Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The carbon footprints of home and in-center peritoneal dialysis in China

  • Nephrology - Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The provision of healthcare itself is associated with abundant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This study aims to determine the carbon footprints of peritoneal dialysis (PD) with the different modalities and treatment regimes.

Methods

A total of 68 subjects performed with PD treatment were enrolled in this study. Emissions factors were applied to data that were collected for energy consumption, travel, and procurement.

Results

The carbon footprints generated by the provision of PD treatment for the individual patient were calculated and normalized to a 2-l PD dialysate volume. The fixed emissions were higher in patients who received PD therapy in center than at home, mostly attributing to the consumption of electricity. Conversely, PD treatment performed in center yielded less variable emissions than that of at home, which resulted from reduced constituent percentage of waste disposal and transportation. Collectively, packaging consumption mostly contributed to the total carbon footprints of PD.

Conclusion

This study for the first time demonstrates the delivery of PD is associated with considerable GHG emissions, which is mainly attributed to packaging materials, transportation, electricity, and waste disposal. These results suggest that carbon reduction strategies focusing on packaging consumption in PD treatment are likely to yield the greatest benefits.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Costello A, Abbas M, Allen A, Ball S, Bell S, Bellamy R et al (2009) Managing the health effects of climate change: Lancet and University College London Institute for Global Health Commission. Lancet 373(9676):1693–1733

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Liu X, Zhang Y, Han W, Tang A, Shen J, Cui Z et al (2013) Enhanced nitrogen deposition over China. Nature 494(7438):459–462

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Markandya A, Armstrong BG, Hales S, Chiabai A, Criqui P, Mima S et al (2009) Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: low-carbon electricity generation. Lancet 374(9706):2006–2015

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Baillie J (2012) Surveys show support for green ‘activities’. Health Estate 66(3):17–20

    Google Scholar 

  5. McGain F (2010) Sustainable hospitals? An Australian perspective. Perspect Public Health 130(1):19–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Agar JW (2013) It is time for “green dialysis”. Hemodial Int 17(4):474–478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Connor A, Lillywhite R, Cooke MW (2011) The carbon footprints of home and in-center maintenance hemodialysis in the United Kingdom. Hemodial Int 15(1):39–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Agar JW (2012) Personal viewpoint: hemodialysis–water, power, and waste disposal: rethinking our environmental responsibilities. Hemodial Int 16(1):6–10

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jain AK, Blake P, Cordy P, Garg AX (2012) Global trends in rates of peritoneal dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 23(3):533–544

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Sinnakirouchenan R, Holley JL (2011) Peritoneal dialysis versus hemodialysis: risks, benefits, and access issues. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 18(6):428–432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Li PK, Chow KM (2013) Peritoneal dialysis-first policy made successful: perspectives and actions. Am J Kidney Dis 62(5):993–1005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Berger A, Edelsberg J, Inglese GW, Bhattacharyya SK, Oster G (2009) Cost comparison of peritoneal dialysis versus hemodialysis in end-stage renal disease. Am J Manag Care 15(8):509–518

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Baboolal K, McEwan P, Sondhi S, Spiewanowski P, Wechowski J, Wilson K (2008) The cost of renal dialysis in a UK setting—a multicentre study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 23(6):1982–1989

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee H, Manns B, Taub K, Ghali WA, Dean S, Johnson D et al (2002) Cost analysis of ongoing care of patients with end-stage renal disease: the impact of dialysis modality and dialysis access. Am J Kidney Dis 40(3):611–622

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. BSI (British Standards Institute) (2011) PAS 2050: 2011. Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. British Standards Institute, London. http://shop.bsigroup.com/upload/Shop/Download/PAS/PAS2050.pdf

  16. Kyoto protocol reference manual on accounting of emissions and assigned amount. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf

  17. University of Bath (2009) Inventory of carbon and energy (ICE). http://www.circularecology.com/embodied-energy-and-carbon-footprint-database.html

  18. Yanming J (2011) The provincial power industry carbon emissions situation and trend analysis in China. Electr Power Technol Econ 10(23):56–60

    Google Scholar 

  19. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) (2012) Guidelines to Defra/DECC’s GHG conversion factors for company reporting. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69554/pb13773-ghg-conversion-factors-2012.pdf

  20. Morris DS, Wright T, Somner JE, Connor A (2013) The carbon footprint of cataract surgery. Eye (Lond) 27(4):495–501

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Venkatesh R, van Landingham SW, Khodifad AM, Haripriya A, Thiel CL, Ramulu P et al (2016) Carbon footprint and cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 27(1):82–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pollard AS, Taylor TJ, Fleming LE, Stahl-Timmins W, Depledge MH, Osborne NJ (2013) Mainstreaming carbon management in healthcare systems: a bottom-up modeling approach. Environ Sci Technol 47(2):678–686

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Connor A, Lillywhite R, Cooke MW (2010) The carbon footprint of a renal service in the United Kingdom. QJM 103(12):965–975

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lim AE, Perkins A, Agar JW (2013) The carbon footprint of an Australian satellite haemodialysis unit. Aust Health Rev 37(3):369–374. doi:10.1071/AH13022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. DiConsiglio J (2008) Reprocessing SUDs reduces waste, costs. Mater Manag Health Care 17(9):40–42

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hawkes N (2012) Cutting emissions by drug industry is crucial to reducing NHS’s carbon footprint. BMJ 345:e8243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Simpson M (2008) Reducing NHS carbon footprint: time for a culture change. BMJ 336(7649):848

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Woods DL, McAndrew T, Nevadunsky N, Hou JY, Goldberg G, Yi-Shin Kuo D et al (2015) Carbon footprint of robotically-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy: a comparison. Int J Med Robot 11(4):406–412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lee BK, Ellenbecker MJ, Moure-Eraso R (2002) Analyses of the recycling potential of medical plastic wastes. Waste Manag 22(5):461–470

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lenzen M (2008) Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy: a review. Energy Convers Manag 49(8):2178–2199

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. The Revision of China’s Energy and Coal Consumption Data: A preliminary analysis (2015). http://www.theenergycollective.com/hao-tan/2292551/revision-china-s-energy-and-coal-consumption-data-preliminary-analysis

  32. Kenway SJ PA, CookS, Seo S, Inman M, GregoryA (2008) Energy use in the provision and consumption of urban water in Australia and New Zealand. CSIRO: water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship. https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP116078&dsid=DS1

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiufen Yang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, M., Zhou, R., Du, C. et al. The carbon footprints of home and in-center peritoneal dialysis in China. Int Urol Nephrol 49, 337–343 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-016-1418-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-016-1418-5

Keywords

Navigation