Hand holding surgical anaesthetic device

Conducting a life cycle analysis on single-use anaesthetic gas absorbers

Volatile anaesthetic agents (VAAs) used in surgery have significant global warming potential and have become a key focus for improving sustainability in healthcare and veterinary care. The capture, storage and disposal of these exhaled gases is essential to both the safety of surgical teams and for limiting environmental impact.

Our client, Mars Veterinary Health, wanted to explore the environmental impact of single-use volatile capture devices (VCDs), to identify the most sustainable options for their use, storage, transport and disposal. Drawing on detailed technology landscaping research, Team Consulting carried out a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to calculate the full “cradle-to-grave” environmental impact of these devices, along with their clinical value when using either isoflurane or sevoflurane gases. In collaboration with Mars Veterinary Health, the findings of this study are set to be published in the British Journal of Anaesthetics in January 2026.

Surgical | Sustainable engineering | Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Team enabled us to answer a key question, which was ‘what actually is the carbon impact from disposing of volatile anesthetics in single-use charcoal canisters, compared with release into the atmosphere?’ That meant we could make decisions on choosing our carbon-reductions levers based on evidence, and the deep-dive approach brought a range of impacts to be considered to the surface.
Ellie West, Environmental Sustainability Lead, Mars Veterinary Health

Current methods for removing exhaled volatiles

Medical procedures typically use active scavenging systems to extract the gases exhaled by patients and discharge them to the environment outside of the operating theatre, or single-use VCDs to safely capture exhaled volatiles for disposal out of the theatre environment. Currently, there is little published data regarding the environmental impact of these VCDs.

Circular economy solutions are now emerging in the market which aim to recover and clean these gases for reuse. Mars Veterinary Health recognised that in order to compare the potential impact of these approaches, the sustainability of single-use VCDs first needed to be better understood.

Identifying potential VCD environmental impacts

To ensure the LCA would be based on both reasonable and reliable assumptions, we began the process by carrying out technology landscaping research. This involved exploring a range of on-market absorption devices, including their performance parameters, materials and environmental claims.

A thorough literature review identified two key areas with significant environmental impact potential around VCDs, including the desorption (leakage) of gas after use of a VCD, and the impacts of different disposal routes, based on regional guidelines.

Sustainability analysis from cradle to grave

We carried out a cradle-to-grave LCA of the VCD, exploring everything from its raw materials manufacture to transport, usage and disposal, based on this occurring in the UK. In order to build an accurate breakdown of each device for the LCA, we disassembled and measured commercially representative devices, applying key assumptions for the material and supply chain, including component manufacture, assembly, packaging and transport for production and distribution. A capacity for 200 g of anaesthetic was assumed, based on the manufacturer’s data.

We used a leading LCA software, SimaPro, alongside our own bespoke analysis template to capture and log the inputs and outputs. This also allowed us to adapt the model to explore regional differences in environmental impact for the UK, EU and USA.

What impact does leakage have on the LCA?

From our research, desorption appeared to be a critical factor to the overall environmental cost of using a VCD. By applying scientific principles, we identified that the capture media of VCDs have the potential to leak anaesthetic after use. As a result, the impact of disposal would be affected by the amount of anaesthetic remaining in the device.

As further testing or research would be required to fully understand the impact of desorption, we treated this as an unknown and made informed assumptions in order to apply it to our model. The desorption assumptions ranged from 0% (this representing the “best-case”, where all the anaesthetic is retained up to disposal) to 100% (representing the “worst-case”, where all the anaesthetic is leaked). For 200 g of sevoflurane, the worst-case amounted to 28.8 kg CO₂-eq and for isoflurane, this was 102 kg CO₂-eq (equivalent to producing roughly 350 and 1,230 plastic water bottles respectively).

How do disposal methods affect carbon emissions?

The disposal impact of a used VCD is sensitive to whether it enters landfill, low-temperature incineration or high-temperature incineration. Our research into regional regulations and availability of disposal routes found that VCDs are typically classed as hazardous waste and should be disposed of by high-temperature incineration in the UK. In some regions, there is a possibility that the devices end up in landfill or low-temperature incineration.

To provide a more comprehensive understanding, we researched the impact of all scenarios and applied them to the LCA. We also conducted research to determine the type of emissions during incineration. For high-temperature incineration, we assumed that the volatile anaesthetics would break down into water, CO₂ and hydrogen halides, which are then neutralised by scrubbers in the incinerator outlet. Low-temperature incineration, however, would combust the anaesthetic at a lower level of control, likely resulting in a number of chemicals that are more harmful to the environment.

Are VCDs a sustainable approach?

When comparing the use of a single-use VCD to atmospheric release of the anaesthetic, there is a clear carbon benefit to using a single-use VCD. However, if the desorption rate is uncontrolled (either through mishandling or poor device design), and if the disposal route is not managed appropriately (i.e. does not enter high-temperature incineration), then the carbon emissions can exceed atmospheric release, giving no carbon benefit to the VCD.

It is possible to use active scavenging systems instead of VCDs. However, these use electricity, while VCDs do not. It can be assumed that electricity usage plus emissions during production and maintenance would add further impact to simple atmospheric release. Therefore, ensuring safe storage and employing firmer disposal guidelines to a used VCD would likely give a carbon benefit over an active scavenging system.

Outcome

Given its commitment to reducing climate change impacts across its global operations, Mars Veterinary Health will use the outcomes of this study to inform its processes for managing anaesthetic gas.

The results of this study are now set to be published in the British Journal of Anaesthetics in a joint article from Mars Veterinary Health and Team.

As a leading global provider of veterinary care, we recognize anesthetic gases are among the most potent climate risks in healthcare—and thus the urgency of understanding and addressing their environmental impacts. Through research and innovation, we’re investing in solutions that reduce our carbon footprint and set a new standard for sustainable patient care.
Margo Mosher, Mars Veterinary Health

How could we help you?

Let’s start working together on your next challenge.

Get in touch