger ◽  
Troy A Hottle ◽  
Shakira R Hobbs ◽  
Cassandra L Thiel ◽  
Nicole Campion ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmental Impacts ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Energy Demand ◽  
Cumulative Energy ◽  
Cumulative Energy Demand ◽  
Respiratory Effects ◽  
Medical Products ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Single Use

Background While petroleum-based plastics are extensively used in health care, recent developments in biopolymer manufacturing have created new opportunities for increased integration of biopolymers into medical products, devices and services. This study compared the environmental impacts of single-use disposable devices with increased biopolymer content versus typically manufactured devices in hysterectomy. Methods A comparative life cycle assessment of single-use disposable medical products containing plastic(s) versus the same single-use medical devices with biopolymers substituted for plastic(s) at Magee-Women’s Hospital (Magee) in Pittsburgh, PA and the products used in four types of hysterectomies that contained plastics potentially suitable for biopolymer substitution. Magee is a 360-bed teaching hospital, which performs approximately 1400 hysterectomies annually. Results There are life cycle environmental impact tradeoffs when substituting biopolymers for petroplastics in procedures such as hysterectomies. The substitution of biopolymers for petroleum-based plastics increased smog-related impacts by approximately 900% for laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies, and increased ozone depletion-related impacts by approximately 125% for laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies. Conversely, biopolymers reduced life cycle human health impacts, acidification and cumulative energy demand for the four hysterectomy procedures. The integration of biopolymers into medical products is correlated with reductions in carcinogenic impacts, non-carcinogenic impacts and respiratory effects. However, the significant agricultural inputs associated with manufacturing biopolymers exacerbate environmental impacts of products and devices made using biopolymers. Conclusions The integration of biopolymers into medical products is correlated with reductions in carcinogenic impacts, non-carcinogenic impacts and respiratory effects; however, the significant agricultural inputs associated with manufacturing biopolymers exacerbate environmental impacts.

Environmental Impacts of Single‐Use Systems

2019 ◽  
pp. 169-179
Author(s):  
William G. Whitford ◽  
Mark A. Petrich ◽  
William P. Flanagan
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Impacts ◽  
Single Use
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document