We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Reconciling human health with the environment while struggling against the COVID-19 pandemic through improved face mask eco-design
Summary
The environmental impacts of single-use versus reusable surgical face masks were compared using life cycle assessment, finding that reusable masks had substantially lower overall environmental burdens despite requiring energy and water for washing. The study quantifies the trade-off between infection protection and environmental impact in mask design choices prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Surgical masks have become critical for protecting human health against the COVID-19 pandemic, even though their environmental burden is a matter of ongoing debate. This study aimed at shedding light on the environmental impacts of single-use (i.e., MD-Type I) versus reusable (i.e., MD-Type IIR) face masks via a comparative life cycle assessment with a cradle-to-grave system boundary. We adopted a two-level analysis using the ReCiPe (H) method, considering both midpoint and endpoint categories. The results showed that reusable face masks created fewer impacts for most midpoint categories. At the endpoint level, reusable face masks were superior to single-use masks, producing scores of 16.16 and 84.20 MPt, respectively. The main environmental impacts of single-use masks were linked to raw material consumption, energy requirements and waste disposal, while the use phase and raw material consumption made the most significant contribution for reusable type. However, our results showed that lower environmental impacts of reusable face masks strongly depend on the use phase since reusable face masks lost their superior performance when the hand wash scenario was tested. Improvement of mask eco-design emerged as another key factor such as using more sustainable raw materials and designing better waste disposal scenarios could significantly lower the environmental impacts.
Sign in to start a discussion.
More Papers Like This
Eco-design Actions to Improve Life Cycle Environmental Performance of Face Masks in the Pandemic Era
This study evaluated the environmental impact of single-use face masks throughout their life cycle and proposed eco-design strategies to reduce their footprint. The massive increase in disposable mask use during COVID-19 generated significant plastic waste and potential microplastic pollution.
Facing COVID-19: Quantifying the Use of Reusable vs. Disposable Facemasks
This study compared the environmental cost of single-use surgical masks versus reusable cloth masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Reusable masks had a significantly lower environmental impact per use, especially when washed efficiently. The findings support policies favoring reusable masks to reduce pandemic-related plastic waste.
Life cycle assessment and circularity evaluation of the non-medical masks in the Covid-19 pandemic: a Brazilian case
Researchers applied life cycle assessment and material circularity analysis to reusable cotton face masks and single-use nonwoven masks in Brazil, finding that cotton masks have better environmental performance after five uses and higher circularity, with human health impacts representing the most significant environmental burden category.
Disposable over Reusable Face Masks: Public Safety or Environmental Disaster?
This review compares the public health benefits and environmental impacts of disposable versus reusable face masks in the context of COVID-19. While disposable masks consistently provide higher protection, they contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, landfill waste, and microplastic pollution. The study discusses the need for approaches that balance pandemic safety with environmental sustainability.
The impact and effectiveness of the general public wearing masks to reduce the spread of pandemics in the UK: a multidisciplinary comparison of single-use masks versus reusable face masks
Researchers compared single-use and reusable face masks across effectiveness, environmental impact, and cost during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. The study found that while single-use masks have higher standalone filtration performance, reusable masks adequately slow respiratory virus transmission and generate over 85% less waste, 3.5 times lower climate impact, and 3.7 times lower costs than single-use alternatives.