Scholarlink

<p>Health care significantly contributes to global greenhouse gas emissions. Dermatology, particularly procedures involving energy-intensive devices such as lasers and light-based therapies, plays a notable role.&#xa0;To compare the per-session carbon footprint of commonly used aesthetic and clinical dermatologic devices and suggest strategies for sustainability.&#xa0;A descriptive life cycle assessment was conducted on 12 devices grouped as lasers, light-based tools, body-contouring systems, and alternative modalities. Device power data were sourced from manufacturers and literature; average session durations from clinical protocols. Energy use per session was calculated by multiplying power by session length and converted into CO₂ equivalents using Turkey’s national grid intensity (0.45&#xa0;kg CO₂e/kWh).&#xa0;High-energy lasers (IPL, Nd: YAG, Alexandrite, CO₂) produced 0.30–0.70&#xa0;kg CO₂e per session. LED therapy, microdermabrasion, and sonophoresis emitted &lt; 0.01&#xa0;kg CO₂e. Radiofrequency microneedling and EMS ranged between 0.10 and 0.70&#xa0;kg CO₂e. Diode lasers offered up to 50% reduction due to higher energy efficiency.&#xa0;Dermatologic devices vary widely in carbon output. Choosing low-emission tools, optimizing session times, and utilizing teledermatology can significantly reduce environmental impact. Integrating sustainability metrics into device selection may support greener dermatologic practices.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Carbon footprint assessment of Energy-Based devices in clinical and aesthetic dermatology

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月20日

查看全文
  • ömer karakoyun,
  • erhan ayhan,
  • delal aydın

摘要

Health care significantly contributes to global greenhouse gas emissions. Dermatology, particularly procedures involving energy-intensive devices such as lasers and light-based therapies, plays a notable role. To compare the per-session carbon footprint of commonly used aesthetic and clinical dermatologic devices and suggest strategies for sustainability. A descriptive life cycle assessment was conducted on 12 devices grouped as lasers, light-based tools, body-contouring systems, and alternative modalities. Device power data were sourced from manufacturers and literature; average session durations from clinical protocols. Energy use per session was calculated by multiplying power by session length and converted into CO₂ equivalents using Turkey’s national grid intensity (0.45 kg CO₂e/kWh). High-energy lasers (IPL, Nd: YAG, Alexandrite, CO₂) produced 0.30–0.70 kg CO₂e per session. LED therapy, microdermabrasion, and sonophoresis emitted < 0.01 kg CO₂e. Radiofrequency microneedling and EMS ranged between 0.10 and 0.70 kg CO₂e. Diode lasers offered up to 50% reduction due to higher energy efficiency. Dermatologic devices vary widely in carbon output. Choosing low-emission tools, optimizing session times, and utilizing teledermatology can significantly reduce environmental impact. Integrating sustainability metrics into device selection may support greener dermatologic practices.