ArticleThe journal of climate change and health
Environmental impact of urine analyses: Comparison of manual, semi and fully automated analytical workflows.
Article in The journal of climate change and health. 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
Objectives: Urinary tract infection is the most common infection requiring urinalysis (UA). Due to economical constraints, many laboratories have merged to use full laboratory automation instruments for high volume of urine samples. However, the environmental impact (EI) of UA is still unknown, particularly according to automation levels. The present study aimed to document the environmental impact of UA for the first time. Methods: We used the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology (ISO 14040/44, 2006) to compare manual, semi-automated and fully-automated analytical workflows for Results: ECUA carbon footprint was 1.9, 2.6 and 1.1 kgCO2eq using manual, semi-automated and fully-automated workflows respectively. AST processes accounted for 66.8%, 79.0%, and 59.9% of emissions, respectively. The fully-automated workflow had the lowest impact for 12/18 midpoint indicators and had the lowest impact on human health (2.9 × 10-6 disability-adjusted life years (DALY) vs 3.7 × 10-6 for manual and 6.9 × 10-6 for semi-automated workflows). When scaled to 50,000 ECUA/year, the manual workflow had the lowest impact for 10/18 midpoints and human health (3.7 × 10-6 DALY), but its impact remained higher than fully-automated in real conditions. Conclusions: The EI of UA depends on both the automation level and the organizational scale. While automation does not always reduce impacts linearly, full automation offers the best carbon and health performance in high-throughput settings. Integrating LCA into laboratory strategy may support the ecological transition of microbiology.
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.