<p>Hospital-associated infections pose a significant threat in the developing and the least developed nations, particularly in remote healthcare centres. To overcome this problem, effective sterilisation methods need to be developed, while considering the factors such as intermittency in electricity supply and ease of fabrication and operation with local resources and personnel. This study presents a comparative techno-economic and environmental assessment of energy systems for operating a stand-alone autoclave in remote healthcare centres. Four alternatives are evaluated based on the cost estimations for a site in India, for an operational life of 20 years. The considered system operates with liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), charcoal, a compound parabolic concentrator with aerogel and polycarbonate cover, or a photovoltaic system with a resistance heater. The results indicate that the photovoltaic system has the highest life cycle cost at USD (<InlineEquation ID="IEq1"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="41660_2025_492_Article_IEq1.gif" Format="GIF" Height="16" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="10" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">$\$ $</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mi mathvariant="normal">$</mi> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>) 2049.4. The LPG and charcoal systems have much lower life cycle costs at <InlineEquation ID="IEq2"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="41660_2025_492_Article_IEq1.gif" Format="GIF" Height="16" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="10" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">$\$ $</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mi mathvariant="normal">$</mi> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> 888.7 and <InlineEquation ID="IEq3"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="41660_2025_492_Article_IEq1.gif" Format="GIF" Height="16" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="10" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">$\$ $</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mi mathvariant="normal">$</mi> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> 1406.1, respectively. However, these systems carry a substantial environmental burden, emitting around 1.3 and 10.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide over the 20 year operational period, respectively. The compound parabolic concentrator with aerogel and polycarbonate cover has a life cycle cost of <InlineEquation ID="IEq4"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="41660_2025_492_Article_IEq1.gif" Format="GIF" Height="16" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="10" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">$\$ $</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mi mathvariant="normal">$</mi> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> 1302, which is lower than that for the charcoal and the photovoltaic systems, while also maintaining a lower environmental impact than from the LPG and the charcoal systems. This makes it an optimal choice for powering stand-alone autoclaves in remote healthcare centres when considering both cost and environmental perspectives.</p>

Techno-Economic and Environmental Comparison of Small-Scale Energy Systems for Stand-Alone Medical Sterilisation in Remote Locations

期刊论文
发表日期：

2025年2月15日

查看全文

Manoj Kumar Yadav,
Shireesh B. Kedare,
Anish Modi

摘要

Hospital-associated infections pose a significant threat in the developing and the least developed nations, particularly in remote healthcare centres. To overcome this problem, effective sterilisation methods need to be developed, while considering the factors such as intermittency in electricity supply and ease of fabrication and operation with local resources and personnel. This study presents a comparative techno-economic and environmental assessment of energy systems for operating a stand-alone autoclave in remote healthcare centres. Four alternatives are evaluated based on the cost estimations for a site in India, for an operational life of 20 years. The considered system operates with liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), charcoal, a compound parabolic concentrator with aerogel and polycarbonate cover, or a photovoltaic system with a resistance heater. The results indicate that the photovoltaic system has the highest life cycle cost at USD ( $\$ $ $$$ ) 2049.4. The LPG and charcoal systems have much lower life cycle costs at $\$ $ $$$ 888.7 and $\$ $ $$$ 1406.1, respectively. However, these systems carry a substantial environmental burden, emitting around 1.3 and 10.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide over the 20 year operational period, respectively. The compound parabolic concentrator with aerogel and polycarbonate cover has a life cycle cost of $\$ $ $$$ 1302, which is lower than that for the charcoal and the photovoltaic systems, while also maintaining a lower environmental impact than from the LPG and the charcoal systems. This makes it an optimal choice for powering stand-alone autoclaves in remote healthcare centres when considering both cost and environmental perspectives.