Skip to main content
Download PDF

The environmental impact and sustainability of infection control practices: a systematic scoping review

Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control volume 13, Article number: 156 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Infection prevention and control (IPC) programs form the basis of minimizing spread of pathogens in the healthcare setting and beyond. The COVID-19 pandemic amplified the demand for IPC. However, the environmental impact of IPC practices has yet to be addressed and attempts to quantify its climate implications have been sparse. We performed a scoping review to identify current evidence regarding the environmental footprint of IPC measures and to highlight existing gaps in the literature. We included 30 articles, with 23 quantifying the environmental impact by mass of waste generated, six via carbon emissions, and one reporting on the concentration of volatile organic compounds. The mass of infectious waste ranged from 0.16 to 3.95 kg/bed/day, with large variability between countries. In general, higher-income countries produced more waste than lower-income countries. Significant carbon emission savings resulted from substituting reusable gowns and sharps containers, compared to single use items. The most significant gaps are the overall lack of standardisation in quantifying the environmental footprint of IPC-related practices, and a lack of studies on carbon emissions stemming from low and lower-middle income countries. We quantify the environmental impact of IPC practices, suggest areas of infection control that warrant further evaluation, and an approach to standardising environmental metrics in an attempt to better map out the climate implications of adopted IPC measures.

Introduction

Climate change has evolved into the greatest global health threat of the twenty-first century [1]. Rising temperatures beyond target thresholds of 2 °C are likely to negatively impact every facet of human life.

Dedicated measures within health care settings to contain and reduce the risk of transmission of infectious pathogens and hospital acquired multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs), otherwise known as infection prevention and control (IPC), have clear benefits in reducing morbidity and mortality from healthcare-acquired infections (HAIs). However, IPC practices require substantial personal protective equipment (PPE), including gowns, gloves and masks which are disposed after one time use. Other single use items such as IVs, IV tubing, single-dose vials, etc., and those needed for cleaning and disinfecting are needed almost daily in patient care. Single-use items reduce the risk of transmission of pathogens between patients whether it be by person to person transfer (hands), environmental transfer (fomites) or transmission via contaminated fluids including body fluids. The use of PPE and other single use items for IPC not only requires large amounts of energy for manufacturing but can also create infectious or chemical waste, all of which are detrimental to the environment. A single surgical mask is estimated to release 0.059 kg carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq) into the atmosphere and contribute to 12–13 g of waste per unit [2, 3]. Plastic debris from improper face mask disposal is expected to result in 150–390 thousand tons of marine pollution annually worldwide [4]. There is a need to balance good IPC practices with sustainability; the recent COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the environmental impact of IPC measures, especially with the surge in demand for PPE and disposable products [5,6,7,8].

The principles governing IPC are well established, and evidence supports the benefits and cost-savings of IPC programmes, though low- and lower-middle income countries continue to be underrepresented [9]. In contrast, there is a paucity of studies assessing the environmental implications of IPC practices [9]. Some studies have explored the impact of eye-health [10], anaesthesia [11], and surgery [12,13,14], on the climate, highlighting the evolving need for healthcare to not only serve its apparent medical purpose, but to also be environmentally sustainable in the face of a volatile climate. We therefore undertook this systematic scoping review in an attempt to quantify the available evidence on the environmental impact of various forms of infection control, how such an impact translates to sustainability in the long-term, and to identify gaps in the literature.

Methods

Search strategy

We performed a systematic search while adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [15], and registered the study with PROSPERO (CRD42023456805). The PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) can be found in Table S1 [16]. We searched Medline (Ovid) and Embase databases from inception through 18 September 2024 using the keywords “infection”, “transmission”, “climate change”, “global warming” and relevant infection control terms such as “mask”, “PPE” and “gloves” (Table S2). References were imported into EndNote X9 for the initial sieve with the removal of duplicates. References of related reviews and included articles were also hand-screened to ensure a comprehensive search.

Study selection

Eligibility for inclusion was determined by two authors (OL and WYC) who screened articles independently from the initial sieve, with a third independent author involved in the resolution of conflicts (AW). We included studies which quantitatively measured the environmental impact of infection control practice found in standard, contact, droplet or airborne precautions [17], using measures including mass of waste (usually in kg or tons), carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq), energy expenditure (kWh), and air or marine pollution, in a hospital setting and/or health-care facility. Studies were excluded if they were reviews, meta-analyses, editorials, commentaries or non-Human studies. Conference abstracts were included if they contained relevant information. We sought translation for non-English language studies if the need arose. With previous reviews having analysed the environmental cost of surgery [13], we excluded studies with a surgical focus and those performed in the setting of an operating theatre. Studies which reported data that did not have direct environmental implications or lacked suitable conversion formulae to a measurable metric of interest (i.e. economic cost of waste management, number/incidence of new infections, number of hospital admissions) were also excluded.

