Environmental Footprint of Peritoneal Dialysis in Europe: A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Across Four European Centres

Clicks: 35
ID: 313520
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Star

Ranked #9 of 153 articles by views in clinical kidney journal

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 153 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a home-based renal replacement therapy offering clinical and quality-of-life advantages, but it also poses environmental challenges due to resource use and waste generation. This study compares the environmental impacts of PD across four European centres to identify regional sustainability differences and evaluate the footprint of Continuous Ambulatory (CAPD), Automated (APD), and Incremental (iPD) PD. Methods A cradle-to-grave Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was conducted for one year of PD treatment per patient using OpenLCA software and the EcoInvent database across four clinical centres; Madrid, Warsaw, Utrecht, Modena. Data were collected on material use, energy and water consumption, transportation, and waste disposal. Key indicators included Global Warming Potential (GWP), energy use, water footprint. The environmental performance of each centre and dialysis modality was assessed. Results Environmental impacts varied significantly between centres ranging from GWP 3,381 kg CO₂-eq to 1736 kg, reflecting differences in energy mix and efficiency. Energy consumption ranged from 54,710 MJ to 28,894 MJ and water footprint from 6,631 m³ to 854 m³. Across all centres, CAPD and APD had higher environmental burdens than iPD. iPD reduced emissions by up to 50% and had a lower-impact profile. Conclusions PD displays substantial environmental impact variability across centres, driven by differences in material consumption, waste management, energy sourcing, and clinical protocols. Cleaner energy profiles, effective waste management, and reduced reliance on single use consumables may lower environmental burdens. These findings underscore the importance of integrating environmental performance into clinical decision-making and health system planning.
Reference Key
openalex_W7161047305 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Abass Fehintola, Zuzanna Jakubowska, Małgorzata Kępska-Dzilińska, J M Jolanta Malyszko, A A F Crooijmans, Ootjers Thomas, James Larkin, Giulia Ligabue, Gaetano Alfano, G Donati, Rodrigo MartínezCadenas, Aycan Yasar, Belén Sanz, M Gonzalez de Rivera, Lucia Cordero, Julia Audije-Gil, María Dolores Arenas, Ingeborg Steinbach, Marta Arias, Alberto Ortiz, K G F Gerritsen, Brett Duane
Journal clinical kidney journal
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/ckj/sfag156
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfag156
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.