Literature DB >> 35654600

Sources of Variation in the Carbon Footprint of Hemodialysis Treatment.

Ashwini R Sehgal1,2, Jonathan E Slutzman3,4, Anne M Huml2,5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Greenhouse gas emissions from hemodialysis treatment in the United States have not been quantified. In addition, no previous studies have examined how much emissions vary across facilities, treatments, and emission contributors.
METHODS: To estimate the magnitude and sources of variation in the carbon footprint of hemodialysis treatment, we estimated life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-eq) associated with 209,481 hemodialysis treatments in 2020 at 15 Ohio hemodialysis facilities belonging to the same organization. We considered emissions from electricity, natural gas, water, and supply use; patient and staff travel distance; and biohazard and landfill waste.
RESULTS: Annual emissions per facility averaged 769,374 kg CO2-eq (95% CI, 709,388 to 848,180 kg CO2-eq). The three largest contributors to total emissions were patient and staff transportation (28.3%), electricity (27.4%), and natural gas (15.2%). Emissions per treatment were 58.9 kg CO2-eq, with a three-fold variation across facilities. The contributors with the largest variation in emissions per treatment were transportation, natural gas, and water (coefficients of variation, 62.5%, 42.4%, and 37.7%, respectively). The annual emissions per hemodialysis facility are equivalent to emissions from the annual energy use in 93 homes; emissions per treatment are equivalent to driving an average automobile for 238 km (149 miles).
CONCLUSIONS: Similar medical treatments provided in a single geographic region by facilities that are part of the same organization may be expected to have small variations in the determinants of greenhouse gas emissions. However, we found substantial variation in carbon footprints across facilities, treatments, and emission contributors. Understanding the magnitude and variation in greenhouse gas emissions may help identify measures to reduce the environmental effect of hemodialysis treatment.
Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Nephrology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  carbon footprint; hemodialysis

Year:  2022        PMID: 35654600      PMCID: PMC9529184          DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2022010086

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol        ISSN: 1046-6673            Impact factor:   14.978


  10 in total

1.  Solar-assisted hemodialysis.

Authors:  John W M Agar; Anthony Perkins; Alwie Tjipto
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 8.237

2.  Estimating patient-borne water and electricity costs in home hemodialysis: a simulation.

Authors:  Matthew Nickel; Wes Rideout; Nikhil Shah; Frances Reintjes; Justin Z Chen; Robert Burrell; Robert P Pauly
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2017-02-10

3.  The carbon footprint of an Australian satellite haemodialysis unit.

Authors:  Allan E K Lim; Anthony Perkins; John W M Agar
Journal:  Aust Health Rev       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 1.990

4.  The impact of surgery on global climate: a carbon footprinting study of operating theatres in three health systems.

Authors:  Andrea J MacNeill; Robert Lillywhite; Carl J Brown
Journal:  Lancet Planet Health       Date:  2017-12-08

5.  Health Care Pollution And Public Health Damage In The United States: An Update.

Authors:  Matthew J Eckelman; Kaixin Huang; Robert Lagasse; Emily Senay; Robert Dubrow; Jodi D Sherman
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 6.301

6.  The environmental footprint of health care: a global assessment.

Authors:  Manfred Lenzen; Arunima Malik; Mengyu Li; Jacob Fry; Helga Weisz; Peter-Paul Pichler; Leonardo Suveges Moreira Chaves; Anthony Capon; David Pencheon
Journal:  Lancet Planet Health       Date:  2020-07

7.  The carbon footprints of home and in-center maintenance hemodialysis in the United Kingdom.

Authors:  Andrew Connor; Robert Lillywhite; Matthew W Cooke
Journal:  Hemodial Int       Date:  2011-01-14       Impact factor: 1.812

Review 8.  Green nephrology.

Authors:  Katherine A Barraclough; John W M Agar
Journal:  Nat Rev Nephrol       Date:  2020-02-07       Impact factor: 28.314

9.  Does the use of pre-calculated uncertainty values change the conclusions of comparative life cycle assessments? - An empirical analysis.

Authors:  Yuwei Qin; Sangwon Suh
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-12-19       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Carbon footprint of a hemodialysis unit in Morocco.

Authors:  Naoufal Mtioui; Mohamed Zamd; Abdellah Ait Taleb; Abdellah Bouaalam; Benyounes Ramdani
Journal:  Ther Apher Dial       Date:  2020-12-14       Impact factor: 2.195

  10 in total
  2 in total

1.  Policy and Kidney Community Engagement to Advance toward Greener Kidney Care.

Authors:  Sarah A Struthers; Zachary Kribs; Catherine R Butler
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2022-08-18       Impact factor: 14.978

2.  Sustainable kidney care delivery and climate change - a call to action.

Authors:  See Cheng Yeo; Xi Yan Ooi; Tracy Suet Mun Tan
Journal:  Global Health       Date:  2022-08-03       Impact factor: 10.401

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.