A life cycle assessment of disposing intra-operative collected fluids, a comparative study between the Neptune 3 versus canister drainage

Abstract

The Neptune 3 drainage system is developed as an alternative to canister systems for collecting surgical fluids in the operating room. This study investigates the difference in the environmental impact between Neptune 3 and canister systems, evaluating all individual stages of the product life cycle of the Neptune and canisters. Using the RECIPE model, 17 impact categories (midpoints) were defined and results were aggregated into three endpoint categories (human health, ecosystems, resources). The volume of waste was varied in a setup in a hospital in the Netherlands and included different fluid volume collection scenarios performed over seven years: high-volume (2.0–24 L waste) and low-volume (0.1–0.5 L waste). In both high and low volume procedures, Neptune 3 has a lower environmental impact compared to canisters for global warming (15–89% reduction), ozone formation terrestrial ecosystems & human health (24–91% reduction), fossil resource scarcity (36–92% reduction) and water consumption (44–106% reduction). In high volume scenarios (5 + Liters) Neptune also has a lower impact in stratospheric ozone depletion, fine particulate matter formation, terrestrial acidification for the high volume scenarios (5 L or more). In the case of ionizing radiation, freshwater eutrophication, and human carcinogenic toxicity the Neptune has a lower impact only in the very large volume procedures (10 + Liter). By aggregating the mid-point results to end-point results, it is observed that the Neptune system is beneficial for resources in each scenario, and for human health and ecosystems for procedures with larger volumes. Results from this LCA demonstrate that the Neptune 3 system is environmentally beneficial compared to canisters. This study provides valuable information for policymakers and hospital decisionmakers to treat their surgical waste in an environmentally friendly way.