Life cycle assessment perspectives on delivering an infant in the US
Open accessAbstract
This study introduces life cycle assessment as a tool to analyze one aspect of sustainability in healthcare: the birth of a baby. The process life cycle assessment case study presented evaluates two common procedures in a hospital, a cesarean section and a vaginal birth. This case study was conducted at Magee-Womens Hospital of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, which delivers over 10,000 infants per year. The results show that heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), waste disposal, and the production of the disposable custom packs comprise a large percentage of the environmental impacts. Applying the life cycle assessment tool to medical procedures allows hospital decision makers to target and guide efforts to reduce the environmental impacts of healthcare procedures.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The carbon footprint of a caesarean section is twice that of a vaginal delivery.
“Campion et al. (31) found that the carbon footprint of a caesarean section is twice that of a vaginal delivery.”
From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [31]
Section 3.1 (page not provided) says cesarean births have a higher environmental footprint than vaginal births. The Results and Discussion discuss global warming potential for both delivery modes, but the passages do not give a two-to-one carbon-footprint comparison. The claimed magnitude is therefore unsupported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThree studies found electricity to be the largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for 63-78% of the carbon footprint of whole operations.
“Three studies (26,31,35) found electricity to be the largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for 63-78% of the carbon footprint of whole operations”
From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [31]
The Results and Discussion section reports that machines, lighting, and HVAC contributed the largest share of global warming potential for both delivery modes. It attributes those impacts to electricity and natural gas together, not electricity alone. The passages do not give a 63–78% share or assess whole operations rather than individual births (page unavailable in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn two studies where electricity use was broken down, the highest consumption of electricity was for maintaining the theatre environment (heating, ventilation and air-conditioning).
“In two studies where electricity use was broken down, the highest consumption of electricity was for maintaining the theatre environment (heating, ventilation and air-conditioning).(7,31)”
From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [31]
The Methods (§2.1) separately estimate machinery, lighting, and HVAC energy use for delivery rooms, including an operating room. Results (§3.3) say those loads collectively contributed the highest percentage to several environmental impacts, but do not establish that HVAC alone consumed the most electricity. This paper also cannot substantiate the claim about both cited studies. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredTwo studies found scenario uncertainty affected results minimally.
“two (31,34) finding this affected results minimally”
From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [31]
Section 3.1 (page unavailable) reports that changing the assumed lifespan of reusable surgical packs had a negligible effect on results. This supports a minimal effect for that specific assumption, but not for scenario uncertainty generally. The citation is one of two attached to the citing sentence, so this verdict addresses only this paper. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThree included studies exclusively used bottom-up process-based approaches; one described their method as a carbon footprint, one as a multi-component analysis/carbon footprint, and one conducted full LCA.
“Three studies exclusively used 'bottom-up' process-based approaches, of which one simply described their method as a 'carbon footprint',(35) one described it as a 'multi-component analysis/carbon footprint', (26) and the other conducted full LCA.(31)”
From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [31]
Three included studies used primary process activity data only, one used secondary financial activity data only, and all others used a mixture of data types.
“Three studies used primary process activity data only, (26,31,35) one used secondary financial activity data only (32) and all others used a mixture of data types (Supplementary Table 3).(7,27,33,34)”
From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [31]
Allocation methods were explicitly stated by four included studies.
“Allocation methods were explicitly stated by four studies.(7,31,33,34)”
From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [31]
This review found that the major carbon hotspots within operating theatres include energy use.
“This review found that the major carbon hotspots within operating theatres are a) energy use, (12,26,31,35)”
From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [31]
One study reported only descriptive or graphical data.
“One study reported only descriptive or graphical data.(31)”
From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [31]
Three studies performed scenario uncertainty tests to model uncertainty due to methodological assumptions.
“Three studies performed scenario uncertainty tests to model the uncertainty due to methodological assumptions”
From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [31]
One study did not report the number of observations or data points at all.