Data extraction

Data from the included articles were extracted independently by two authors who were blinded in the process. The data collection template can be accessed in Table S3. Briefly, we extracted data on study characteristics (country, year of study, setting of study, COVID-19 vs non COVID-19, income-level of country in the year of publication (as defined by the World Bank classification), infection-control related data (specific type of precaution being studied, main findings), and environmental impact (mass of waste, number of beds and patients, carbon dioxide emissions, and other relevant environmental matrices if reported by the authors). Any discrepancies which arose post-extraction were brought up for discussion and resolved, with involvement of a third independent author where deemed necessary. Data on infectious waste and emissions were reported in differing units across the included studies, and were standardised wherever possible.

Data synthesis

We had initially planned to perform a systematic review. However, recommendations have been made for scoping reviews over systematic reviews when the scope of a topic remains poorly defined, and when broad research questions have yet to be answered [18, 19]. The lack of literature and overwhelming heterogeneity of data led to a switch in study type. Data from studies were thematically assessed, with both qualitative and quantitative data synthesised and presented narratively. We expanded on themes related to the environmental cost of each form of IPC, how cost was quantified across studies, and looked for possible reasons when discrepancies arose.

Role of the funding source

There was no funding source for this study.

Results

Summary of included studies

Of 8,911 articles, we excluded 8,741 articles and shortlisted 170 full texts for review. A total of 30 studies were included. [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49] (Fig. 1). Fourteen of the studies [22, 23, 25, 27, 30, 31, 34,35,36, 39, 42, 44, 48, 49] were identified via hand-screening of included articles and citation-searching. 23 studies reported on the mass of infectious waste produced [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29, 32,33,34, 36,37,38,39,40, 42,43,44, 47, 48], six on carbon emissions, [31, 35, 41, 45, 46, 49] and one on the concentration of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted. [30] The summary of included articles can be found in Table 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram

Full size image
Table 1 Summary of included studies
Full size table

Mass of waste

The majority of our articles reported on mass of waste, of which a large proportion (21 studies) was infectious waste. Other specific waste types included PPE waste and N95 or respirator generated waste (one study each). Studies were evenly spread across income brackets, with 12 and 11 studies originating from upper-middle to high income countries and low to lower-middle income countries respectively. We attempted to standardise the units for waste generated, ideally reporting it in kg/bed/day (or kg/patient/day) to allow for some degree of inter-study comparison. Across all studies, infectious waste ranged from 0.16 to 3.95 kg/bed/day [21, 40]. The study responsible for the largest amount of waste was conducted at the height of the COVID-19 outbreak [21]. Excluding this study, all other studies were non-COVID-19 in nature, with infectious waste ranging from 0.16 to 2.5 kg/bed/day [34, 40]. Four articles reported on infectious waste using other units, ranging from 2.3 to 20.1 kg/day and 0.04 kg/patient/day to 0.4 kg/patient/day.

A cost-analysis study by Chu et al. reported on the mass of N95 waste with different respirator strategies. We assumed a period of 6 months to be approximately 182.5 days, and estimated the environmental impact to range from 0.022 kg/patient/day when using reusable respirator and decontaminated filters to 1.16 kg/patient/day if one N95 respirator was used per patient encounter. Across five healthcare facilities in Bahrain, we calculated that the average amount of PPE utilised per healthcare worker was 2.62 kg/day, although this included facilities dealing with both suspected and confirmed cases of COVID-19 infection [22].

Carbon emissions

Six studies quantified environmental impact through carbon emissions. Two studies looked at the environmental impact of sterilisation methods. Rizan et al. examined the carbon footprint of waste streams in a UK hospital, with high-temperature incineration having the greatest environmental impact producing 1074 kg CO2e/t of waste. This method of sterilisation was utilised for clinical waste, clinical sharps, anatomical waste and medicinal waste, as mandated by national guidelines [45]. Specific to infectious waste, autoclave decontamination produced 569 kg CO2e/t. The carbon footprint from electricity, gas/oil, and water supplies was 338 kg CO2e/t. A similar study on treatment systems for infectious waste found the highest and lowest global warming potentials with incineration and microwave disinfection respectively (1213 kg CO2e/t vs. 99 kg CO2e/t).

