The environmental impact of energy consumption and carbon emissions in radiology departments: a systematic review.
Carbon emissions
Electricity
Energy savings
Environmental sustainability
Radiology
Journal
European radiology experimental
ISSN: 2509-9280
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol Exp
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101721752
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Feb 2024
29 Feb 2024
Historique:
received:
25
10
2023
accepted:
18
12
2023
medline:
29
2
2024
pubmed:
29
2
2024
entrez:
28
2
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Energy consumption and carbon emissions from medical equipment like CT/MRI scanners and workstations contribute to the environmental impact of healthcare facilities. The aim of this systematic review was to identify all strategies to reduce energy use and carbon emissions in radiology. In June 2023, a systematic review (Medline/Embase/Web of Science) was performed to search original articles on environmental sustainability in radiology. The extracted data include environmental sustainability topics (e.g., energy consumption, carbon footprint) and radiological devices involved. Sustainable actions and environmental impact in radiology settings were analyzed. Study quality was assessed using the QualSyst tool. From 918 retrieved articles, 16 met the inclusion criteria. Among them, main topics were energy consumption (10/16, 62.5%), life-cycle assessment (4/16, 25.0%), and carbon footprint (2/16, 12.5%). Eleven studies reported that 40-91% of the energy consumed by radiological devices can be defined as "nonproductive" (devices "on" but not working). Turning-off devices during idle periods 9/16 (56.2%) and implementing workflow informatic tools (2/16, 12.5%) were the sustainable actions identified. Energy-saving strategies were reported in 8/16 articles (50%), estimating annual savings of thousand kilowatt-hours (14,180-171,000 kWh). Cost-savings were identified in 7/16 (43.7%) articles, ranging from US $9,225 to 14,328 per device. Study quality was over or equal the 80% of high-quality level in 14/16 (87.5%) articles. Energy consumption and environmental sustainability in radiology received attention in literature. Sustainable actions include turning-off radiological devices during idle periods, favoring the most energy-efficient imaging devices, and educating radiological staff on energy-saving practices, without compromising service quality. A non-negligible number of articles - mainly coming from North America and Europe - highlighted the need for energy-saving strategies, attention to equipment life-cycle assessment, and carbon footprint reduction in radiology, with a potential for cost-saving outcome. • Energy consumption and environmental sustainability in radiology received attention in the literature (16 articles published from 2010 to 2023). • A substantial portion (40-91%) of the energy consumed by radiological devices was classified as "non-productive" (devices "on" but not working). • Sustainable action such as shutting down devices during idle periods was identified, with potential annual energy savings ranging from 14,180 to 171,000 kWh.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38418763
doi: 10.1186/s41747-024-00424-6
pii: 10.1186/s41747-024-00424-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
35Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Zanoni S, Bettoni L, Glock CH (2014) Energy implications in a two-stage production system with controllable production rates. Int J Prod Econ 149:164–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.06.025
doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.06.025
Watts N, Amann M, Arnell N et al (2019) The 2019 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: ensuring that the health of a child born today is not defined by a changing climate. Lancet 394:1836–1878. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32596-6
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32596-6
pubmed: 31733928
Karliner J, Slotterback S, Boyd R, et al (2020) Health care’s climate footprint: the health sector contribution and opportunities for action. Eur J Public Health 30. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa165.843
Moghimi S, Azizpour F, Mat S et al (2014) Building energy index and end-use energy analysis in large-scale hospitals—case study in Malaysia. Energy Effic 7:243–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-013-9221-y
doi: 10.1007/s12053-013-9221-y
Aunión-Villa J, Gómez-Chaparro M, García-Sanz-Calcedo J (2021) Study of the energy intensity by built areas in a medium-sized Spanish hospital. Energy Effic 14:26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-021-09944-1
doi: 10.1007/s12053-021-09944-1
Kruk ME, Gage AD, Arsenault C et al (2018) High-quality health systems in the Sustainable Development Goals era: time for a revolution. Lancet Glob Health 6:e1196–e1252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30386-3
doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30386-3
pubmed: 30196093
pmcid: 7734391
Zikhathile T, Atagana H, Bwapwa J, Sawtell D (2022) A review of the impact that healthcare risk waste treatment technologies have on the environment. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19:11967. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191911967
doi: 10.3390/ijerph191911967
pubmed: 36231269
pmcid: 9565833
Ranganathan J, Corbier L, Bhatia P, et al (2004) The greenhouse gas protocol: a corporate accounting and reporting standard. WBCSD/WRI 2004; World Resources Institute. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34895.33443
Malik A, Padget M, Carter S et al (2021) Environmental impacts of Australia’s largest health system. Resour Conserv Recycl 169:105556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105556
doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105556
Picano E, Mangia C, D’Andrea A (2022) Climate Change, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Medical Imaging Contribution. J Clin Med 12:215. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010215
doi: 10.3390/jcm12010215
pubmed: 36615016
pmcid: 9820937
Eckelman MJ, Sherman J (2016) Environmental impacts of the U.S. Health care system and effects on public health. PLoS One 11:e0157014. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157014
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157014
pubmed: 27280706
pmcid: 4900601
Pichler P-P, Jaccard IS, Weisz U, Weisz H (2019) International comparison of health care carbon footprints. Environ Res Lett 14:064004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab19e1
doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab19e1
Hainc N, Brantner P, Zaehringer C, Hohmann J (2020) “Green Fingerprint” project: evaluation of the power consumption of reporting stations in a radiology department. Acad Radiol 27:1594–1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2019.11.011
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2019.11.011
pubmed: 31843389
Heye T, Knoerl R, Wehrle T et al (2020) The energy consumption of Radiology: Energy- And cost-saving opportunities for CT and MRI operation. Radiology 295:593–605. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020192084
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020192084
pubmed: 32208096
Heye T, Meyer MT, Merkle EM, Vosshenrich J (2023) Turn It Off! A Simple Method to Save Energy and CO2 Emissions in a Hospital Setting with Focus on Radiology by Monitoring Nonproductive Energy-consuming Devices. Radiology 307. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230162
Schoen J, McGinty GB, Quirk C (2021) Radiology in our changing climate: a call to action. J Am Coll Radiol 18:1041–1043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2021.02.009
doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2021.02.009
pubmed: 33716017
Mariampillai J, Rockall A, Manuellian C et al (2023) The green and sustainable radiology department. Radiologie (Heidelb). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-023-01189-6
Büttner L, Posch H, Auer T, et al (2021) Switching off for future—Cost estimate and a simple approach to improving the ecological footprint of radiological departments. Eur J Radiol Open 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejro.2020.100320
Shum PL, Kok HK, Maingard J, et al (2022) Sustainability in interventional radiology: are we doing enough to save the environment? CVIR Endovasc 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42155-022-00336-9
Bloom J, Rodriguez-Russo C, Osborn VW (2022) Environmental sustainability in radiation oncology: a scoping review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 114:e332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.07.1414
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6:e1000100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
pubmed: 19621070
pmcid: 2707010
Kmet LM, Cook LS, Lee RC (2004) Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields. https://doi.org/10.7939/R37M04F16
Peters S, Burrows S, Jenkins P (2021) The challenge of environmental sustainability in radiology training and potential solutions. Postgrad Med J 97:755–759. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-138835
doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-138835
pubmed: 33115912
Gendy D, Walters H, O’Mahony E, Zaman S (2022) The scope for radiology to contribute to the NHS net zero target: findings from a survey of radiology staff in the UK. Clin Radiol 77:e667–e672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2022.05.002
doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2022.05.002
pubmed: 35688772
Woolen SA, Becker AE, Martin AJ et al (2023) Ecodesign and operational strategies to reduce the carbon footprint of mri for energy cost savings. Radiology 307:e230441. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230441
doi: 10.1148/radiol.230441
pubmed: 37097133