“and not reported at all in one.(31)”
From The Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations (2020) · cites this paper as [31]
The Methods (section 2.1.2; page unavailable) describe collecting hospital data but do not state how many observations were collected. Another Methods passage gives approximately 15,000 births reviewed for an assumed birth duration, citing a different study; that is not a count of this study’s observations. The passages do not establish the categorical claim that this study reported no observation or data-point count at all (searched for sample size, observations, and data points). (LLM, conf=0.67)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
International Organization for Standardization
Gargaud, M., Irvine, W. M., Amils, R., Pinti, D. L., Cernicharo, J., Rouan, D., Spohn, T., Tirard, S., & Viso, M. (2015) · Encyclopedia of Astrobiology · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-44185-5_100574 · Cited by 6,716 · see citing works
Klüppel, H.-J. (2005) · The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment · doi:10.1065/lca2005.03.001 · Cited by 4,650 · see citing works
Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Requirements and guidelines
(2015) · doi:10.3403/30152732u · Cited by 1,742 · see citing works
The ecoinvent Database: Overview and Methodological Framework (7 pp)
Frischknecht, R., Jungbluth, N., Althaus, H.-J., Doka, G., Dones, R., Heck, T., Hellweg, S., Hischier, R., Nemecek, T., Rebitzer, G., et al. (2005) · The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment · doi:10.1065/lca2004.10.181.1 · Cited by 1,114 · see citing works
Bare, J. (2002) · Journal of Industrial Ecology · doi:10.1162/108819802766269539 · Cited by 987 · see citing works
Estimate of the carbon footprint of the US health care sector
Chung, J. W., & Meltzer, D. O. (2009) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1610 · Cited by 415 · see citing works
Fichman, B. T. (2012) · doi:10.2172/1212312 · Cited by 338 · see citing works
Life-Cycle Environmental Effects of an Office Building
Junnila, S., & Horvath, A. (2003) · Journal of Infrastructure Systems · doi:10.1061/(asce)1076-0342(2003)9:4(157 · Cited by 324 · see citing works
Models for waste life cycle assessment: Review of technical assumptions
Gentil, E., Damgaard, A., Hauschild, M. Z., Finnveden, G., Eriksson, O., Thorneloe, S. A., Kaplan, P. O., Barlaz, M. A., Müller, O., Matsui, Y., et al. (2010) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2010.06.004 · Cited by 282 · see citing works
Forest products decomposition in municipal solid waste landfills
Barlaz, M. A. (2006) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2005.11.002 · Cited by 191 · see citing works
Life-Cycle Assessment Modeling of Construction Processes for Buildings
Bilec, M. M., Ries, R. J., & Matthews, H. S. (2009) · Journal of Infrastructure Systems · doi:10.1061/(asce)is.1943-555x.0000022 · Cited by 162 · see citing works
Self-citationResource Use and Environmental Emissions of U.S. Construction Sectors
Hendrickson, C. T., & Horvath, A. (2000) · Journal of Construction Engineering and Management · doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2000)126:1(38 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
Subaiya, S., Hogg, E., & Roberts, I. (2011) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-12-31 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Jangsten, E., Mattsson, L.-Å., Lyckestam, I., Hellström, A. L., & Berg, M. (2010) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02800.x · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Comparing the Second Stage in Induced and Spontaneous Labor
Janakiraman, V., Ecker, J. L., & Kaimal, A. J. (2010) · Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0b013e3181eeb968 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Management of the third stage of labour—focus group discussions with Swedish midwives
Jangsten, E., Hellström, A., & Berg, M. (2009) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2008.12.004 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Ismail, S., & Huda, A. (2009) · International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia · doi:10.1016/j.ijoa.2009.02.013 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Energy consumption of VA hospital CT scans
Esmaeili, M. A., Jahromi, A. S., Twomey, J. M., et al. (2011) · IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology · doi:10.1109/issst.2011.5936892 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Sustainable Healthcare: Getting more from less
Patrick, K. L. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d2425 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Bare JC Norris GA Pennington DW McKone T TRACI: The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts Journal of Industrial Ecology 2003 6 49 78