Articles performing life-cycle assessments were also included. A study of PPE use during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK was performed. The carbon footprint of individual PPE items were: Single-use gown (905 g CO2e), face shield (231 g CO2e), respirators (76–125 g CO2e), apron (65 g CO2e), gloves (26 g CO2e), surgical masks (13–20 g CO2e). The total carbon footprint produced over 6 months from all PPE items was 106,477,990 kg CO2e. Two studies compared reusable vs disposable IPC strategies related to isolation gowning and sharps container use. Per 1,000 uses, reusable gowns emitted 30% less greenhouse gases (218 vs. 310 kg CO2eq). Sensitivity analyses with different products showed consistent environmental benefits with a reusable gown strategy. Adopting a reusable strategy with sharps containers generated 628.9 tonnes of CO2 compared to 3896.4 tonnes over a 12 month period, representing a 83.9% decrease in CO2 emissions.

In the sole longitudinal study across a 10 year period, the total annual carbon footprint produced by the Nagoya University Hospital steadily increased. This was accompanied by a spike in infectious waste from 2019 to 2020 and a significant increase in yearly infectious waste related emissions from 114.47 to 147.62 tCO2eq, although the overall carbon footprint had dropped during the pandemic owing to confinement measures and lower patient load [41]. A positive correlation between the monthly average temperature and monthly carbon emissions across a 7-year period was also seen, with a significant increase in the carbon footprint per admission between 2018 and 2020 owing to ‘more intensive medical care’ provided per-admission during the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic, and longer average hospital stays in 2020 as compared to 2018 (12.2 days vs. 11.9 days).

Other environmental metrics

The concentration of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted via four non-incinerator waste disposal methods (autoclave with and without shredder, dry-heat system, and hydroclave) were studied by Farshad et al. Briefly, VOCs have been linked to a wide range of environmental and health implications, including respiratory, neurological and carcinogenic effects [50]. The concentration of VOCs ranged from 1.78 to 9.3 ppm when using an autoclave without and with a shredder respectively. The comparative study on reusable vs disposable isolation gowns also reported on other environmental metrics besides carbon emissions, with a reusable strategy consuming 28% less energy (3712 vs. 5150 MJ), 41% less blue water (43.8 vs. 74.6 kg, with blue water defined as all water that is removed from the supply chain, including water lost to evaporation and incorporated into the product), and large savings in waste generation (0.4 kg vs. 63.4 kg).

Trends across income level

Economic fluctuations in the countries were adjusted for based on year-specific data provided by the World Bank [51]. An assessment of the studies which had reported waste in kg/bed/day revealed that nine were conducted in countries belonging to low and lower-middle income brackets, of which eight generated less than 1 kg/bed/day of infectious waste. In contrast, all studies conducted in upper-middle and high income countries generated more than 1 kg/bed/day of infectious waste, with the exception of two Taiwanese studies producing 0.19 kg/bed/day to 0.39 kg/bed/day of infectious waste [26, 37].

Discussion

In its 2020 guidance report, the World Health Organisation (WHO) underlined the need for a sustainable approach to healthcare given a rapidly changing climate [52]. At the same time, the recent WHO global report on IPC reveals a worrying lack of progress, especially with “respect to the proportion of countries with an active national IPC programme, evidence-based and standardised national guidelines [9]”. However, there has been little mention in guidelines of the environmental impacts of current well-established IPC programs and the impact that the scaling up of programs globally will have on increasing carbon emissions from healthcare in general. Regardless, some countries have made concerted efforts to meet the aims of introducing sustainability in healthcare. The National Healthcare System (NHS) launched the ‘Greener NHS’ campaign to decarbonise itself, and move toward being a ‘net zero’ service by 2040 for emissions directly under its purview. A recent analysis across 49 regions demonstrated an increase of resource footprints in healthcare systems in the last 20 years, and is expected to grow as more energy intensive treatments continue to be implemented [53]. The need for greener healthcare services has clearly gained traction on the international stage. Yet, our scoping review highlighted the paucity of data measuring the environmental impact of the numerous IPC practices undertaken, rightfully, for patient safety. In contrast, the impact of volatile anaesthetic gases, such as desflurane, has received major attention throughout the years, due to its substantial global warming potential, and is gradually being phased out from use internationally [11, 54, 55]. The ubiquity of infection control is perhaps many times greater than the use of volatile anaesthetics, as evidenced by the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic, and is poised to grow with the WHO’s recent call to increase IPC programs world-wide. Infection control practices are already being included as part of larger carbon footprint assessments, albeit as a constituent of other sectors such as medical and non-medical equipment, as well as water and waste [55, 56]. Isolating its impact from the larger umbrella of healthcare sectors would provide greater clarity on emissions attributable to infection control. This is critical for IPC programs so as to direct available resources at practices that are most likely to reduce the carbon footprint, while also preventing health care associated infections.

