Does reusable mean green? Comparison of the environmental impact of reusable operating room bed covers and lift sheets versus single-use.

INTRODUCTION: As hospitals strive to reduce their environmental footprint, there is an ongoing debate over the environmental implications of reusable versus disposable linens in operating rooms (ORs). This research aimed to compare the environmental impact of reusable versus single-use OR bed covers and lift sheets using life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. METHODS: LCA is an established tool with rigorous methodology that uses science-based processes to measure environmental impact. This study compared the impacts of three independent system scenarios at a single large academic hospital: reusable bed covers with 50 laundry cycles and subsequent landfill disposal (System 1), single-use bed covers with waste landfill disposal (System 2), and single-use bed covers with waste disposal using incineration (System 3). RESULTS: The total carbon footprint of System 1 for 50 uses was 19.83 â€‹kg carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-eq). System 2 generated 64.99 â€‹kg CO2-eq. For System 3, the total carbon footprint was 108.98 â€‹kg CO2-eq. The raw material extraction for all the material to produce an equivalent 50 single-use OR bed cover kits was tenfold more carbon-intensive than the reusable bed cover. Laundering one reusable OR bed cover 50 times was more carbon intensive (12.12 â€‹kg CO2-eq) than landfill disposal of 50 single-use OR bed covers (2.52 â€‹kg CO2-eq). DISCUSSION: Our analysis demonstrates that one reusable fabric-based OR bed cover laundered 50 times, despite the carbon and water-intensive laundering process, exhibits a markedly lower carbon footprint than its single-use counterparts. The net difference is 45.16 â€‹kg CO2-eq, equivalent to driving 115 miles in an average gasoline-powered passenger vehicle. This stark contrast underscores the efficacy of adopting reusable solutions to mitigate environmental impact within healthcare facilities.

Environmental impacts of circularity strategies for social distancing plastic shields made of polymethyl methacrylate in the United States.

One application of plastics that grew during the COVID-19 pandemic is for social distancing plastic shields, or protective barriers, made from polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) such as transparent face guards. Although available for other applications, end-of-life impacts for barriers are currently lacking in the literature, and there is a need to fill in this gap to guide decisions. This study evaluated the end-of-life environmental impacts of PMMA barriers in the United States by using life cycle assessment. We evaluated five strategies including landfilling, waste-to-energy, mechanical recycling, chemical recycling and reuse. Data were sourced from literature and various life cycle inventory databases. The Tool for Reduction and Assessment of Chemicals and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI) was used as the life cycle impact assessment method. Landfilling exhibited the highest impact in all indicators and reuse demonstrated optimal results for global warming potential. A scenario analysis was conducted to explore a combination of strategies, revealing that the most promising approach involved a mix of 40% reuse, 20% mechanical recycling and 40% chemical recycling. Circular economy recommendations are proposed for managing these sources of plastic waste in the United States.