Attached is the manuscript of our Open Commentary en i led The environmental dangers of employing single-use face masks as part of a COVID-19 exit strategy hich my co-authors and I would like to submit for publication in the journal UCL Open: Environment. We, the authors of this paper, are a multidisciplinary group of academics including chemists, materials scientists, engineers, designers, artists, and social scientists from University College London. We are part of the UCL Plastic Waste Innovation Hub whose aim is to develop new ways of designing-out waste from plastic packaging (https://www.plasticwastehub.org.uk). In this Open Commentary we are responding to the current situation in the UK where the general population is under lockdown measures as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Without an available vaccine the government is considering different policy options to enable the restoration of freedom of movement and to restart the economy. One measure being considered by many countries is the mandatory wearing of face masks by the general population. This is due to a growing body of evidence to suggest that even basic face masks can be effective in reducing the spread of the virus, by reducing the range and volume of exhaled water droplets containing SARS-CoV-2. Although the World Health Organisation (WHO) does not currently recommend this measure as a means of preventing the spread of COVID-19, a growing number of countries have been adopting this precautionary measure including China, South Korea, Germany, Scotland, Spain amongst many others. In the UK due to shortages of PPE to supply to front-line workers in the hospitals and care homes, there is reluctance to adopt this measure in case this intensifies the shortage of PPE. If and when such PPE shortages abate there may be growing pressure to adopt this precautionary measure. The aim of this paper is to examine the environmental impact of the UK adopting masks for the general population in particular the amount of contaminated plastic waste produced. We conclude that if the government decides to require the wearing of face masks in public, it should mandate reusable masks and not single-use masks. This will preserve single-use mask supplies for front-line healthcare workers, and reduce the environmental risks associated with the disposal of 66,000 tonnes of contaminated plastic mask waste in the household waste stream. Additionally, the use of reusable masks by the general population would significantly reduce plastic waste and the climate change impact of this policy measure. The methodology of the paper is applicable to the analysis of other countries whose use of single-use masks is also likely to be an important environmental issue for the next 12 months.

During the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the UK government mandated the use of face masks in various public settings and recommended 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 University College London (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 impact 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 (MFA), life cycle assessment (LCA) 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.

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 waste of 124,000 tonnes, 66,000 tonnes of which would be unrecyclable contaminated plastic waste. 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 its 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.

Compostable and biodegradable plastics are growing in popularity but their environmental credentials need to be more fully assessed to determine how they can be a part of the solution to the plastic waste crisis. We present results and analysis on home compostable packaging. This type of packaging requires the citizen to be able to correctly identify the packaging as “home compostable,” to have composting facilities at home, and to successfully compost the plastic. Using a citizen science approach, we engaged with 9,701 UK citizens geographically spread across the UK to examine their capability, opportunity, and motivation to do this. Of this cohort 1,648 citizens performed home compost experiments to test the environmental performance of compostable plastics. We report on the type of plastics they tested and their disintegration under real home composting conditions. The results show that the public are confused about the meaning of the labels of compostable and biodegradable plastics. 14% of sampled plastic packaging items tested were certified “industrial compostable” only and 46% had no compostable certification. Of the biodegradable and compostable plastics tested under different home composting conditions, the majority did not fully disintegrate, including 60% of those that were certified “home compostable.” We conclude that for both of these reasons, home composting is not an effective or environmentally beneficial waste processing method for biodegradable or compostable packaging in the UK.

As a result of public pressure and government legislation to reduce plastic waste there has been a sharp rise in the manufacture and use of alternatives to conventional plastics including compostable and biodegradable plastics. If these plastics are not collected separately, they can contaminate plastic recycling, organic waste streams, and the environment. To deal with this contamination requires effective identification and sorting of these different polymer types to ensure they are separated and composted at end of life. This review provides the comprehensive overview of the identification and sorting technologies that can be applied to sort compostable and biodegradable plastics including gravity-based sorting, flotation sorting, triboelectrostatic sorting, image-based sorting, spectral based sorting, hyperspectral imaging and tracer-based sorting. The advantages and limitations of each sorting approach are discussed within a circular economy framework.

Compostable plastics have great potential environmental benefits, however, the damage caused by incorrect waste management offsets them. This study aims to develop a behavior change intervention aimed at improving compostable plastic disposal. We illustrate application of the Behavior Change Wheel framework to design an intervention in this context. First, the target behavior was understood by specifying it and identifying potential behavioral influences. Second, behavioral influences were systematically linked to potential intervention strategies and refined by evaluating the likely affordability, practicability, effectiveness, acceptability, equity and potential for side-effects (APEASE criteria) in a UK implementation context. Finally, intervention content and implementation options were selected by systematically selecting specific Behavior Change Techniques and refining them by evaluating them against APEASE criteria. The target behavior was identified as UK citizens disposing of compostable plastic waste in the food waste bin meant for collection by local authorities. Influences on compostable plastic disposal were identified as “psychological capability” (i.e., attention and knowledge), “reflective motivation” (i.e., beliefs around environmental impact of compostable plastics) and “physical opportunity” (i.e., access to appropriate waste management). “Education” and “environmental restructuring” were the intervention types selected. “Communications/marketing”, “guidelines” and “restructuring the physical and social environment” were the policy options selected. Selected behavior change techniques were: instruction on how to perform the behavior, prompts/cues, adding objects to the environment and restructuring the physical environment. The resulting intervention is a disposal instruction label for compostable packaging, comprising of instructions and a logo. The next step is user testing the developed disposal instruction labels in terms of their effect on promoting the desired disposal behavior. The novelty of this study includes the development of an intervention to reduce compostable plastic waste and the explicit, step-by-step documentation of the intervention development process. The scientific significance is therefore both applied and theoretical. When evaluated, our intervention has the potential to yield insights relating to what improves compostable plastic disposal amongst citizens. This, in turn, has key policy implications for product and package labeling. By openly documenting our method, we demonstrate a systematic and transparent approach to intervention design, providing an adaptable template and model for others.

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.