Most published studies focused on the mass of waste generated, in particular infectious waste, but demonstrated great variability between studies ranging from 0.16 kg/bed/day in a Moroccan study to 2.5 kg/bed/day in Taiwan. However, the Taiwanese study assumed a 100% occupancy rate of 95,810 beds across the nation, possibly overestimating the waste generated. We noted a general pattern of higher waste production with high and upper-middle income countries as opposed to those in lower-income brackets (Fig. 2A). This finding mirrors that of previous literature, including WHO’s fact sheet on healthcare waste [57, 58]. An important caveat lies with higher rates of improper waste segregation in lower-income countries, which we found to approach 30–50% in our studies [20, 42, 47], perhaps underestimating the true extent of infectious waste output in these countries. While mass of waste serves as a valuable research metric, its utility may fail to extend much further. Management of infectious waste differs depending on local policies and waste management strategies, ultimately generating varying amounts of carbon emissions even with the same amount of waste. Nonetheless, we propose that mass of waste be reported in kg/bed/day whenever feasible for future studies, instead of raw mass, enabling greater standardisation and comparison across both time and region. There was limited data on how generated waste further translated to greenhouse gas emissions, which failed to capture the potential carbon footprint of included IPC practices. The Japanese study was unique in the manner in which it broke down its carbon footprint in a detailed and practical way with measurements of electricity, gas, and waste, which were then coupled with country-specific emission factors to derive its carbon footprint [41]. However, the logistical and financial constraints of being able to amass such data should not be underestimated. Japan mandates that its institutions report their annual carbon footprint [59]. Additional costs incurred by round-the-year monitoring and out-sourcing of waste are not realistic on a global scale, particularly in less developed countries. Future studies should aim to quantify—ideally using standardised units—the carbon emissions, energy and water consumption, and risk for environmental pollution, from both the materials used for IPC, and those resulting from waste of the products, while accounting for any recycling versus disposal of IPC products (Fig. 3, Table S4).

Fig. 2
figure 2

A: world map illustrating the geographic distribution of studies reporting on mass of waste. World map illustrating the geographic distribution of studies reporting on mass of waste. Countries reporting on mass of infectious waste (kg/bed/day) are shaded blue, with darkening of the colour gradient as mass of infectious waste produced increases. Countries shaded are Bangladesh (< 1), Morocco (< 1), Nigeria (< 1), India (< 1), Ivory Coast (< 1), Kuwait (1–2), Australia (1–2), USA (1–2), Taiwan (2–3), Iran (2–3) and Jordan (3–4). Several studies conducted in Ethiopia, Iran, and Nigeria reported on infectious waste using units other than kg/bed/day (e.g. kg/patient/day or kg/day) and are not shaded in the diagram. B: world map illustrating the geographic distribution of studies reporting on carbon emissions. World map illustrating the geographic distribution of studies reporting on carbon emissions. All countries reporting on carbon emissions are high-income, and include the UK (3 studies), South Korea, Japan and the USA

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Standardising reporting of environmental impact of infection control practices

Full size image

The studies on carbon emissions provided valuable input on the environmental impact of various IPC measures. Notably, we found large savings in carbon emissions when switching to reusable isolation gowning and sharps disposal from single-use. Of note, transport distances may play a substantial role in overall carbon savings with reusable containers, having accounted for 67.1% of its life-cycle global warming potential. The vast reduction in CO2 emissions were made possible with “relatively short UK transport distances”, and may suggest attenuated environmental savings with different healthcare settings that are more geographically sparse. This finding underlines one of many differences that exist between countries and health systems, limiting the ability to extrapolate such data to a global context. Importantly, we noted that all six studies reporting on carbon emissions stemmed from high-income countries (Fig. 2B), highlighting yet another discrepancy in data across income brackets. High income countries remain the main drivers of greenhouse gas emissions, while lower income countries experience a disproportionate burden from the climate crisis [60]. Improvements in quantifying the environmental impact of IPCs could, and should, begin with institutions in high income countries where resources are ample, before being implemented in lower income countries where the need for proper infection control continues to grow. This is in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by the United Nations, SDG 13— “Climate Action” and SDG 17—“Partnerships For The Goals”, where collective action to tackle the global threat of climate change is paramount [61].

