International Urology and Nephrology

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 337–343 | Cite as

The carbon footprints of home and in-center peritoneal dialysis in China

  • Mindong Chen
  • Rong Zhou
  • Chongbo Du
  • Fulei Meng
  • Yanli Wang
  • Liping Wu
  • Fang Wang
  • Yahong Xu
  • Xiufen YangEmail author
Nephrology - Original Paper



The provision of healthcare itself is associated with abundant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This study aims to determine the carbon footprints of peritoneal dialysis (PD) with the different modalities and treatment regimes.


A total of 68 subjects performed with PD treatment were enrolled in this study. Emissions factors were applied to data that were collected for energy consumption, travel, and procurement.


The carbon footprints generated by the provision of PD treatment for the individual patient were calculated and normalized to a 2-l PD dialysate volume. The fixed emissions were higher in patients who received PD therapy in center than at home, mostly attributing to the consumption of electricity. Conversely, PD treatment performed in center yielded less variable emissions than that of at home, which resulted from reduced constituent percentage of waste disposal and transportation. Collectively, packaging consumption mostly contributed to the total carbon footprints of PD.


This study for the first time demonstrates the delivery of PD is associated with considerable GHG emissions, which is mainly attributed to packaging materials, transportation, electricity, and waste disposal. These results suggest that carbon reduction strategies focusing on packaging consumption in PD treatment are likely to yield the greatest benefits.


Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions Carbon footprints Peritoneal dialysis 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Costello A, Abbas M, Allen A, Ball S, Bell S, Bellamy R et al (2009) Managing the health effects of climate change: Lancet and University College London Institute for Global Health Commission. Lancet 373(9676):1693–1733CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liu X, Zhang Y, Han W, Tang A, Shen J, Cui Z et al (2013) Enhanced nitrogen deposition over China. Nature 494(7438):459–462CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Markandya A, Armstrong BG, Hales S, Chiabai A, Criqui P, Mima S et al (2009) Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: low-carbon electricity generation. Lancet 374(9706):2006–2015CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baillie J (2012) Surveys show support for green ‘activities’. Health Estate 66(3):17–20Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McGain F (2010) Sustainable hospitals? An Australian perspective. Perspect Public Health 130(1):19–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Agar JW (2013) It is time for “green dialysis”. Hemodial Int 17(4):474–478CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Connor A, Lillywhite R, Cooke MW (2011) The carbon footprints of home and in-center maintenance hemodialysis in the United Kingdom. Hemodial Int 15(1):39–51CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Agar JW (2012) Personal viewpoint: hemodialysis–water, power, and waste disposal: rethinking our environmental responsibilities. Hemodial Int 16(1):6–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jain AK, Blake P, Cordy P, Garg AX (2012) Global trends in rates of peritoneal dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 23(3):533–544CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sinnakirouchenan R, Holley JL (2011) Peritoneal dialysis versus hemodialysis: risks, benefits, and access issues. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 18(6):428–432CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li PK, Chow KM (2013) Peritoneal dialysis-first policy made successful: perspectives and actions. Am J Kidney Dis 62(5):993–1005CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berger A, Edelsberg J, Inglese GW, Bhattacharyya SK, Oster G (2009) Cost comparison of peritoneal dialysis versus hemodialysis in end-stage renal disease. Am J Manag Care 15(8):509–518PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baboolal K, McEwan P, Sondhi S, Spiewanowski P, Wechowski J, Wilson K (2008) The cost of renal dialysis in a UK setting—a multicentre study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 23(6):1982–1989CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee H, Manns B, Taub K, Ghali WA, Dean S, Johnson D et al (2002) Cost analysis of ongoing care of patients with end-stage renal disease: the impact of dialysis modality and dialysis access. Am J Kidney Dis 40(3):611–622CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    BSI (British Standards Institute) (2011) PAS 2050: 2011. Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. British Standards Institute, London.
  16. 16.
    Kyoto protocol reference manual on accounting of emissions and assigned amount.
  17. 17.
    University of Bath (2009) Inventory of carbon and energy (ICE).
  18. 18.
    Yanming J (2011) The provincial power industry carbon emissions situation and trend analysis in China. Electr Power Technol Econ 10(23):56–60Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) (2012) Guidelines to Defra/DECC’s GHG conversion factors for company reporting.
  20. 20.
    Morris DS, Wright T, Somner JE, Connor A (2013) The carbon footprint of cataract surgery. Eye (Lond) 27(4):495–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Venkatesh R, van Landingham SW, Khodifad AM, Haripriya A, Thiel CL, Ramulu P et al (2016) Carbon footprint and cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 27(1):82–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pollard AS, Taylor TJ, Fleming LE, Stahl-Timmins W, Depledge MH, Osborne NJ (2013) Mainstreaming carbon management in healthcare systems: a bottom-up modeling approach. Environ Sci Technol 47(2):678–686CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Connor A, Lillywhite R, Cooke MW (2010) The carbon footprint of a renal service in the United Kingdom. QJM 103(12):965–975CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lim AE, Perkins A, Agar JW (2013) The carbon footprint of an Australian satellite haemodialysis unit. Aust Health Rev 37(3):369–374. doi: 10.1071/AH13022 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    DiConsiglio J (2008) Reprocessing SUDs reduces waste, costs. Mater Manag Health Care 17(9):40–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hawkes N (2012) Cutting emissions by drug industry is crucial to reducing NHS’s carbon footprint. BMJ 345:e8243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Simpson M (2008) Reducing NHS carbon footprint: time for a culture change. BMJ 336(7649):848CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Woods DL, McAndrew T, Nevadunsky N, Hou JY, Goldberg G, Yi-Shin Kuo D et al (2015) Carbon footprint of robotically-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy: a comparison. Int J Med Robot 11(4):406–412CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee BK, Ellenbecker MJ, Moure-Eraso R (2002) Analyses of the recycling potential of medical plastic wastes. Waste Manag 22(5):461–470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lenzen M (2008) Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy: a review. Energy Convers Manag 49(8):2178–2199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    The Revision of China’s Energy and Coal Consumption Data: A preliminary analysis (2015).
  32. 32.
    Kenway SJ PA, CookS, Seo S, Inman M, GregoryA (2008) Energy use in the provision and consumption of urban water in Australia and New Zealand. CSIRO: water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mindong Chen
    • 1
  • Rong Zhou
    • 1
  • Chongbo Du
    • 2
  • Fulei Meng
    • 2
  • Yanli Wang
    • 2
  • Liping Wu
    • 2
  • Fang Wang
    • 2
  • Yahong Xu
    • 1
  • Xiufen Yang
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Nephrology, Yangpu HospitalTongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Department of Intensive Care UnitThe First Hospital of Hebei Medical UniversityShijiazhuangChina

Personalised recommendations