The Experts below are selected from a list of 37083 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Chantelle Rizan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the Carbon Footprint of waste streams in a uk hospital
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021Co-Authors: Chantelle Rizan, Mahmood F Bhutta, Malcom Reed, Robert LillywhiteAbstract:Abstract A number of studies have estimated the Carbon Footprint of healthcare provision in a variety of contexts, but the emission factors used to account for associated waste vary widely and are not healthcare specific. The aim of this study was to estimate and compare the Carbon Footprint of hospital waste streams. A process-based Carbon Footprint of hospital waste was estimated in accordance with the Greenhouse Gas Accounting Sector Guidance for Pharmaceutical Products and Medical Devices, using activity data based on waste streams found at three hospitals in one UK National Health Service organisation. This study estimates that the Carbon Footprint per tonne of hospital waste was lowest when it is recycled (21-65 kg CO2e), followed by low temperature incineration with energy from waste (172-249 kg CO2e). When the waste was additionally decontaminated using an autoclave prior to low temperature incineration with energy from waste, the Carbon Footprint was increased to 569 kg CO2e. The highest Carbon Footprint was associated with the disposal of waste via high temperature incineration (1074 kg CO2e/tonne). NHS data show that the financial cost of waste streams mirror that of the Carbon Footprint. In conclusion, it is possible to use the Carbon Footprint of hospital waste streams to derive emission factors for specific waste disposal options. This may inform the optimal processing of healthcare waste in the future.
Arunima Malik - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Carbon Footprint of japanese health care services from 2011 to 2015
Resources Conservation and Recycling, 2020Co-Authors: Arunima Malik, Keisuke Nansai, Jacob Fry, Wataru Takayanagi, Naoki KondoAbstract:Abstract The Carbon Footprint of Japanese health care services, i.e. the domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by health care expenditures, including the associated fixed capital, were calculated using input-output analysis. In 2011 the total Carbon Footprint of these services was 62.5 × 106 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e), which is 4.6% of total domestic GHG emissions. Medical services involving hospitalization accounted for the greatest share, at 15.7 MtCO2e. The second highest category, Medical services without hospitalization, accounted for only slightly less: 14.2 MtCO2e. However, the difference in emissions per patient between these two categories was considerable. On average, emissions per patient for Medical services (hospitalization) were 12 tCO2e/patient, whereas for Medical services (non-hospitalization) they were only 2.1 tCO2e/patient, or 5.4 times less. In terms of type of medical condition, the greatest annual emissions were associated with cardiovascular disease (6.2 MtCO2e) and neoplasm (4.0 MtCO2e). In terms of age, emissions attributed to patients aged 65 and over accounted for more than half of total health care emissions. By 2015, the total Carbon Footprint had increased to 72.0 MtCO2e, a rise of over 15% in four years. Although medical care and pharmaceuticals are the main factors responsible for this increase, emissions associated with nursing services have also risen, suggesting that demographic aging may be having a significant impact on GHG emissions. As a countermeasure, the potential annual GHG mitigation achievable through avoidance of unused prescribed medicines resulting in waste was estimated at 1.24 MtCO2e, comparable with the total Carbon Footprint of home medicines. To safeguard planetary health, in addition to implementing technological improvements to the supply chains of health care services, it will be necessary to provide citizens further options for achieving health promotion and GHG mitigation simultaneously.
-
the Carbon Footprint of global tourism
Nature Climate Change, 2018Co-Authors: Manfred Lenzen, Yayen Sun, Futu Faturay, Yuan Peng Ting, Arne Geschke, Arunima MalikAbstract:Tourism contributes significantly to global gross domestic product, and is forecast to grow at an annual 4%, thus outpacing many other economic sectors. However, global Carbon emissions related to tourism are currently not well quantified. Here, we quantify tourism-related global Carbon flows between 160 countries, and their Carbon Footprints under origin and destination accounting perspectives. We find that, between 2009 and 2013, tourism’s global Carbon Footprint has increased from 3.9 to 4.5 GtCO2e, four times more than previously estimated, accounting for about 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Transport, shopping and food are significant contributors. The majority of this Footprint is exerted by and in high-income countries. The rapid increase in tourism demand is effectively outstripping the deCarbonization of tourism-related technology. We project that, due to its high Carbon intensity and continuing growth, tourism will constitute a growing part of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Tourism is a significant contributor to the global economy, with potentially large environmental impacts. Origin and destination accounting perspectives are used to provide a comprehensive assessment of global tourism’s Carbon Footprint.