Fundamentally, any change from current IPC practices for an environmental benefit will need to retain efficacy and patient safety in order to justify the switch. Limited data exist which adequately address environmental costs of current versus alternative IPC practices and the climate benefits (or drawbacks) of each option, especially in terms of showing longitudinal safety outcomes. We had initially set out with the aim of categorising studies into the various types of precautions for ease of data organisation and presentation. However, we found that no studies had a pre-specified focus on a particular set of precautions, and papers had to be independently screened and manually categorised where possible. Future studies, focusing on singular aspects of infection control, be it a single method, or Infection Control bundles, are likely to be more useful. This is especially since focusing on a particular aspect over the full life-cycle, will allow for an easier calculation of the corresponding carbon emissions data from said practice. In our drive to be sustainable, identification of “carbon hotspots” is a necessary step to determine the highest impact practices to focus on. Various countries such as the UK [55], USA [62], China [63], and Australia [64], have broadly identified the supply chain (62%), overall hospital care (36%), and public hospitals (47% and 34%) as their biggest contributors to healthcare emissions respectively. Scaling it down to IPC-specific components, and using standardized metrics for measurements, would allow infection control specialists, policymakers and governmental organisations to focus efforts on IPC “hotspots” that contribute most heavily to greenhouse gas emissions.

We hope that our study will help to inform the type of future research needed in this field, and act as a precursor for future systematic reviews where specific elements of infection control are more comprehensively and systematically addressed. The sheer scale of IPC programs across hospitals of all sizes suggests the urgent need for dedicated studies. Studies comparing the impact of various aspects of in-hospital infection control practices, using the WHO breakdown of the 7 aspects of an IPC program would be a good first step, and includes components that are frequently overlooked, but of everyday importance. These components are outlined by the WHO Minimum Requirements for infection prevention and control programmes, and include hand hygiene, linen management, environmental cleaning, sterilization of medical devices, waste management, personal protective equipment (PPE) and air management [17]. We summarise these components in Fig. 3, and provide specific suggestions on environmental metrics that may be useful in quantifying environmental impact based-off each IPC measure.

Our study had some important limitations. First, the cross-sectional nature of most included studies inherently carry limitations when attempting to establish causality, and associations should be interpreted with caution. Second, we had to make manual calculations in an effort to standardise units and allow comparison. However, we were careful to make these calculations only if sufficient data was made available by the original article, and assumptions, if any, were clearly stated, as in the case of time conversions made (e.g. months to days). Third, besides life-cycle assessment studies, other articles, especially those on waste production, did not provide sufficient granularity when assessing the environmental impact of each stage of a product’s lifecycle (e.g. production vs transport vs disposal). Identification of IPC-specific activities in some articles also proved challenging. Nonetheless, we acknowledge that the field of IPC sustainability appears relatively nascent, with no scoping reviews performed to date, which led us to adopt a broad criteria for inclusion so long as useful environmental metrics were presented. Fourth, we would have liked to assess for trends across time, but were limited by substantial inter-study heterogeneity in waste and data collection methodology, along with variations in healthcare setting. It would have been difficult to pin-point any conclusions drawn on variations in waste solely to the effect of time. We had also planned to compare the environmental impact across different healthcare settings, such as hospital-based care vs primary care. Unfortunately, most of the studies reported solely on hospital-generated waste, with an insufficient number of articles available for inter-setting comparisons to be made. Finally, we were unable to expand on all forms of environmental metrics included in our scoping review, notably on concentration of VOCs emitted. Given the broad scope of the topic, we decided to focus our discussion on the more ubiquitous metrics reported in healthcare settings globally. Nevertheless, these metrics represent important markers of environmental impact, and will be better characterized once more relevant studies are performed.

