The carbon footprint of hospital diagnostic imaging in Australia

作者：Scott McAlister, Forbes McGain, Matilde Breth‐Petersen, David Story, Kate Charlesworth, Glenn Ison, Alexandra L Barratt · 发表于：The Lancet Regional Health - Western Pacific · 年份：2022 · DOI：10.1016/j.lanwpc.2022.100459 · 被引用次数：189 · 研究领域：Climate Change and Health Impacts、Health, Environment, Cognitive Aging、Advances in Oncology and Radiotherapy

Background Pathology testing and diagnostic imaging together contribute 9% of healthcare's carbon footprint. Whilst the carbon footprint of pathology testing has been undertaken, to date, the carbon footprint of the four most common imaging modalities is unclear. Methods We performed a prospective life cycle assessment at two Australian university-affiliated health services of five imaging modalities: chest X-ray (CXR), mobile chest X-ray (MCXR), computerised tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US). We included scanner electricity use and all consumables and associated waste, including bedding, imaging contrast, and gloves. Analysis was performed using both attributional and consequential life cycle assessment methods. The primary outcome was the greenhouse gas footprint, measured in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 e) emissions. Findings Mean CO 2 e emissions were 17·5 kg/scan for MRI; 9·2 kg/scan for CT; 0·8 kg/scan for CXR; 0·5 kg/scan for MCXR; and 0·5 kg/scan for US. Emissions from scanners from standby energy were substantial. When expressed as emissions per additional scan (results of consequential analysis) impacts were lower: 1·1 kg/scan for MRI; 1·1 kg/scan for CT; 0·6 kg/scan for CXR; 0·1 kg/scan for MCXR; and 0·1 kg/scan for US, due to emissions from standby power being excluded. Interpretation Clinicians and administrators can reduce carbon emissions from diagnostic imaging, firstly by reducing the ordering of unnecessary imaging, or ...