Department of Public Health, Trinity College Dublin, Lincoln Place, , Dublin, Ireland.
Department of Physics, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2022 Jul;29(32):48736-48747. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-18918-4. Epub 2022 Feb 23.
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 CO, 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.
为了减少病原体的传播，包括 COVID-19，世界卫生组织和英国国民保健制度建议进行洗手（HW）和/或使用手部消毒剂（HS）。这些不同手部卫生方法的行星健康后果尚未量化。进行了一项比较生命周期评估（LCA），以比较在 COVID-19 大流行期间，英国人口增加手部卫生水平的环境影响，为期 1 年。用肥皂和水洗手与使用手部消毒剂（研究了乙醇和异丙醇基消毒剂）进行了比较。在本研究使用的 16 个影响类别中的 14 个类别中，基于异丙醇的 HS 具有最低的环境影响。对于气候变化，使用异丙醇 HS 的手部卫生产生了相当于 1.06 亿公斤 CO 的温室气体，而乙醇 HS 为 1.46 亿公斤，皂基 HW 为 2.30 亿公斤，液体皂 HW 为 4.24 亿公斤。对于乙醇和异丙醇 HS，活性成分是对环境影响最大的总体贡献因素（分别为 83.24%和 68.68%）。对于液体皂和皂基 HW 的 HW，除了肥皂本身之外，还有其他额外的贡献因素：例如，自来水使用（分别为 28.12%和 48.68%）和洗涤毛巾擦干手（分别为 10.17%和 17.92%）。所有形式的手部卫生都有环境成本，需要权衡预防疾病传播的健康益处。在比较手部消毒剂和用肥皂和水洗手时，本研究发现，使用基于异丙醇的手部消毒剂对行星健康更有利。然而，没有一种手部卫生方法是理想的；异丙醇的化石燃料资源消耗大于基于乙醇的手部消毒剂。需要进一步研究以找到不会损害行星健康的手部卫生源，并且环境影响是围绕手部卫生的公共卫生运动的一个考虑因素。