In conclusion, our scoping review found only 30 articles attempting to quantify the environmental impact of IPC measures, with most reporting on mass of waste generated. The few studies reporting on carbon emissions were all conducted in high-income countries, highlighting a marked discrepancy in studies being performed across countries of varying incomes. Overall, the quality and scope of the available evidence on IPC appears relatively limited considering its importance, warranting an urgent need to invest in IPC environmental impact research to strengthen the evidence base that must be considered in order to move toward a more sustainable IPC agenda. The largest survey on IPC in healthcare facilities covering 81 countries was concluded in 2022, and reflected the WHO’s resolution to rapidly understand the interplay between IPC preparedness and pathogen transmission on a global scale [65]. The utility of IPC programs will gradually increase as lower-income countries continue to refine healthcare standards to meet minimum requirements. To achieve sustainability moving forward, collective action from every rung of the ladder needs to be initiated in addressing the environmental implications that infection control practices will likely precipitate in our natural environment.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

IPC:

Infection prevention and control

CO2eq:

Carbon dioxide equivalents

PPE:

Personal protective equipment

WHO:

World Health Organisation

NHS:

National Healthcare System

UN:

United Nations

References

  1. Costello A, Abbas M, Allen A, Ball S, Bell S, Bellamy R, et al. Managing the health effects of climate change: lancet and university college london institute for global health commission. Lancet. 2009;373(9676):1693–733.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Selvaranjan K, Navaratnam S, Rajeev P, Ravintherakumaran N. Environmental challenges induced by extensive use of face masks during COVID-19: a review and potential solutions. Environ Chall. 2021;3:100039.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Klemeš JJ, Fan YV, Jiang P. The energy and environmental footprints of COVID-19 fighting measures - PPE, disinfection, supply chains. Energy. 2020;211:118701.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chowdhury H, Chowdhury T, Sait SM. Estimating marine plastic pollution from COVID-19 face masks in coastal regions. Mar Pollut Bull. 2021;168:112419.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Liu M, Cheng SZ, Xu KW, Yang Y, Zhu QT, Zhang H, et al. Use of personal protective equipment against coronavirus disease 2019 by healthcare professionals in Wuhan, China: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2020;369:m2195.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Feng S, Shen C, Xia N, Song W, Fan M, Cowling BJ. Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8(5):434–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Greenhalgh T, Schmid MB, Czypionka T, Bassler D, Gruer L. Face masks for the public during the covid-19 crisis. BMJ. 2020;369:m1435.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Livingston E, Desai A, Berkwits M. Sourcing Personal Protective Equipment During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA. 2020;323(19):1912–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. World Health O. Global report on infection prevention and control; 2022 Report No.: ISBN: 978–92–4–005116–4.

  10. Buchan JC, Thiel CL, Steyn A, Somner J, Venkatesh R, Burton MJ, et al. Addressing the environmental sustainability of eye health-care delivery: a scoping review. Lancet Planet Health. 2022;6(6):e524–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. McGain F, Muret J, Lawson C, Sherman JD. Environmental sustainability in anaesthesia and critical care. Br J Anaesth. 2020;125(5):680–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. MacNeill AJ, Lillywhite R, Brown CJ. The impact of surgery on global climate: a carbon footprinting study of operating theatres in three health systems. Lancet Planet Health. 2017;1(9):e381–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lam K, Gadi N, Acharya A, Winter Beatty J, Darzi A, Purkayastha S. Interventions for sustainable surgery: a systematic review. Int J Surg. 2023;109(5):1447–58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Dettenkofer M, Scherrer M, Hoch V, Glaser H, Schwarzer G, Zentner J, et al. Shutting down operating theater ventilation when the theater is not in use: infection control and environmental aspects. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003;24(8):596–600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. World Health O. Minimum requirements for infection prevention and control programmes. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019. p. 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Abu Qdais H, Rabi A, Abdulla F. Characteristics of the medical waste generated at the Jordanian hospitals. Clean Technol Environ Policy. 2007;9(2):147–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Abu-Qdais HA, Al-Ghazo MA, Al-Ghazo EM. Statistical analysis and characteristics of hospital medical waste under novel coronavirus outbreak. Global J Environ Sci Manag. 2020;6:21–30.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Al-Omran K, Khan E, Ali N, Bilal M. Estimation of COVID-19 generated medical waste in the Kingdom of Bahrain. Sci Total Environ. 2021;801:149642.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Askarian M, Motazedian N, Palenik CJ. Clinical laboratory waste management in Shiraz. Iran Waste Manag Res. 2012;30(6):631–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bassey BE, Benka-Coker MO, Aluyi HS. Characterization and management of solid medical wastes in the Federal Capital Territory. Abuja Nigeria Afr Health Sci. 2006;6(1):58–63.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Bitty M, Kamelan O, Coha Y, et al. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of medical waste products in Côte d’Ivoire. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2013;2:363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cheng YW, Sung FC, Yang Y, Lo YH, Chung YT, Li KC. Medical waste production at hospitals and associated factors. Waste Manag. 2009;29(1):440–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Chu J, Ghenand O, Collins J, Byrne J, Wentworth A, Chai PR, et al. Thinking green: modelling respirator reuse strategies to reduce cost and waste. BMJ Open. 2021;11(7):e048687.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Coker A, Sangodoyin A, Sridhar M, Booth C, Olomolaiye P, Hammond F. Medical waste management in Ibadan, Nigeria: obstacles and prospects. Waste Manag. 2009;29(2):804–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Debere MK, Gelaye KA, Alamdo AG, Trifa ZM. Assessment of the health care waste generation rates and its management system in hospitals of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2011. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Farshad A, Gholami H, Farzadkia M, Mirkazemi R, Kermani M. The safety of non-incineration waste disposal devices in four hospitals of Tehran. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2014;20(3):258–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Grimmond TR, Bright A, Cadman J, Dixon J, Ludditt S, Robinson C, et al. Before/after intervention study to determine impact on life-cycle carbon footprint of converting from single-use to reusable sharps containers in 40 UK NHS trusts. BMJ Open. 2021;11(9):e046200.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Hamoda HM, El-Tomi HN, Bahman QY. Variations in hospital waste quantities and generation rates. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng. 2005;40(2):467–76.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Hassan MM, Ahmed SA, Rahman KA, Biswas TK. Pattern of medical waste management: existing scenario in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. BMC Public Health. 2008;8(1):36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Huang MC, Lin JJ. Characteristics and management of infectious industrial waste in Taiwan. Waste Manag. 2008;28(11):2220–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Koo JK, Jeong SI. Sustainability and shared smart and mutual–green growth (SSaM-GG) in Korean medical waste management. Waste Manag Res. 2015;33(5):410–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Kubicki MAM F, O'Shea CJ, Bates S. Auditing an intensive care unit recycling program. Critical Care Resusc 2015; 17:135

