Skip to main content

Sustainable kidney care delivery and climate change – a call to action


The delivery of kidney care, particularly haemodialysis treatment, can result in substantial environmental impact through greenhouse emissions, natural resources depletion and waste generation. However, strategies exist to mitigate this impact and improve long term environmental sustainability for the provision of haemodialysis treatment. The nephrology community has begun taking actions to improve the environmental sustainability of dialysis, but much work remains to be done by healthcare professionals, dialysis providers and professional organisations.


The effects of climate change on global health are increasingly recognised [1]. Global warming, extreme weather events, and many other threats are resulting in changing patterns of disease, with direct and indirect detrimental impact on human health worldwide. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is increasingly recognised as a global health problem, with an estimated 700 milllion people worldwide living with CKD in 2017 and its prevalence rising 29% between 1990 and 2017 [2]. People living with kidney disease are uniquely vulnerable to the effects of climate change, resulting in rising incidence of heat-related acute kidney injury and CKD, increased risk of nephrolithiasis, vector-borne kidney diseases, and disruption to kidney care delivery associated with extreme weather events (Fig. 1) [3].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Effects of climate change on kidney health

Ironically, the delivery of healthcare is also a significant contributor to greenhouse emissions and natural resources depletion, where it is estimated that almost 5% of the global carbon footprint is produced by the healthcare sector [4]. Greenhouse gas emissions arise directly from healthcare facilities, as well as indirectly from the supply chain of healthcare goods and services. The relative contribution of different clinical areas of the healthcare sector to greenhouse emission is not well studied, but more recent studies have been undertaken to better understand the variability observed [5, 6]. Importantly, variation in greenhouse gas emissions per capita does not correlate highly with health system quality, suggesting that the healthcare sector’s environmental footprint can be reduced without compromising quality. While the global community adopts adaptation and mitigation strategies to minimise the impact of climate change, it is imperative that the medical community limits the carbon footprint of the healthcare sector to move towards a more sustainable healthcare delivery.

The global nephrology community has an important role to play in exploring environmentally sustainable kidney care delivery, especially since the provision of haemodialysis has been highlighted for its disproportionately high and recurrent consumption of water & electrical resources, waste generation and carbon footprint [7]. Moreover, the incidence of dialysis has increased by 43% between 1990 and 2017 [2], and more than 5 million people globally are estimated to require haemodialysis treatment by 2030, driven by rising prevalence of CKD and its risk factors such as diabetes and obesity [8]. Yet, many healthcare professionals may not realise the enormous scale of environmental impact of haemodialysis, and more importantly, the opportunities that exist for improvement [9].

Environmental impact of haemodialysis

Water consumption and wastage

The provision of haemodialysis treatment requires large volumes of high-quality water to constitute the dialysate. A typical dialysate flow rate of 500 ml per minute during haemodialysis treatment necessitates 120 l of water over each typical 4-hour session. For a patient on a thrice weekly haemodialysis schedule, this equates to 18,720 l of water per patient annually. Yet, this is an under-estimation of the amount of water used to generate dialysate, as source water typically undergoes reverse osmosis (RO) filtration to remove contaminants. Current RO systems are inefficient; between 50 and 70% of the source water at the RO membrane is rejected. Thus, in a typical 4-hour dialysis session, 240 l of source water is required to prepare the dialysate. Including water required for the pre-treatment priming, rinsing and sterilisation of the system, it has been estimated that water consumption in each session of haemodialysis may be as high as 500 l [10].


Haemodialysis systems consume large amounts of electrical power to provide equipment start-up, priming, haemodialysis treatment session, rinse and disinfection cycles, and to drive the central RO system. In Australia, the electricity consumption was estimated to be 12.0–19.6 kWh per dialysis treatment session versus 18.7 kWh per day in an average household [7]: a substantial amount considering that each dialysis machine typically provides 2 to 3 treatment sessions per day, six days a week.

