Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42257221›Full record

ArticleJournal of infection prevention2026

A comparative life cycle assessment of the environmental impact of preoperative skin preparation, single-use applicators versus bulk antiseptic with reusable instruments.

Kinga Szalecka, Eoin Merrigan, Ryan Forrey, Vyjayanthi Kambam, Matthieu Boisson, Zeynab Yousefzadeh, Millie Calistri-Yeh, Di Lu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of infection prevention, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Kinga SzaleckaEnvironmental Protection Agency, Cork, Ireland.
Eoin MerriganResearch Centre-Ireland, Becton Dickinson, Limerick, Ireland.
Ryan ForreyTechnology Campus India, Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA.
Vyjayanthi KambamBecton Dickinson, Bengaluru, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8891-0801
Matthieu BoissonDepartment of Anesthesia, Intensive Care and Perioperative Medicine, INSERM U1070 PHAR2, University Hospital of Poitiers, Poitiers, France.
Zeynab YousefzadehDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Millie Calistri-YehTechnology Campus India, Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2733-4647
Di LuTechnology Campus India, Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7278-9333

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Preoperative skin preparation (PSP) is a critical step of surgery to reduce bacteria on the skin that can cause infections. It is commonly believed that the reusable equipment method of PSP reduces environmental emissions relative to single-use options. However, no research comparing entire-life cycle environmental emissions associated with the two approaches exists. Methods: A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was conducted comparing PSP in a European hospital using a single-use applicator versus a reusable equipment method. Results: Findings highlight the superior environmental performance of a single-use antiseptic applicator method, resulting in 49% less CO Discussion: The study challenges the assumption that reusable systems always result in lower environmental impacts. This LCA revealed that efficient manufacturing processes, optimized use of antiseptic during procedure, and reduced energy consumption throughout the single-use method life cycle can decrease the carbon footprint. This highlights the need to scrutinize the life cycle when making comparisons as part of surgical sustainability.

Indexed as

antiseptic solutionChloraPrepchlorhexidineinfection preventionpovidone-iodineskin antisepsisskin preparationsurgical site infection

Identifiers

PMID42257221
PMCPMC13236707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.