-
the Carbon Footprint of australian health care
The Lancet Planetary Health, 2018Co-Authors: Arunima Malik, Scott Mcalister, Manfred Lenzen, Forbes McgainAbstract:Summary Background Carbon Footprints stemming from health care have been found to be variable, from 3% of the total national CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 e) emissions in England to 10% of the national CO 2 e emissions in the USA. We aimed to measure the Carbon Footprint of Australia's health-care system. Methods We did an observational economic input–output lifecycle assessment of Australia's health-care system. All expenditure data were obtained from the 15 sectors of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare for the financial year 2014–15. The Australian Industrial Ecology Virtual Laboratory (IELab) data were used to obtain CO 2 e emissions per AUS$ spent on health care. Findings In 2014–15 Australia spent $161·6 billion on health care that led to CO 2 e emissions of about 35 772 (68% CI 25 398–46 146) kilotonnes. Australia's total CO 2 e emissions in 2014–15 were 494 930 kilotonnes, thus health care represented 35 772 (7%) of 494 930 kilotonnes total CO 2 e emissions in Australia. The five most important sectors within health care in decreasing order of total CO 2 e emissions were: public hospitals (12 295 [34%] of 35 772 kilotonnes CO 2 e), private hospitals (3635 kilotonnes [10%]), other medications (3347 kilotonnes [9%]), benefit-paid drugs (3257 kilotonnes [9%]), and capital expenditure for buildings (2776 kilotonnes [8%]). Interpretation The Carbon Footprint attributed to health care was 7% of Australia's total; with hospitals and pharmaceuticals the major contributors. We quantified Australian Carbon Footprint attributed to health care and identified health-care sectors that could be ameliorated. Our results suggest the need for Carbon-efficient procedures, including greater public health measures, to lower the impact of health-care services on the environment. Funding None.
Yantai Gan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Carbon Footprint of spring barley in relation to preceding oilseeds and n fertilization
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2012Co-Authors: Yantai Gan, Chang Liang, S S Malhi, W E May, Junyi Niu, Xiaoyu WangAbstract:Purpose Carbon Footprint of field crops can be lowered through improved cropping practices. The objective of this study was to determine the Carbon Footprint of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) in relation to various preceding oilseed crops that were fertilized at various rates of inorganic N the previous years. System boundary was from cradle-to-farm gate.
-
Carbon Footprint of canola and mustard is a function of the rate of n fertilizer
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2012Co-Authors: Yantai Gan, Gaobao Huang, Chang Liang, S.a. Brandt, Sukhdev S Malhi, Felicitas KatepamupondwaAbstract:Purpose Best agricultural practices can be adopted to increase crop productivity and lower Carbon Footprint of grain products. The aims of this study were to provide a quantitative estimate of the Carbon Footprint of selected oilseed crops grown on the semiarid northern Great Plains and to determine the effects of N fertilization and environments on the Carbon Footprint.
-
strategies for reducing the Carbon Footprint of field crops for semiarid areas a review
Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2011Co-Authors: Yantai Gan, Chang Liang, Chantal Hamel, H W CutforthAbstract:The Earth’s climate is rapidly changing largely due to increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Agricultural practices during crop production, food processing, and product marketing all generate GHG, contributing to the global climate change. The general public and farmers are urging the development and adoption of effective measures to reduce GHG emissions from all agricultural activities and sectors. However, quantitative information is not available in regard to what strategies and practices should be adopted to reduce emission from agriculture and how crop productivity would affect the intensity of GHG emission. To provide the potential solution, we estimated the Carbon Footprint [i.e., the total amount of GHG associated with the production and distribution of a given food product expressed in Carbon dioxide equivalence (CO2e)] for some of the major field crops grown on the Canadian prairie and assessed the effect of crop sequences on the Carbon Footprint of durum wheat. Key strategies for reducing the Carbon Footprint of various field crops grown in semiarid areas were identified. Carbon Footprints were estimated using emissions from (1) the decomposition of crop straw and roots; (2) the manufacture of N and P fertilizers and their rates of application; (3) the production of herbicides and fungicides; and (4) miscellaneous farm field operations. Production and application of N fertilizers accounted for 57% to 65% of the total Footprint, those from crop residue decomposition 16% to 30%, and the remaining portion of the Footprint included CO2e from the production of P fertilizer and pesticides, and from miscellaneous field operations. Crops grown in the Brown soil zone had the lowest Carbon Footprint, averaging 0.46 kg CO2e kg−1 of grain, whereas crops grown in the Black soil zone had a larger average Carbon Footprint of 0.83 kg CO2e kg−1 of grain. The average Carbon Footprint for crops grown in the Dark Brown soil zone was intermediate to the other two at 0.61 kg CO2e kg−1 of grain. One kilogram of grain product emitted 0.80 kg CO2e for canola (Brassica napus L.), 0.59 for mustard (Brassica juncea L.) and flaxseed (Linum usitatissimum L.), 0.46 for spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), and 0.20 to 0.33 kg CO2e for chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), dry pea (Pisum sativum L.), and lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.). Durum wheat (T. aestivum L.) preceded by an N-fixing crop (i.e., pulses) emitted total greenhouse gases of 673 kg CO2e, 20% lower than when the crop was preceded by a cereal crop. Similarly, durum wheat preceded by an oilseed emitted 744 kg CO2e, 11% lower than when preceded by a cereal. The Carbon Footprint for durum grown after a pulse was 0.25 kg CO2e per kg of the grain and 0.28 kg CO2e per kg of the grain when grown after an oilseed: a reduction in the Carbon Footprint of 24% to 32% than when grown after a cereal. The average Carbon Footprint can be lowered by as much as 24% for crops grown in the Black, 28% in the Dark Brown, and 37% in the Brown soil zones, through improved agronomic practices, increased N use efficiency, use of diversified cropping systems, adoption of crop cultivars with high harvest index, and the use of soil bioresources such as P-solublizers and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in crop production.
