ArticleScientific reports2025
A life cycle assessment of disposing intra-operative collected fluids, a comparative study between the Neptune 3 versus canister drainage.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Neptune 3 drainage system is developed as an alternative to canister systems for collecting surgical fluids in the operating room. This study investigates the difference in the environmental impact between Neptune 3 and canister systems, evaluating all individual stages of the product life cycle of the Neptune and canisters. Using the RECIPE model, 17 impact categories (midpoints) were defined and results were aggregated into three endpoint categories (human health, ecosystems, resources). The volume of waste was varied in a setup in a hospital in the Netherlands and included different fluid volume collection scenarios performed over seven years: high-volume (2.0-24 L waste) and low-volume (0.1-0.5 L waste). In both high and low volume procedures, Neptune 3 has a lower environmental impact compared to canisters for global warming (15-89% reduction), ozone formation terrestrial ecosystems & human health (24-91% reduction), fossil resource scarcity (36-92% reduction) and water consumption (44-106% reduction). In high volume scenarios (5 + Liters) Neptune also has a lower impact in stratospheric ozone depletion, fine particulate matter formation, terrestrial acidification for the high volume scenarios (5 L or more). In the case of ionizing radiation, freshwater eutrophication, and human carcinogenic toxicity the Neptune has a lower impact only in the very large volume procedures (10 + Liter). By aggregating the mid-point results to end-point results, it is observed that the Neptune system is beneficial for resources in each scenario, and for human health and ecosystems for procedures with larger volumes. Results from this LCA demonstrate that the Neptune 3 system is environmentally beneficial compared to canisters. This study provides valuable information for policymakers and hospital decisionmakers to treat their surgical waste in an environmentally friendly way.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.