Waste generation

Single-use dialysers, blood tubing and dialysate concentrates are often individually packed in plastic and cardboard packaging. It was estimated in one study that each haemodialysis treatment generates 2.5 kg of hazardous waste, of which 38% is plastic [11]. Another study reported up to 8 kg of waste per treatment, of which less than one-third was potentially recyclable [12].

Carbon footprint

Although the waste generation, water and power usage during haemodialysis is staggering, there is evidence to suggest that the largest contribution to carbon dioxide (CO2) emission, in fact, arises from pharmaceuticals and medical equipment necessary for haemodialysis. Studies have examined the direct and indirect effect of haemodialysis treatment on CO2 emission (including water, energy, consumables usage, and transportation of staff and patients). In the United Kingdom (UK), haemodialysis is estimated to result in 3.8 tCO2-eq emissions per patient annually [13], more than 7-fold the mean per patient carbon footprint in UK healthcare [14]. In Australia, haemodialysis treatment alone has been estimated at 10.2 tCO2-eq per patient annually, accounting for more than two-thirds the estimated Australian mean annual per capita CO2 emission of 15.4 tCO2-eq [11].


There are several areas that can potentially mitigate the environmental impacts of haemodialysis, many of which are ready for immediate adoption, but some require further study (Table 1) [15]. One of the key areas identified is the recycling of RO reject water, since RO reject water has been shown to be as safe as source water, and recycling can be easily accomplished through redirection into storage tanks, instead of drains [16]. Significant reduction in cost of renewable power technology, such as solar rooftops, has made renewable power generation an economically viable option [17]. Retrofitting of heat exchangers to dialysis machines and upgrading to water treatment plants may reduce power and water usage respectively. Lastly, waste segregation, recycling and minimisation, through installation of baling machines to recycle plastic and cardboard, or the use of central delivery of acid for haemodialysis to reduce plastic packaging, have been undertaken.

Table 1 Opportunities that individual dialysis units can implement to promote sustainable kidney care

The consideration of alternative dialytic therapies such as home haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis may offer some opportunities for reducing the emissions involved with transportation of staff and patients. However, this is quickly offset by the increased frequency and duration of home haemodialysis treatments [13], and the overall plastic waste generation from peritoneal dialysis [18].

Challenges & barriers

For many healthcare professionals around the world, the immediate priority is to deliver safe and quality care to patients, with little focus on the associated environmental impact. Even with greater awareness, healthcare professionals may be overwhelmed by information such as “CO2 emission per capita”, or fail to identify the relevance and/or urgency of such issues. Furthermore, the perceived additional costs required to deliver more environmentally friendly care is often a barrier to the adoption of sustainable solutions.

More broadly, people living in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are disproportionately susceptible to kidney disease, in part due to contributions from the social determinants of health. Besides an increased prevalence of kidney disease, people in LMICs are further at risk due to limited access to quality kidney care and kidney replacement therapy, resulting in greater health burden and worse outcome. The economic cost of climate change interventions may also be incommensurate to the limited resources faced by LMICs. Yet, people at socioeconomic disadvantage bear the greatest burden of climate change. As an example, kidney disease may be associated with occupations involving exposure to extreme temperatures, such as farming, which are disproportionately held by people in LMICs and/or lower socio-economic status.

Many of the interventions already described utilise existing technology and are easy to implement, with no compromise to delivery of basic healthcare to patients. Collective guidance from professional organisations and coordinated action from industry partners are pivotal to ensure successful implementation of sustainability policies and targeted actions [19, 20]. Moreover, there is evidence that many of the changes that are necessary to improve environmental sustainability in healthcare will also result in significant longer term cost savings and provide financial sustainability over time [21].


In conclusion, healthcare professionals, dialysis providers and professional organisations should recognise the relevance and urgency of the impact of haemodialysis on climate change and can make immediate and clear contributions towards achieving more sustainable haemodialysis provision and kidney care delivery.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.


