We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Facing COVID-19: Quantifying the Use of Reusable vs. Disposable Facemasks
Summary
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.
Following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, many governments have recommended or mandated the wearing of fitted face masks to limit the transmission of the virus via aerosols. The public had, in essence, two choices: single-use, disposable surgical masks and multi-use, washable cloth masks. While the use of cloth masks has been discussed, there are, at present no baseline data that establish the actual proportions of mask types worn in the public. This paper, which presents the findings of rapid walk-through surveys of shopping venues in Albury (Southern New South Wales, Australia), demonstrates that, overall, 33.6% of masks worn by the public were cloth masks.
Sign in to start a discussion.
More Papers Like This
Analysis of the Optimal Use of Fabric Masks and Disposable Medical Masks During the COVID-19
This paper is not about microplastics — it compares the environmental, economic, and public health trade-offs of disposable medical masks versus reusable cloth masks during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Reconciling human health with the environment while struggling against the COVID-19 pandemic through improved face mask eco-design
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.
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.
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.
This study compared the filtration effectiveness and environmental impact of single-use versus reusable face masks during COVID-19, finding that reusable masks can be comparable in protection while significantly reducing plastic waste. Billions of disposable masks ended up in the environment during the pandemic, releasing microplastic fibers and fragments as they degraded.
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.