大葉大學圖書館 |

Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Reused versus Disposable Dental Burs.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,印刷品 : Monograph/item
書名/作者:	Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Reused versus Disposable Dental Burs.
作者:	Unger, Scott.
面頁冊數:	51 p.
附註:	Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 51-05.
Contained By:	Masters Abstracts International51-05(E).
標題:	Engineering, Environmental.
ISBN:	9781303026171
摘要、提要註:	Healthcare infection control has led to increased utilization of disposable medical devices, which has subsequently led to increased adverse environmental effects attributed to healthcare and its supply chain. In dental practice, the dental bur is a commonly used instrument that can either be reused or used once and then disposed. To evaluate the disparities in environmental impacts of disposable and reusable dental burs, a comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) was performed. The comparative LCA evaluated a reusable dental bur (specifically, a 2.00mm Internal Irrigation Pilot Drill) reused 30 instances versus 30 identical burs used as disposables. The LCA methodology was performed using framework described by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14040 series. Sensitivity analyses were performed with respect to ultrasonic and autoclave loading. Findings from this research showed that when the ultrasonic and autoclave are loaded optimally, reusable burs had 40% less of an environmental impact than burs used on a disposable basis. When the ultrasonic and autoclave were loaded to 66% capacity, there was an environmental breakeven point between disposable and reusable burs. Eutrophication, carcinogenic impacts, non-carcinogenic impacts, and acidification were limited when cleaning equipment (i.e., ultrasonic and autoclave) were optimally loaded. Additionally, the bur's packaging materials contributed more negative environmental impacts than the production and use of the bur itself. Therefore, less materially-intensive packaging should be used. Specifically, the glass fiber reinforced plastic casing should be substituted for a material with a reduced environmental footprint.
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=1535767

Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Reused versus Disposable Dental Burs.
Unger, Scott.

Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Reused versus Disposable Dental Burs. - 51 p.

Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 51-05.

Thesis (M.S.)--Arizona State University, 2013.

Healthcare infection control has led to increased utilization of disposable medical devices, which has subsequently led to increased adverse environmental effects attributed to healthcare and its supply chain. In dental practice, the dental bur is a commonly used instrument that can either be reused or used once and then disposed. To evaluate the disparities in environmental impacts of disposable and reusable dental burs, a comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) was performed. The comparative LCA evaluated a reusable dental bur (specifically, a 2.00mm Internal Irrigation Pilot Drill) reused 30 instances versus 30 identical burs used as disposables. The LCA methodology was performed using framework described by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14040 series. Sensitivity analyses were performed with respect to ultrasonic and autoclave loading. Findings from this research showed that when the ultrasonic and autoclave are loaded optimally, reusable burs had 40% less of an environmental impact than burs used on a disposable basis. When the ultrasonic and autoclave were loaded to 66% capacity, there was an environmental breakeven point between disposable and reusable burs. Eutrophication, carcinogenic impacts, non-carcinogenic impacts, and acidification were limited when cleaning equipment (i.e., ultrasonic and autoclave) were optimally loaded. Additionally, the bur's packaging materials contributed more negative environmental impacts than the production and use of the bur itself. Therefore, less materially-intensive packaging should be used. Specifically, the glass fiber reinforced plastic casing should be substituted for a material with a reduced environmental footprint.

ISBN: 9781303026171Subjects--Topical Terms:

422942
Engineering, Environmental.

Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Reused versus Disposable Dental Burs.
LDR:02536nam a2200265 4500 001 404486
005 20140528124251.5
008 140703s2013 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781303026171
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI1535767
035 $a AAI1535767
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Unger, Scott. $3 565554
245 1 0 $a Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Reused versus Disposable Dental Burs.
300 $a 51 p.
500 $a Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 51-05.
500 $a Adviser: Amy Landis.
502 $a Thesis (M.S.)--Arizona State University, 2013.
520 $a Healthcare infection control has led to increased utilization of disposable medical devices, which has subsequently led to increased adverse environmental effects attributed to healthcare and its supply chain. In dental practice, the dental bur is a commonly used instrument that can either be reused or used once and then disposed. To evaluate the disparities in environmental impacts of disposable and reusable dental burs, a comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) was performed. The comparative LCA evaluated a reusable dental bur (specifically, a 2.00mm Internal Irrigation Pilot Drill) reused 30 instances versus 30 identical burs used as disposables. The LCA methodology was performed using framework described by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14040 series. Sensitivity analyses were performed with respect to ultrasonic and autoclave loading. Findings from this research showed that when the ultrasonic and autoclave are loaded optimally, reusable burs had 40% less of an environmental impact than burs used on a disposable basis. When the ultrasonic and autoclave were loaded to 66% capacity, there was an environmental breakeven point between disposable and reusable burs. Eutrophication, carcinogenic impacts, non-carcinogenic impacts, and acidification were limited when cleaning equipment (i.e., ultrasonic and autoclave) were optimally loaded. Additionally, the bur's packaging materials contributed more negative environmental impacts than the production and use of the bur itself. Therefore, less materially-intensive packaging should be used. Specifically, the glass fiber reinforced plastic casing should be substituted for a material with a reduced environmental footprint.
590 $a School code: 0010.
650 4 $a Engineering, Environmental. $3 422942
690 $a 0775
710 2 $a Arizona State University. $b Civil and Environmental Engineering. $3 565555
773 0 $t Masters Abstracts International $g 51-05(E).
790 $a 0010
791 $a M.S.
792 $a 2013
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=1535767