18643 Elis Thread LCA Supplement[2] - Flipbook - Page 7
Earlier studies into resuable
vs disposable surgical textiles
A 2012 comparison of reusable and disposable
perioperative textiles by Michael Overcash7 does
acknowledge that ‘contemporary comparisons
of reusable and disposable perioperative textiles
(surgical gowns and drapes) reflect major
changes in the technologies to produce and
reuse these products.’
The same article also states: ‘In multiple science-based
life cycle environmental studies, reusable surgical gowns
and drapes demonstrate substantial sustainability
benefits over the same disposable product…evidencebased comparison of environmental factors supports
the conclusion that reusable gowns and drapes offer
important sustainability improvements.’
Overcash also co-authored a later study funded by
the American Reusable Textile Association (ARTA)8.
Published in 2018, ‘Environmental considerations in the
selection of isolation gowns: A life cycle assessment of
reusable and disposable alternatives’ compared the
environmental impacts of 1,000 uses of reusable and
disposable isolation gown systems using standard life
cycle assessment procedures. The scope included
the manufacture, use and end-of-life stages of the
gown systems, and concluded that ‘At the healthcare
facility, compared to the disposable gown system,
the reusable gown system showed a 28% reduction
in energy consumption, a 30% reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions, a 41% reduction in blue
water consumption, and a 93% reduction in solid
waste generation’.
This comprehensive assessment provides strong
evidence in favour of reusable products and their
sustainability benefits, and a number of other studies
support this view, with a general conclusion that the
05
climate change impact of a reusable gown is around
30% of that of a disposable gown. One of the earliest
life cycle assessments of hospital gowns in 2008,
also carried out in the US, was conducted by Van de
Berghe et al9. This found that climate change impact
was significantly decreased for a reusable gown, while
a further American study by Jewell et al considered a
range of reuse rates, based on hospital data, finding
that for reusable gowns the impacts are driven by the
washing and manufacturing, whereas the disposable
gown impacts were mainly due to raw materials and
manufacturing.
It is important to bear in mind that these studies focus
on products which are representative of the US market.
Subtle regional variations in aspects such as product
materials, manufacturing and reprocessing techniques
mean it has not therefore been possible to say with
certainty whether these results accurately translate to
disposable and reusable products available elsewhere.
In the UK, a recent study by Rizan et al10 reported the
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,
using energy, water and detergent requirements from
literature to estimate that a reusable gown, used 75 times
and with a cleaning round trip transport of 160km, has a
climate change impact of around 32% of a disposable
alternative. This approximation again points in favour of
reusables, but there have been no UK-based studies
modelled on practical, real-life scenarios – until today.
“In multiple science
based life cycle
environmental studies,
reusable surgical gowns
and drapes demonstrate
substantial sustainability
benefits over the same
disposable product”
06
