We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
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.
Summary
Reusable fabric face masks and single-use surgical masks were compared for filtration efficiency and particle shedding, with single-use masks providing better protection against airborne pathogens but generating more plastic waste, while reusable cotton masks reduced waste but required proper washing protocols to maintain effectiveness.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK government has mandated the use of face masks in various public settings and recommends the use of reusable masks to combat shortages of medically graded single-use masks in healthcare. To assist decision-making on the choice of masks for future pandemics, where shortages may not be a contributing factor, the UCL Plastic Waste Innovation Hub has carried out a multidisciplinary comparison between single-use and reusable masks based on their anatomy, standalone effectiveness, behavioural considerations, environmental impacts and costs. Although current single-use masks have a higher standalone effectiveness against bacteria and viruses, studies show that reusable masks have adequate performance in slowing infection rates of respiratory viruses. Material Flow Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment and cost comparison show that reusable masks have a lower environmental and economic impact than single-use masks. If every person in the UK uses one single-use mask each day for a year, it will create a total of 124,000 tonnes of waste, 66,000 tonnes of which would be unrecyclable contaminated plastic waste (the masks), with the rest being the recyclable packaging typically used for transportation and distribution of masks.Using reusable masks creates >85% less waste, generates 3.5 times lower impact on climate change and incurs 3.7 times lower costs. Further behavioural research is necessary to understand the extent and current practices of mask use; and how these practices affect mask effectiveness in reducing infection rates. Wearing single-use masks may be preferred over reusable masks due to perceptions of increased hygiene and convenience. Understanding behaviour towards the regular machine-washing of reusable masks for their effective reuse is key to maximise their public health benefits and minimise environmental and economic costs.
Sign in to start a discussion.
More Papers Like This
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.
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.
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.
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.
Public face masks wearing during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comprehensive analysis is needed for potential implications
This review weighed evidence on the effectiveness of face masks for preventing COVID-19 transmission against growing evidence that masks release microplastics and chemical contaminants when worn and degraded. The authors concluded that the public health benefits of mask use during the pandemic outweighed plastic exposure risks, but called for redesigned masks with lower MP release and better end-of-life management.