-
lowering Carbon Footprint of durum wheat by diversifying cropping systems
Field Crops Research, 2011Co-Authors: Yantai Gan, Chang Liang, Xiaoyu Wang, B G McconkeyAbstract:Abstract Improving cropping systems may help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. This study determined the Carbon Footprint of durum wheat ( Triticum turgidum L.) produced in diverse cropping systems. Durum was grown in rotation systems which had different combinations of oilseed, pulse, and cereal crops at five site-years in Saskatchewan, Canada. Total greenhouse gas emissions from the decomposition of crop residues along with various production inputs were used for the estimation of Carbon Footprint. On average, emissions from the decomposition of crop straw and roots accounted for 25% of the total emissions, those from the production, transportation, storage, and delivery of fertilizers and pesticides to farm gates and their applications 43%, and emissions from farming operations 32%. Durum wheat preceded by an oilseed crop ( Brassica napus or Brassica juncea ) the previous year had Carbon Footprint of 0.33 kg CO 2 e kg −1 of grain, or 7% lower than durum in cereal–cereal–durum system. Durum preceded by a biological N-fixing crop ( Cicer arietinum chickpea, Lens culinaris lentil, or Pisum sativum pea) the previous year lowered its Carbon Footprint by 17% compared with durum preceded by a cereal crop. Durum produced in a pulse–pulse–durum system had Carbon Footprint 0.27 kg CO 2 e kg −1 of grain, 34% lower than durum grown in cereal–cereal–durum systems. Diversifying cropping systems with oilseeds and biological N-fixers significantly lowered Carbon Footprint of durum wheat.
Robert Lillywhite - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the Carbon Footprint of waste streams in a uk hospital
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021Co-Authors: Chantelle Rizan, Mahmood F Bhutta, Malcom Reed, Robert LillywhiteAbstract:Abstract A number of studies have estimated the Carbon Footprint of healthcare provision in a variety of contexts, but the emission factors used to account for associated waste vary widely and are not healthcare specific. The aim of this study was to estimate and compare the Carbon Footprint of hospital waste streams. A process-based Carbon Footprint of hospital waste was estimated in accordance with the Greenhouse Gas Accounting Sector Guidance for Pharmaceutical Products and Medical Devices, using activity data based on waste streams found at three hospitals in one UK National Health Service organisation. This study estimates that the Carbon Footprint per tonne of hospital waste was lowest when it is recycled (21-65 kg CO2e), followed by low temperature incineration with energy from waste (172-249 kg CO2e). When the waste was additionally decontaminated using an autoclave prior to low temperature incineration with energy from waste, the Carbon Footprint was increased to 569 kg CO2e. The highest Carbon Footprint was associated with the disposal of waste via high temperature incineration (1074 kg CO2e/tonne). NHS data show that the financial cost of waste streams mirror that of the Carbon Footprint. In conclusion, it is possible to use the Carbon Footprint of hospital waste streams to derive emission factors for specific waste disposal options. This may inform the optimal processing of healthcare waste in the future.
Alan L Robin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Carbon Footprint and cost effectiveness of cataract surgery
Current Opinion in Ophthalmology, 2016Co-Authors: Rengaraj Venkatesh, Suzanne W Van Landingham, Ashish M Khodifad, Cassandra Lee Thiel, Pradeep Ramulu, Aravind Haripriya, Alan L RobinAbstract:Purpose of reviewThis article raises awareness about the cost–effectiveness and Carbon Footprint of various cataract surgery techniques, comparing their relative Carbon emissions and expenses: manual small-incision cataract surgery (MSICS), phacoemulsification, and femtosecond laser-assisted catarac