H Jamal1, A Lyne2, P Ashley2, B Duane3. 1. Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Eastman Dental Institute, University College London, London, UK. Electronic address: hasan.jamal.18@ucl.ac.uk. 2. Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Eastman Dental Institute, University College London, London, UK. 3. Trinity College Dublin, Department of Child and Public Dental Health, Dublin, Ireland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals should consider environmental sustainability when using personal protective equipment (PPE). One of the most frequently used items of PPE in medical settings are gloves. AIM: This study aims to quantify the environmental impact of sterile versus non-sterile gloves using the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. METHODS: This study used three glove types: non-sterile gloves and sterile gloves (latex and latex-free). Sixteen different environmental impact categories were used to demonstrate the impact of each glove type. FINDINGS: Non-sterile gloves had the least environmental impact in all categories. The two types of sterile gloves, non-latex (synthetic rubber) and latex (natural rubber), performed similarly, although the non-latex gloves had a greater impact on ozone depletion, mineral use and ionizing radiation. For climate change impact, sterile latex gloves were 11.6 times higher than non-sterile gloves. This study found that for both sterile type gloves (latex and non-latex), the manufacture of the gloves contributes to the most considerable environmental impact, with an average of 64.37% for sterile latex gloves and 60.48% for non-latex sterile gloves. CONCLUSION: Using the LCA methodology, this study quantitatively demonstrated the environmental impact of sterile versus non-sterile gloves.
BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals should consider environmental sustainability when using personal protective equipment (PPE). One of the most frequently used items of PPE in medical settings are gloves. AIM: This study aims to quantify the environmental impact of sterile versus non-sterile gloves using the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. METHODS: This study used three glove types: non-sterile gloves and sterile gloves (latex and latex-free). Sixteen different environmental impact categories were used to demonstrate the impact of each glove type. FINDINGS: Non-sterile gloves had the least environmental impact in all categories. The two types of sterile gloves, non-latex (synthetic rubber) and latex (natural rubber), performed similarly, although the non-latex gloves had a greater impact on ozone depletion, mineral use and ionizing radiation. For climate change impact, sterile latex gloves were 11.6 times higher than non-sterile gloves. This study found that for both sterile type gloves (latex and non-latex), the manufacture of the gloves contributes to the most considerable environmental impact, with an average of 64.37% for sterile latex gloves and 60.48% for non-latex sterile gloves. CONCLUSION: Using the LCA methodology, this study quantitatively demonstrated the environmental impact of sterile versus non-sterile gloves.