MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391533627 · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141126

Life cycle assessment of medical oxygen

2024· article· en· W4391533627 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maliha Tariq, Ankesh Siddhantakar, Jodi D. Sherman, Alexander Cimprich, Steven B. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cleaner Production · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife-cycle assessmentEnvironmental scienceOxygenGreenhouse gasWaste managementEnvironmental engineeringProduction (economics)ChemistryEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use life cycle assessment to model the environmental impacts of medical oxygen supply to hospitals. Although medical oxygen accounts for only 1% of global liquid oxygen production, it serves life-saving purposes in the healthcare sector, which is increasingly grappling with its environmental burdens. Considering six indicators in the TRACI impact assessment method, we estimate the total environmental impacts of bulk liquid oxygen – by far the dominant supply pathway in North America – as follows: global warming potential of 0.49 kg CO2 eq., fossil fuel depletion of 0.90 MJ surplus, carcinogenic toxicity of 6.2 × 10−8 CTUh, non-carcinogenic toxicity of 2.1 × 10−7 CTUh, respiratory effects of 2.8 × 10−4 PM2.5 eq., and ecotoxicity of 15 CTUe, per oxygen bed day, assuming a flow rate of 2 L/min. These impacts are primarily driven by electricity used to produce liquid oxygen via cryogenic distillation. Alternatively, liquid oxygen can be converted to gaseous form and shipped to hospitals in cylinder format – with substantially increased environmental impacts from the additional container and transportation. Medical oxygen can also be produced in gaseous form via pressure swing adsorption technology, either in an on-site plant or in a portable oxygen concentrator at the patient bedside. These alternatives may modestly reduce environmental impacts compared to liquid oxygen production, though the lower purity oxygen produced is less prevalent in clinical practice. We highlight several key variables affecting the environmental impacts of each medical oxygen supply pathway, including the location of production facilities (and corresponding electricity grids), losses in the supply-chain, and clinical practice (such as the choice of oxygen purity and flow rate). Limitations of our study include a lack of primary empirical data collection and a cradle-to-gate scope that omits other aspects of oxygen therapy such as hospital energy and water use (allocated to the procedure), wastes generated, and the production of medical equipment and consumables used. Ultimately, the results of our study suggest that medical oxygen production accounts for less than 1% of the total carbon footprint of healthcare in Canada.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cleaner ProductionSame topicClimate Change and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207