  37. Kuo H-W, Shu S-L, Wu C-C, Lai J-S. Characteristics of medical waste in Taiwan. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1999;114(3):413–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Lee BK, Ellenbecker MJ, Moure-Eraso R. Analyses of the recycling potential of medical plastic wastes. Waste Manag. 2002;22(5):461–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Longe EO. Healthcare waste management status in Lagos State, Nigeria: a case study from selected healthcare facilities in Ikorodu and Lagos metropolis. Waste Manag Res. 2012;30(6):562–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Mbarki A, Kabbachi B, Ezaidi A, Benssaou M. Medical waste management: a case study of the souss-massa-drâa region Morocco. J Environ Prot. 2013;04(09):914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Morooka H, Yamamoto T, Tanaka A, Furuhashi K, Miyagawa Y, Maruyama S. Influence of COVID-19 on the 10-year carbon footprint of the Nagoya University Hospital and medical research centre. Global Health. 2022;18(1):92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Pandey A, Ahuja S, Madan M, Asthana AK. Bio-medical waste managment in a tertiary care hospital: an overview. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(11):DC01-dc3.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Rafiee A, Yaghmaeian K, Hoseini M, Parmy S, Mahvi A, Yunesian M, Nabizadeh R. Assessment and selection of the best treatment alternative for infectious waste by modified sustainability assessment of technologies methodology. J Environ Health Sci Eng. 2016;14:1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Rahmani K, Alighadri M, Rafiee Z. Assessment and selection of the best treatment alternative for infectious waste by sustainability assessment of technologies (SAT) methodology. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2020;70(3):333–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Rizan C, Bhutta MF, Reed M, Lillywhite R. The carbon footprint of waste streams in a UK hospital. J Clean Prod. 2021;286:125446.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Rizan C, Reed M, Bhutta MF. Environmental impact of personal protective equipment distributed for use by health and social care services in England in the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic. J R Soc Med. 2021;114(5):250–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Tadesse ML, Kumie A. Healthcare waste generation and management practice in government health centers of addis ababa Ethiopia. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1221.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Taghipour H, Mosaferi M. The challenge of medical waste management: a case study in northwest Iran-Tabriz. Waste Manag Res. 2009;27(4):328–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Vozzola E, Overcash M, Griffing E. Environmental considerations in the selection of isolation gowns: a life cycle assessment of reusable and disposable alternatives. Am J Infect Control. 2018;46(8):881–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. David E, Niculescu VC. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as environmental pollutants: occurrence and mitigation using nanomaterials. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(24):13147.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. BANK W. The World By Income and Region THE WORLD BANK2022 Available from: https://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/the-world-by-income-and-region.html.