- National Research Council (U.S.), Committee on Health E, and Other External Costs and Benefits of Energy Production and Consumption, National Research Council, National Research Council (U.S.). Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, National Research Council (U.S.)., Board on Energy and Environmental Systems NRCUS, Board on Science T, and Economic Policy, National Academies Press (U.S.) Hidden costs of energy: unpriced consequences of energy production and use Natl Academy Press 2010
- USDOE Annual Energy Review 2008 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use U S Department of Energy Washington, DC 2009 446
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Thiel, C. L., Eckelman, M., Guido, R., Huddleston, M., Landis, A. E., Sherman, J., Shrake, S. O., Copley-Woods, N., & Bilec, M. M. (2015) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es504719g · Cited by 416 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Carbon Footprint of Surgical Operations
Rizan, C., Steinbach, I., Nicholson, R., Lillywhite, R., Reed, M., & Bhutta, M. F. (2020) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000003951 · Cited by 400 · see citing works
Thiel, C. L., Schehlein, E., Ravilla, T., Ravindran, R. D., Robin, A. L., Saeedi, O. J., Schuman, J. S., & Venkatesh, R. (2017) · Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.08.017 · Cited by 265 · see citing works
Self-citationStrategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from laparoscopic surgery
Thiel, C. L., Woods, N. C., & Bilec, M. M. (2018) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2018.304397 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
Self-citationFinancial and environmental costs of reusable and single-use anaesthetic equipment
McGain, F., Story, D., Lim, T., & McAlister, S. (2017) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1093/bja/aex098 · Cited by 206 · see citing works
Drew, J., Christie, S. D., Tyedmers, P., Smith-Forrester, J., & Rainham, D. (2021) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp8666 · Cited by 191 · see citing works
Carbon footprint of general, regional, and combined anesthesia for total knee replacements
McGain, F., Sheridan, N., Wickramarachchi, K., Yates, S., Chan, B., & McAlister, S. (2021) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000003967 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Eco-efficiency of disposable and reusable surgical instruments - a scissors case
Ibbotson, S., Dettmer, T., Kara, S., & Herrmann, C. (2013) · The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment · doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0547-7 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
Carbon footprint and cost–effectiveness of cataract surgery
Venkatesh, R., van Landingham, S. W., Khodifad, A. M., Haripriya, A., Thiel, C. L., Ramulu, P., & Robin, A. L. (2016) · Current Opinion in Ophthalmology · doi:10.1097/icu.0000000000000228 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Self-citationThiel, C. L., Cassels-Brown, A., Goel, H., Stancliffe, R., Steinbach, I., Thomas, P., & Vendries, J. (2020) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104805 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Self-citationLighting a candle, or cursing the darkness? Delivering a climate friendly anaesthetic
Skowno, J., & Weatherall, A. (2021) · Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health · doi:10.1111/jpc.15760 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Campion, N., Thiel, C. L., DeBlois, J., Woods, N. C., Landis, A. E., & Bilec, M. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Arizona State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Thiel, Cassandra L.
- Venue
- Science of The Total Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-05
- Volume
- 425
- Pages
- 191-198
- ISSN
- 0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3563327
- OpenAlex
- W1983615974
- Cited by
- 144
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 2.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- erratum (2013-08-01)
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- The Science of The Total Environment (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000005)
- U.S. Public Health Service (UL1TR000005)
- Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh
- National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR024153)
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
- Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Healthcare Facilities Design and Sustainability
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare and Environmental Waste Management
- Keywords
- life cycle assessment, cesarean section, vaginal delivery, hospital sustainability, HVAC energy consumption, medical waste disposal, electricity consumption, global warming potential, respiratory effects, obstetric care
- MeSH terms
- Cesarean Section, Environment, Female, Hospitals, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Electric Power Supplies, Pregnancy, Refuse Disposal, United States, Delivery, Obstetric
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