CO2 :

Carbon dioxide


Chronic kidney disease


Low- and middle-income countries

UK :

United Kingdom


Reverse osmosis


  1. Romanello M, McGushin A, Di Napoli C, Drummond P, Hughes N, Jamart L, et al. The 2021 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: code red for a healthy future. Lancet. 2021;398(10311):1619–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bikbov B, Purcell CA, Levey AS, Smith M, Abdoli A, Abebe M, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of chronic kidney disease, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2020;395(10225):709–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barraclough KA, Blashki GA, Holt SG, Agar JWM. Climate change and kidney disease-threats and opportunities. Kidney Int. 2017;92(3):526–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lenzen M, Malik A, Li M, Fry J, Weisz H, Pichler PP, et al. The environmental footprint of health care: a global assessment. Lancet Planet Health. 2020;4(7):e271–e9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Eckelman MJ, Huang K, Lagasse R, Senay E, Dubrow R, Sherman JD. Health Care Pollution And Public Health Damage In The United States: An Update. Health Aff. 2020;39(12):2071–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sehgal A, Slutzman J, Huml A. Sources of Variation in the Carbon Footprint of Hemodialysis Treatment. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2022:ASN.2022010086. Published online ahead of print.

  7. Barraclough KA, Agar JWM. Green nephrology. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2020;16(5):257–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Liyanage T, Ninomiya T, Jha V, Neal B, Patrice HM, Okpechi I, et al. Worldwide access to treatment for end-stage kidney disease: a systematic review. Lancet. 2015;385(9981):1975–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Yau A, Agar JWM, Barraclough KA. Addressing the Environmental Impact of Kidney Care. Am J Kidney Dis. 2021;77(3):406–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Molano-Triviño A, Wancjer B, Neri MM, Karopadi AN, Rosner M, Ronco C. Blue Planet dialysis: novel water-sparing strategies for reducing dialysate flow. Int J Artif Organs. 2018;41(1):3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hoenich NA, Levin R, Pearce C. Clinical waste generation from renal units: implications and solutions. Semin Dial. 2005;18(5):396–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Piccoli GB, Nazha M, Ferraresi M, Vigotti FN, Pereno A, Barbero S. Eco-dialysis: the financial and ecological costs of dialysis waste products: is a 'cradle-to-cradle' model feasible for planet-friendly haemodialysis waste management? Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2015;30(6):1018–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Connor A, Lillywhite R, Cooke MW. The carbon footprints of home and in-center maintenance hemodialysis in the United Kingdom. Hemodial Int. 2011;15(1):39–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brown LH, Buettner PG, Canyon DV. The energy burden and environmental impact of health services. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(12):e76–82.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Blankestijn PJ. Towards sustainable environmental development in nephrology care, research and education. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2021;17(1):7–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chang E, Lim JA, Low CL, Kassim A. Reuse of dialysis reverse osmosis reject water for aquaponics and horticulture. J Nephrol. 2021;34(1):97–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Agar JWM, Perkins A, Tjipto A. Solar-Assisted Hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7(2):310–4.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Chen M, Zhou R, Du C, Meng F, Wang Y, Wu L, et al. The carbon footprints of home and in-center peritoneal dialysis in China. Int Urol Nephrol. 2017;49(2):337–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Piccoli GB, Cupisti A, Aucella F, Regolisti G, Lomonte C, Ferraresi M, et al. Green nephrology and eco-dialysis: a position statement by the Italian Society of Nephrology. J Nephrol. 2020;33(4):681–98.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Barraclough KA, Gleeson A, Holt SG, Agar JW. Green dialysis survey: Establishing a baseline for environmental sustainability across dialysis facilities in Victoria, Australia. Nephrology. 2019;24(1):88–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Limb M. NHS could save £1bn by adopting green strategies used in kidney units. Bmj. 2013;346:f588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval and informed consent is not required for this commentary.


This study was not supported by any external funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



SCY, XYO and TSMT conceived, drafted, and revised the manuscript collectively. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to See Cheng Yeo.

Ethics declarations

Consent for publication

Not applicable (no data from individual person).

Competing interests

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yeo, S.C., Ooi, X.Y. & Tan, T.S.M. Sustainable kidney care delivery and climate change – a call to action. Global Health 18, 75 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: