Assessment of the carbon footprint and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic liquid waste processing methods

Abstract

Background

Endoscopy is a major producer of hospital waste. Liquid waste collected during endoscopic procedures represents a third of endoscopy waste and is often managed as regulated medical waste (RMW), costing more and emitting more greenhouse gases (GHGs) than regular landfill waste. We assessed the carbon footprint and financial impact of alternative processing methods to RMW.

Methods

After 1 month of prospectively weighing endoscopic liquid waste, costs (€) and GHG emissions (kgCO2e) were calculated using the Carebone tool to compare the following processing methods to standard RMW: (a) solidification – aspiration canister contents are made less prone to leakage by including a jellifying additive and can be disposed of in landfill waste bags instead of RMW; (b) urban sewer disposal (USD) – fluids are eliminated into sewers by using a dedicated system instead of aspiration canisters. Costs and GHG emissions were modelled according to the different scenarios.

Results

Mean procedure-related waste was 1.56 kg per patient, one-third of which was liquid waste. Compared with RMW (assuming 0.5 L of waste per endoscopic procedure), a center treating 4000 patients / year would save 923 € and avoid 1440 kgCO2e in GHG emissions with solidification, while USD would cost 105 898 € more and avoid only 96.5 kgCO2e. Different caseload and volume assumptions are discussed.

Conclusions

Endoscopic procedure-related liquid waste represents a third of the waste emitted per patient in an endoscopy unit. Solidification allows fluids to be safely reallocated to landfill waste and may reduce processing costs and environmental impact. USD appears to be neither environmentally nor economically beneficial for endoscopy units.

Publication History

Received: 12 May 2025

Accepted after revision: 15 October 2025

Article published online:
11 December 2025

• References

• 1 The Shift Project. Accessed October 28, 2025 at: https://theshiftproject.org
• 2 Siau K, Hayee B, Gayam S. Endoscopy’s current carbon footprint. Techn Innov Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 23: 344-352
• 3 Vaccari M, Tudor T, Perteghella A. Costs associated with the management of waste from healthcare facilities: An analysis at national and site level. Waste Manag Res 2018; 36: 39-47
• 4 Park SB, Cha JM. Gastrointestinal endoscopy’s carbon footprint. Clin Endosc 2023; 56: 263-267
• 5 Lenzen M, Malik A, Li M. et al. The environmental footprint of health care: a global assessment. Lancet Planet Health 2020; 4: e271-e279
• 6 Henniger D, Windsheimer M, Beck H. et al. Assessment of the yearly carbon emission of a gastrointestinal endoscopy unit. Gut 2023; 72: 1816-1818
• 7 Lacroute J, Marcantoni J, Petitot S. et al. The carbon footprint of ambulatory gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy 2023; 55: 918-926
• 8 Namburar S, von Renteln D, Damianos J. et al. Estimating the environmental impact of disposable endoscopic equipment and endoscopes. Gut 2022; 71: 1326-1331
• 9 Desai M, Campbell C, Perisetti A. et al. The environmental impact of gastrointestinal procedures: a prospective study of waste generation, energy consumption, and auditing in an endoscopy unit. Gastroenterology 2024; 166: 496-502.e3
• 10 Cunha Neves JA, Roseira J, Queirós P. et al. Targeted intervention to achieve waste reduction in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gut 2023; 72: 306-313
• 11 Rodríguez de Santiago E, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Pohl H. et al. Reducing the environmental footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 797-826
• 12 De Latour R, Crockett SD, Palchaudhuri S. et al. Practical steps to green your endoscopy unit: appropriate management of endoscopic waste. Gastrointest Endosc 2024; 101: 745-750.e3
• 13 Santander S, Le Guennec L, de Maisoncelle I. et al. Comparison of environmental, economic and professional impacts of levetiracetam according to its administration route in intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med 2024; 50: 1708-1710
• 14 Pioche M, Cunha Neves JA, Pohl H. et al. The environmental impact of small-bowel capsule endoscopy. Endoscopy 2024; 56: 737-746
• 15 Ho IK, Carr DV, Coniglio MS. et al. Recycling in ambulatory gastrointestinal endoscopy, a single center experience. Am J Gastroenterol 2025;
• 16 De Melo SW, Taylor GL, Kao JY. Packaging and waste in the endoscopy suite. Techn Innov Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 23: 371-375
• 17 Siau K, Beintaris I. My approach to water-assisted colonoscopy. Frontline Gastroenterol 2019; 10: 194-197
• 18 Cadoni S, Ishaq S, Hassan C. et al. Water-assisted colonoscopy: an international modified Delphi review on definitions and practice recommendations. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 93: 1411-1420.e18
• 19 Horn M, Patel N, MacLellan DM. et al. Traditional canister-based open waste management system versus closed system: hazardous exposure prevention and operating theatre staff satisfaction. ORNAC J 2016; 34: 36-50
• 20 Pioche M, Pohl H, Cunha Neves JA. et al. Environmental impact of single-use versus reusable gastroscopes. Gut 2024; 73: 1816-1822
• 21 López-Muñoz P, Martín-Cabezuelo R, Lorenzo-Zúñiga V. et al. Life cycle assessment of routinely used endoscopic instruments and simple intervention to reduce our environmental impact. Gut 2023; 72: 1692-1697
• 22 International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14040:2006(en) Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework. Accessed October 29, 2025 at: www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:std:iso:14040:ed-2:v1:en
• 23 Cunha Neves JA, Baddeley R, Pohl H. et al. Endoscopic Sustainability PrimAry Reporting Essentials (E-SPARE): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2025; 57: 674-688