Brown M, Snelling E, De Alba M et al (2022) Quantitative assessment of computed tomography energy use and cost savings through overnight and weekend power down in a radiology department. Can Assoc Radiol J. https://doi.org/10.1177/08465371221133074
doi: 10.1177/08465371221133074
pubmed: 36421009
McAlister S, McGain F, Petersen M et al (2022) The carbon footprint of hospital diagnostic imaging in Australia. Lancet Reg Health West Pac 24:100459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanwpc.2022.100459
doi: 10.1016/j.lanwpc.2022.100459
pubmed: 35538935
pmcid: 9079346
Alshqaqeeq F, McGuire C, Overcash M, et al (2020) Choosing radiology imaging modalities to meet patient needs with lower environmental impact. Resour Conserv Recycl 155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104657
Brodbeck D, Degen M, Lüthy R, Heye T (2019) Making the Radiology Workflow Visible in Order to Inform Optimization Strategies. Stud Health Technol Inform 259:19-24. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-961-4-19 , https://ebooks.iospress.nl/publication/51313
Esmaeili A, McGuire C, Overcash M et al (2018) Environmental impact reduction as a new dimension for quality measurement of healthcare services: the case of magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 31:910–922. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-10-2016-0153
doi: 10.1108/IJHCQA-10-2016-0153
pubmed: 30415627
Martin M, Mohnke A, Lewis GM et al (2018) Environmental impacts of abdominal imaging: a pilot investigation. J Am Coll Radiol 15:1385–1393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2018.07.015
doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2018.07.015
pubmed: 30158086
Esmaeili A, Twomey JM, Overcash MR et al (2015) Scope for energy improvement for hospital imaging services in the USA. J Health Serv Res Policy 20:67–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819614554845
doi: 10.1177/1355819614554845
pubmed: 25323087
McCarthy CJ, Gerstenmaier JF, O’ Neill AC, et al (2014) “EcoRadiology”-Pulling the plug on wasted energy in the radiology department. Acad Radiol 21:1563–1566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2014.07.010
Esmaeili MA, Jahromi A, Twomey J, et al (2011) Energy Consumption of VA Hospital CT Scans. Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology 1–5
Prasanna PM, Siegel E, Kunce A (2011) Greening radiology. J Am Coll Radiol 8:780–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2011.07.017
doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2011.07.017
pubmed: 22051462
Woolen SA, Kim CJ, Hernandez AM et al (2023) Radiology environmental impact: what is known and how can we improve? Acad Radiol 30:625–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2022.10.021
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2022.10.021
pubmed: 36400705
European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2014) Renewal of radiological equipment. Insights Imaging 5:543–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-014-0345-1
doi: 10.1007/s13244-014-0345-1
Pavlek IB, Brnic Z, Schmidt S et al (2016) Old and outdated radiology equipment in Croatia—radiation safety and economic consequences. Insights Imaging 7:283–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-016-0464-y
doi: 10.1007/s13244-016-0464-y
pubmed: 26883136
pmcid: 4805625
Vaona A, Banzi R, Kwag KH, et al (2018) E-learning for health professionals. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011736.pub2
Dekker HM, Stroomberg GJ, Prokop M (2022) Tackling the increasing contamination of the water supply by iodinated contrast media. Insights Imaging 13:30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01175-x
doi: 10.1186/s13244-022-01175-x
pubmed: 35201493
pmcid: 8873335
Zanardo M, Cozzi A, Cardani R et al (2023) Reducing contrast agent residuals in hospital wastewater: the GREENWATER study protocol. Eur Radiol Exp 7:27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-023-00337-w
doi: 10.1186/s41747-023-00337-w
pubmed: 37142839
pmcid: 10160294
Healthcare GE (2023) Contrast media—iodine recycling. https://www.gehealthcare.co.uk/products/contrast-media-ecr . Accessed 25 Jul 2023
Sumner C, Ikuta I, Garg T et al (2023) Approaches to greening radiology. Acad Radiol 30:528–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2022.08.013
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2022.08.013
pubmed: 36114076
Chua ALB, Amin R, Zhang J et al (2021) The environmental impact of interventional radiology: an evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions from an academic interventional radiology practice. J Vasc Interv Radiol 32:907–915.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2021.03.531
doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2021.03.531
pubmed: 33794372
Mlinarić A, Horvat M, Šupak Smolčić V (2017) Dealing with the positive publication bias: why you should really publish your negative results. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 27 https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.030201