Duane, Brett;
Pilling, Jessica;
Saget, Sophie;
Ashley, Paul;
Pinhas, Allan R;
Lyne, Alexandra;
(2022)
Hand hygiene with hand sanitizer versus handwashing: what are the planetary health consequences?
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
10.1007/s11356-022-18918-4.
(In press).
Preview |
Text
Ashley_Duane2022_Article_HandHygieneWithHandSanitizerVe.pdf - Published Version Download (1MB) | Preview |
Abstract
In order to reduce the transmission of pathogens, and COVID-19, WHO and NHS England recommend hand washing (HW) and/or the use of hand sanitizer (HS). The planetary health consequences of these different methods of hand hygiene have not been quantified. A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) was carried out to compare the environmental impact of the UK population practising increased levels of hand hygiene during the COVID-19 pandemic for 1 year. Washing hands with soap and water was compared to using hand sanitizer (both ethanol and isopropanol based sanitizers were studied). The isopropanol-based HS had the lowest environmental impact in 14 out of the 16 impact categories used in this study. For climate change, hand hygiene using isopropanol HS produced the equivalent of 1060 million kg CO2, compared to 1460 million for ethanol HS, 2300 million for bar soap HW, and 4240 million for liquid soap HW. For both the ethanol and isopropanol HS, the active ingredient was the greatest overall contributing factor to the environmental impact (83.24% and 68.68% respectively). For HW with liquid soap and bar soap, there were additional contributing factors other than the soap itself: for example tap water use (28.12% and 48.68% respectively) and the laundering of a hand towel to dry the hands (10.17% and 17.92% respectively). All forms of hand hygiene have an environmental cost, and this needs to be weighed up against the health benefits of preventing disease transmission. When comparing hand sanitizers to handwashing with soap and water, this study found that using isopropanol based hand sanitizer is better for planetary health. However, no method of hand hygiene was ideal; isopropanol had a greater fossil fuel resource use than ethanol based hand sanitizer. More research is needed to find hand hygiene sources which do not diminish planetary health, and environmental impact is a consideration for public health campaigns around hand hygiene.
| Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Title: | Hand hygiene with hand sanitizer versus handwashing: what are the planetary health consequences? |
| Location: | Germany |
| Open access status: | An open access version is available from UCL Discovery |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11356-022-18918-4 |
| Publisher version: | https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18918-4 |
| Language: | English |
| Additional information: | This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. |
| Keywords: | Carbon footprint, Environment, Hand gel, Hand sanitizer, Industrial ecology, Planet, Planetary health |
| UCL classification: | UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Medical Sciences UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Medical Sciences > Eastman Dental Institute > EDI Craniofacial and Development Sci UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences UCL UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Medical Sciences > Eastman Dental Institute |
| URI: | https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10144903 |
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