  52. WHO guidance for climate resilient and environmentally sustainable health care facilities [Internet]. [cited 2023 Oct 22]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240012226.

  53. Andrieu B, Marrauld L, Vidal O, Egnell M, Boyer L, Fond G. Health-care systems’ resource footprints and their access and quality in 49 regions between 1995 and 2015: an input-output analysis. Lancet Planet Health. 2023;7(9):e747–58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Sulbaek Andersen MP, Nielsen OJ, Karpichev B, Wallington TJ, Sander SP. Atmospheric chemistry of isoflurane, desflurane, and sevoflurane: kinetics and mechanisms of reactions with chlorine atoms and OH radicals and global warming potentials. J Phys Chem A. 2012;116(24):5806–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Tennison I, Roschnik S, Ashby B, Boyd R, Hamilton I, Oreszczyn T, et al. Health care’s response to climate change: a carbon footprint assessment of the NHS in England. Lancet Planet Health. 2021;5(2):e84–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Lenzen M, Malik A, Li M, Fry J, Weisz H, Pichler PP, et al. The environmental footprint of health care: a global assessment. Lancet Planet Health. 2020;4(7):e271–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Janik-Karpinska E, Brancaleoni R, Niemcewicz M, Wojtas W, Foco M, Podogrocki M, et al. Healthcare waste-a serious problem for global health. Healthcare. 2023;11(2):242.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. World Health O. Health-care waste: World Health Organization; 2018 [updated 8 February 2018. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/health-care-waste.

  59. Japan meteorological agency [Internet]. [cited 2023 Oct 22]. Available from: https://www.jma.go.jp/jma/indexe.html.

  60. Rasheed FN, Baddley J, Prabhakaran P, De Barros EF, Reddy KS, Vianna NA, et al. Decarbonising healthcare in low and middle income countries: potential pathways to net zero emissions. BMJ. 2021;375:n1284.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. The 17 goals | sustainable development [Internet]. [cited 2023 Oct 30]. Available from: https://sdgs.un.org/goals.

  62. Eckelman MJ, Sherman J. Environmental impacts of the US health care system and effects on public health. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0157014.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Wu R. The carbon footprint of the Chinese health-care system: an environmentally extended input-output and structural path analysis study. Lancet Planet Health. 2019;3(10):e413–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Malik A, Lenzen M, McAlister S, McGain F. The carbon footprint of Australian health care. Lancet Planet Health. 2018;2(1):e27–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Tomczyk S, Twyman A, de Kraker MEA, Coutinho Rehse AP, Tartari E, Toledo JP, et al. The first WHO global survey on infection prevention and control in health-care facilities. Lancet Infect Dis. 2022;22(6):845–56.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Oliver Lim, Wei Yu Chua, Andrew Wong, Ryan Ruiyang Ling, Swee Chye Quek & Jyoti Somani

  2. Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore

    Hwang Ching Chan

  3. Department of Pediatrics, Khoo Teck Puat-National University Children’s Medical Institute, National University Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore

    Swee Chye Quek

  4. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, National University Health System, NUHS Tower Block, Level 10, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Singapore

    Sean Wu & Jyoti Somani

Authors
  1. Oliver Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wei Yu Chua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ryan Ruiyang Ling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hwang Ching Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Swee Chye Quek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sean Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jyoti Somani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors were involved in the initial planning of the study. OL, WYC, AW, and RRL worked on the study design and methodology, search strategy, and screening of articles. OL, WYC, and AW collected, analysed and interpreted data, and drafted the tables and figures. OL and WYC drafted the manuscript. RRL, HCC, SCQ, SW, and JW performed critical revisions of the manuscript for intellectually important content. All authors provided critical conceptual input, interpreted the data analysis, read, and approved the final draft. SW and JS have accessed and verified the data. SW and JS were responsible for the decision to submit the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sean Wu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

RRL acknowledges research support from the Clinician Scientist Development Unit, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore. JS received an honorarium from Sanofi-Aventis Singapore Pte. Ltd.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lim, O., Chua, W.Y., Wong, A. et al. The environmental impact and sustainability of infection control practices: a systematic scoping review. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 13, 156 (2024). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13756-024-01507-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13756-024-01507-0

Keywords

Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control

ISSN: 2047-2994

Contact us