The environmental footprint of single-use versus reusable cloths for clinical surface decontamination: a life cycle approach

被引:8
作者
Maloney, B. [1 ,3 ]
McKerlie, T. [1 ]
Nasir, M. [1 ]
Murphy, C. [1 ]
Moi, M. [1 ]
Mudalige, P. [1 ]
Naser, N. E. [1 ]
Duane, B. [2 ]
机构
[1] Trinity Coll Dublin, Sch Dent Sci, Dublin, Ireland
[2] Trinity Coll Dublin, Dept Child & Publ Dent Hlth, Dublin, Ireland
[3] Trinity Coll Dublin, Sch Dent Sci, Lincoln Pl, Dublin, Ireland
关键词
Sustainability; Surface disinfection; Life cycle impact assessment; Carbon footprint; Single-use wipes; Environment; HEALTH-CARE; CLIMATE-CHANGE; WASTE; MICROFIBERS; REDUCE; WATER;
D O I
10.1016/j.jhin.2022.09.006
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Background: Global sustainability is a major health concern facing our planet today. The healthcare sector is a significant contributor to environmentally damaging activity. Reusable cloths should be considered as an environmentally friendly alternative to the predominantly used single-use surface wipes in cleaning and disinfection of environmental surfaces in healthcare settings.Aim: To conduct a rapid review of current policies on surface decontamination in healthcare settings; then to carry out a life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) of reusable cotton and microfibre cloths versus conventional single-use cloths, with three compatible disinfectants.Methods: Seven countries were included in the rapid review of policies. For the LCIA, inputs, outputs, and processes across the life cycle were included, using EcoInvent database v3.7.1 and open LCIA software. Sixteen European-recommended environmental impact categories and eight human health categories were considered.Findings: Infection prevention policies examined do not require single-use wipes for cleaning and disinfection. The disinfectant with the highest environmental impact was isopropyl alcohol. The most environmentally sustainable option for clinical surface decontamination was the microfibre cloth when used with a quaternary ammonium compound. The least environmentally sustainable option was cotton with isopropyl alcohol.Conclusion: Impacts were primarily attributed with the use of the disinfectant agent and travel processes.(c) 2022 The Healthcare Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:7 / 19
页数:13
相关论文
共 61 条
[1]   Climate Change, Water Scarcity, and Health Adaptation in Southwestern Coastal Bangladesh [J].
Abedin, Md Anwarul ;
Collins, Andrew E. ;
Habiba, Umma ;
Shaw, Rajib .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISASTER RISK SCIENCE, 2019, 10 (01) :28-42
[2]  
[Anonymous], Sea-Rates
[3]  
[Anonymous], MICROFIBRE CLOTH
[4]  
[Anonymous], EU Climate Action
[5]  
[Anonymous], UN WORLD WATER DEV R
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2012, Google Maps
[7]  
Australian Dental Association, 2021, GUID INF PREV CONTR, V4th
[8]  
Bhatia SC., 2017, Pollution control in textile industry
[9]   The life cycle analysis of a dental examination: Quantifying the environmental burden of an examination in a hypothetical dental practice [J].
Borglin, Linnea ;
Pekarski, Stephanie ;
Saget, Sophie ;
Duane, Brett .
COMMUNITY DENTISTRY AND ORAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2021, 49 (06) :581-593
[10]   A review of wipes used to disinfect hard surfaces in health care facilities [J].
Boyce, John M. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL, 2021, 49 (01) :104-114