Chantelle Rizan1,2,3,4, Malcolm Reed2, Mahmood F Bhutta1,2,5. 1. 1949Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton BN25BE, UK. 2. 12190Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton BN1 9PX, UK. 3. Centre for Sustainable Healthcare, Oxford OX2 7JQ, UK. 4. Royal College of Surgeons of England, London WC2A 3PE, UK. 5. BMA Medical Fair and Ethical Trade Group, British Medical Association, London WC1H 9JP, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the environmental impact of personal protective equipment (PPE) distributed for use by the health and social care system to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in England, and model strategies for mitigating the environmental impact. DESIGN: Life cycle assessment was used to determine environmental impacts of PPE distributed to health and social care in England during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The base scenario assumed all products were single-use and disposed of via clinical waste. Scenario modelling was used to determine the effect of environmental mitigation strategies: (1) eliminating international travel during supply; (2) eliminating glove use; (3) reusing gowns and face shields; and (4) maximal recycling. SETTING: Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, UK. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The carbon footprint of PPE distributed during the study period totalled 106,478 tonnes CO2e, with greatest contributions from gloves, aprons, face shields and Type IIR surgical masks. The estimated damage to human health was 239 DALYs (disability-adjusted life years), impact on ecosystems was 0.47 species.year (loss of local species per year), and impact on resource depletion was costed at US $12.7m (GBP £9.3m). Scenario modelling indicated UK manufacture would have reduced the carbon footprint by 12%, eliminating gloves by 45%, reusing gowns and gloves by 10% and maximal recycling by 35%. RESULTS: A combination of strategies may have reduced the carbon footprint by 75% compared with the base scenario, and saved an estimated 183 DALYS, 0.34 species.year and US $7.4m (GBP £5.4m) due to resource depletion. CONCLUSION: The environmental impact of PPE is large and could be reduced through domestic manufacture, rationalising glove use, using reusables where possible and optimising waste management.
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the environmental impact of personal protective equipment (PPE) distributed for use by the health and social care system to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in England, and model strategies for mitigating the environmental impact. DESIGN: Life cycle assessment was used to determine environmental impacts of PPE distributed to health and social care in England during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The base scenario assumed all products were single-use and disposed of via clinical waste. Scenario modelling was used to determine the effect of environmental mitigation strategies: (1) eliminating international travel during supply; (2) eliminating glove use; (3) reusing gowns and face shields; and (4) maximal recycling. SETTING: Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, UK. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The carbon footprint of PPE distributed during the study period totalled 106,478 tonnes CO2e, with greatest contributions from gloves, aprons, face shields and Type IIR surgical masks. The estimated damage to human health was 239 DALYs (disability-adjusted life years), impact on ecosystems was 0.47 species.year (loss of local species per year), and impact on resource depletion was costed at US $12.7m (GBP £9.3m). Scenario modelling indicated UK manufacture would have reduced the carbon footprint by 12%, eliminating gloves by 45%, reusing gowns and gloves by 10% and maximal recycling by 35%. RESULTS: A combination of strategies may have reduced the carbon footprint by 75% compared with the base scenario, and saved an estimated 183 DALYS, 0.34 species.year and US $7.4m (GBP £5.4m) due to resource depletion. CONCLUSION: The environmental impact of PPE is large and could be reduced through domestic manufacture, rationalising glove use, using reusables where possible and optimising waste management.
Entities:
Keywords:
Environmental issues; health policy; public health
Authors: James B Maurice; Andrew Rochford; Sarah Marshall; Shaji Sebastian; Anjan Dhar; Bu'Hussain Hayee Journal: Frontline Gastroenterol Date: 2021-06-07
Authors: Melisa Mei Jin Tan; Rachel Neill; Victoria Haldane; Anne-Sophie Jung; Chuan De Foo; See Mieng Tan; Pami Shrestha; Monica Verma; Mathias Bonk; Salma M Abdalla; Helena Legido-Quigley Journal: BMJ Date: 2021-11-28
Authors: Arun Arjunan; John Robinson; Ahmad Baroutaji; Alberto Tuñón-Molina; Miguel Martí; Ángel Serrano-Aroca Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 5.923
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