Carbon Footprint

Benefits

Comparisons

Evidence quality

Highlighted claims

• The base-case Pee-in-Pot testing footprint was estimated at 95 g CO2e, compared with 270 g CO2e for standard-of-care testing. — Clean pulp versus sterile plastic for mid-stream urine collection: a paired equivalence study comparing the microbiological performance of a novel low carbon collection device with the standard of care
• All modelled scenarios found lower greenhouse gas emissions for Pee-in-Pot testing than for sterile plastic testing. — Clean pulp versus sterile plastic for mid-stream urine collection: a paired equivalence study comparing the microbiological performance of a novel low carbon collection device with the standard of care
• The carbon footprint assessment used a process-based life-cycle assessment aligned with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Product Standard. — Clean pulp versus sterile plastic for mid-stream urine collection: a paired equivalence study comparing the microbiological performance of a novel low carbon collection device with the standard of care
• The authors estimated that UK adoption of the Pee-in-Pot for microscopy and culture could save about 349 tonnes CO2e annually. — Clean pulp versus sterile plastic for mid-stream urine collection: a paired equivalence study comparing the microbiological performance of a novel low carbon collection device with the standard of care