Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost of repairing surgical scissors

被引:8
|
作者
Rizan, Chantelle [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Brophy, Tom [4 ]
Lillywhite, Robert [5 ]
Reed, Malcom [2 ]
Bhutta, Mahmood F. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Sussex NHS Fdn Trust, ENT Dept, Brighton BN2 5BE, E Sussex, England
[2] Brighton & Sussex Med Sch, Brighton BN1 9PX, E Sussex, England
[3] Royal Coll Surgeons England, 38-43 Lincolns Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE, England
[4] Barts Hlth NHS Trust, Royal London Hosp, Whitechapel Rd, London E1 1FR, England
[5] Univ Warwick, Sch Life Sci, Gibbet Hill Campus, Coventry CV4 7AL, W Midlands, England
来源
关键词
Repair; Surgical scissors; Surgical instruments; Life cycle assessment; Carbon footprint; Life cycle cost; CARBON FOOTPRINT; ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT; HEALTH;
D O I
10.1007/s11367-022-02064-7
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Purpose The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the environmental impact and financial cost of repairing surgical scissors. Methods We used life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost analysis to estimate environmental impacts and financial cost of repairing surgical scissors. The functional unit was one use of a reusable surgical scissor (manufactured in Germany and used in the UK), and three baseline scenarios were compared: no repair, onsite (hospital), and offsite (external contract) repair. This 'cradle-to-grave' analysis included raw material extraction, manufacture of scissors and materials within primary and secondary packaging, transportation, decontamination, repair (where relevant), and waste disposal. Primary activity data was sourced from the instrument manufacturer, supplier, and from UK repair centres (both onsite and offsite), whilst the Ecoinvent database was used as a secondary data source for the manufacture of scissors. The World ReCiPe Midpoint and Endpoint Hierarchist method (Version 1.1) was used for environmental impact assessment. Scenario analysis was used to evaluate the impact of altering different assumptions, including number of uses, reducing number of repairs, increasing distance to offsite repair centre, and alternative electricity sources and waste handling processes. Life cycle cost analysis was calculated based on purchase cost, and cost of decontamination, repair, and waste disposal. Results and discussion The carbon footprint of reusable scissors was 70 g CO 2 e per use, assuming scissors were used 40 times before replacement. This was reduced by 19% through use of offsite repair every 40 uses (57 g CO 2 e/scissor use), with small additional reductions associated with onsite repair (56 g CO 2 e/scissor use). Similar patterns of reduction were calculated for eighteen midpoint environmental impact categories (mean impact reduction of 30% for those repaired offsite relative to no repair) and also across three endpoint categories. Decontamination made the biggest contribution to the carbon footprint across all baseline scenarios (76% where no repair, 95-97% where repaired offsite and onsite respectively). Findings were robust to alternative scenario analyses. Life cycle cost was GBP 1.43 pound per use of reusable scissors, and when repaired either on- or offsite this decreased by 32% to GBP 0.97 pound per use. Conclusion Repairing surgical scissors rather than replacing them with a new pair can reduce environmental and financial cost. The extent to which repair may play a role in mitigating the environmental impact of other surgical instruments requires further research.
引用
收藏
页码:780 / 795
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost of repairing surgical scissors
    Chantelle Rizan
    Tom Brophy
    Robert Lillywhite
    Malcom Reed
    Mahmood F. Bhutta
    [J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2022, 27 : 780 - 795
  • [2] Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost of sugar plants evaporators
    Cardoso Santos, Lino Jose
    Tenorio, Jorge Alberto S.
    [J]. REM-REVISTA ESCOLA DE MINAS, 2010, 63 (01) : 179 - 184
  • [3] The Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Cost in public works contracts
    Grzyl, Beata
    Siemaszko, Agata
    [J]. 10TH CONFERENCE ON INTERDISCIPLINARY PROBLEMS IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ENGINEERING EKO-DOK 2018, 2018, 44
  • [4] Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost analysis of surgical mask from production to recycling into hydrogen process
    Yin, Kexin
    Wei, Ranran
    Ruan, Jiuxu
    Cui, Peizhe
    Zhu, Zhaoyou
    Wang, Yinglong
    Zhao, Xinling
    [J]. ENERGY, 2023, 283
  • [5] Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost of buildings' insulation materials in Italy
    Lazzarin, Renato M.
    Busato, Filippo
    Castellotti, Francesco
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOW-CARBON TECHNOLOGIES, 2008, 3 (01) : 44 - 58
  • [6] Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost implications of wall assemblages designs
    Islam, Hamidul
    Jollands, Margaret
    Setunge, Sujeeva
    Ahmed, Iftekhar
    Hague, Nawshad
    [J]. ENERGY AND BUILDINGS, 2014, 84 : 33 - 45
  • [7] Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost analysis of Jatropha biodiesel production in China
    Liu, Yanbing
    Zhu, Zongyuan
    Zhang, Rui
    Zhao, Xubo
    [J]. BIOMASS CONVERSION AND BIOREFINERY, 2022,
  • [8] Challenges within Life Cycle Cost (LCC) studies and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
    Linneberg, P.
    Solgaard, A. O. S.
    Eriksen, K.
    Jensen, J. S.
    [J]. BRIDGE MAINTENANCE, SAFETY, MANAGEMENT AND LIFE EXTENSION, 2014, : 1048 - 1055
  • [9] Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost analysis for airfield pavement: a review article
    Orabi, Joumana
    Shatila, Walid
    [J]. INNOVATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS, 2024, 9 (06)
  • [10] Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Magnesia Spinel Brick Production
    Ozkan, Aysun
    Gunkaya, Zerrin
    Tok, Gulden
    Karacasulu, Levent
    Metesoy, Melike
    Banar, Mufide
    Kara, Alpagut
    [J]. SUSTAINABILITY, 2016, 8 (07):