A Process-Based Framework to Calculate the Carbon Footprint of Sterile Processing in Central Sterile Supply Departments
Keywords:
central sterile supply department, sterile barrier system, sterile processing, sustainability, carbon footprintAbstract
Background and Purpose: Central sterile supply departments are essential to surgical and procedural services using reusable medical devices. Their workflows consume energy, water, and packaging materials, continuously generating waste. However, practical frameworks for calculating carbon footprints from routine sterile processing activities and translating them into decision-ready indicators remain limited. This article proposes a process-based framework for calculating the carbon footprint of sterile processing in central sterile supply departments, integrating quality management, occupational safety, and sustainability. Methods: This methodological academic article synthesized relevant evidence and developed a seven-step framework based on process-based carbon accounting and life-cycle thinking. The steps include defining system boundaries and functional units; developing an instrument set database; collecting daily activity data for washer-disinfectors and steam sterilizers; calculating per-cycle emissions from activity data and emission factors; allocating emissions to instrument sets and individual instruments; incorporating sterile barrier systems and waste-management pathways; and linking the results to surgical case-level indicators. Results: The proposed framework establishes per-cycle emissions as an auditable starting point and converts them into per-set, per-instrument, and per-case indicators. These indicators reflect machine capacity utilization, quality-related reprocessing, packaging choices, and waste-management pathways. Quality control points are embedded in each step to support carbon reduction without compromising patient safety, infection prevention, or occupational safety. Conclusions: The framework provides a transparent and repeatable management tool for central sterile supply departments. It can support integrated decision-making on quality, safety, and sustainability, and can serve as a basis for field testing and the development of hospital-specific carbon reference values.
Downloads
References
The Shift Project. Décarboner la santé pour soigner durablement. The Shift Project; 2023. Accessed December 29, 2025. https://theshiftproject.org/publications/decarboner-sante-soigner-durablement/
Keller RL, Muir K, Roth F, Jattke M, Stucki M. From bandages to buildings: Identifying the environmental hotspots of hospitals. J Clean Prod. 2021;319:128479. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128479
Cimprich A, Young SB. Environmental footprinting of hospitals: Organizational life cycle assessment of a Canadian hospital. J Ind Ecol. 2023;27(5):1335-1353. doi:10.1111/jiec.13425
Lemonnier J, Talon D. 1ISG-027 Carbon footprint of a sterilisation unit. Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2021;28(Suppl 1):A4.1. doi:10.1136/ejhpharm-2021-eahpconf.8
Rizan C, Lillywhite R, Reed M, Bhutta MF. Minimising carbon and financial costs of steam sterilisation and packaging of reusable surgical instruments. Br J Surg. 2022;109(2):200-210. doi:10.1093/bjs/znab406
Goubil A, Lefèvre K, Couret C, et al. Understanding and quantifying the environmental impact of sterile medical devices: A carbon footprint study of single-use electrosurgical scalpels and their reusable alternatives. BMJ Surg Interv Health Technol. 2025;7:e000348. doi:10.1136/bmjsit-2024-000348
Davis NF, McGrath S, Quinlan M, et al. Carbon footprint in flexible ureteroscopy: A comparative study on the environmental impact of reusable and single-use ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2018;32(3):214-217. doi:10.1089/end.2018.0001
Krohn M, Fengler J, Mickley T, Flessa S. Analysis of processes and costs of alternative packaging options of sterile goods in hospitals: A case study in two German hospitals. Health Econ Rev. 2019;9(1):1. doi:10.1186/s13561-018-0218-2
Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard. World Resources Institute; World Business Council for Sustainable Development; 2011. Accessed December 29, 2025. https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/Product-Life-Cycle-Accounting-Reporting-Standard_041613.pdf
Lilholt Sørensen B. Comparative study on environmental impacts of reusable and single-use bronchoscopes. Am J Environ Prot. 2018;7(4):55-62. doi:10.11648/j.ajep.20180704.11
McGain F, McAlister S, McGavin A, Story D. A life cycle assessment of reusable and single-use central venous catheter insertion kits. Anesth Analg. 2012;114(5):1073-1080. doi:10.1213/ANE.0b013e31824e9b69
Eckelman MJ, Mosher M, Gonzalez A, Sherman JD. Comparative life cycle assessment of disposable and reusable laryngeal mask airways. Anesth Analg. 2012;114(5):1067-1072. doi:10.1213/ANE.0b013e31824f6959
Hogan D, Rauf H, Kinnear N, et al. The carbon footprint of single-use flexible cystoscopes compared with reusable cystoscopes. J Endourol. 2022;36(11):1460-1464. doi:10.1089/end.2021.0891
Rizan C, Bhutta MF. Re: The carbon footprint of single-use flexible cystoscopes compared with reusable cystoscopes: Methodological flaws led to the erroneous conclusion that single-use is better. J Endourol. 2022;36(11):1466-1467. doi:10.1089/end.2022.0482
Thiel CL, Eckelman M, Guido R, Huddleston M, Landis AE, Sherman JD. Environmental impacts of surgical procedures: Life cycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49(3):1779-1786. doi:10.1021/es504719g
McGain F, Wickramarachchi K, Aye L, et al. The carbon footprint of total knee replacements. Aust Health Rev. 2024;48(6):664-672. doi:10.1071/AH24154
Boberg L, Singh J, Montgomery A, et al. Environmental impact of single-use, reusable, and mixed trocar systems used for laparoscopic cholecystectomies. PLoS One. 2022;17(7):e0271601. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0271601
MacNeill AJ, Hopf H, Khanuja A, et al. Transforming the medical device industry: Road map to a circular economy. Health Aff (Millwood). 2020;39(12):2088-2097. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2020.01118
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Chulabhorn Royal Academy

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Disclaimer
Articles published in this journal are the copyright of Chulabhorn Royal Academy.
The opinions expressed in each article are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Chulabhorn Royal Academy or any other faculty members of the Academy. The authors are fully responsible for all content in their respective articles. In the event of any errors or inaccuracies, the responsibility lies solely with the individual authors.