Literature DB >> 20514965

The financial and environmental costs of reusable and single-use plastic anaesthetic drug trays.

F McGain1, S McAlister, A McGavin, D Story.   

Abstract

We modelled the financial and environmental costs of two commonly used anaesthetic plastic drug trays. We proposed that, compared with single-use trays, reusable trays are less expensive, consume less water and produce less carbon dioxide, and that routinely adding cotton and paper increases financial and environmental costs. We used life cycle assessment to model the financial and environmental costs of reusable and single-use trays. From our life cycle assessment modelling, the reusable tray cost (Australian dollars) $0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI] $0.21 to $0.25) while the single-use tray alone cost $0.47 (price range of $0.42 to $0.52) and the single-use tray with cotton and gauze added was $0.90 (no price range in Melbourne). Production of CO2 was 110 g CO2 (95% CI 98 to 122 g CO2) for the reusable tray, 126 g (95% CI 104 to 151 g) for single-use trays alone (mean difference of 16 g, 95% CI -8 to 40 g) and 204 g CO2 (95% CI 166 to 268 g CO2) for the single-use trays with cotton and paper Water use was 3.1 l (95% CI 2.5 to 3.7 l) for the reusable tray, 10.4 l (95% CI 8.2 to 12.7 l) for the single-use tray and 26.7 l (95% CI 20.5 to 35.4 l) for the single-use tray with cotton and paper Compared with reusable plastic trays, single-use trays alone cost twice as much, produced 15% more CO2 and consumed three times the amount of water Packaging cotton gauze and paper with single-use trays markedly increased the financial, energy and water costs. On both financial and environmental grounds it appears difficult to justify the use of single-use drug trays.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20514965     DOI: 10.1177/0310057X1003800320

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anaesth Intensive Care        ISSN: 0310-057X            Impact factor:   1.669


  8 in total

1.  Environmental impact of single-use, reusable, and mixed trocar systems used for laparoscopic cholecystectomies.

Authors:  Linn Boberg; Jagdeep Singh; Agneta Montgomery; Peter Bentzer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-07-15       Impact factor: 3.752

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

Authors:  Chantelle Rizan; Mahmood F Bhutta
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-09-24       Impact factor: 3.453

3.  The carbon footprint of treating patients with septic shock in the intensive care unit.

Authors:  Forbes McGain; Jason P Burnham; Ron Lau; Lu Aye; Marin H Kollef; Scott McAlister
Journal:  Crit Care Resusc       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 2.159

4.  The carbon footprint of cataract surgery.

Authors:  D S Morris; T Wright; J E A Somner; A Connor
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2013-02-22       Impact factor: 3.775

5.  The Environmental footprint of morphine: a life cycle assessment from opium poppy farming to the packaged drug.

Authors:  Scott McAlister; Yanjun Ou; Elise Neff; Karen Hapgood; David Story; Philip Mealey; Forbes McGain
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 6.  Building sustainable and resilient surgical systems: A narrative review of opportunities to integrate climate change into national surgical planning in the Western Pacific region.

Authors:  Rennie X Qin; Lotta Velin; Elizabeth F Yates; Omnia El Omrani; Elizabeth McLeod; Jemesa Tudravu; Lubna Samad; Alistair Woodward; Craig D McClain
Journal:  Lancet Reg Health West Pac       Date:  2022-02-23

Review 7.  Environmental sustainability in anaesthesia and critical care.

Authors:  Forbes McGain; Jane Muret; Cathy Lawson; Jodi D Sherman
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2020-08-12       Impact factor: 9.166

Review 8.  Operating in a Climate Crisis: A State-of-the-Science Review of Life Cycle Assessment within Surgical and Anesthetic Care.

Authors:  Jonathan Drew; Sean D Christie; Peter Tyedmers; Jenna Smith-Forrester; Daniel Rainham
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2021-07-12       Impact factor: 9.031

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.