A Life Cycle Assessment of reprocessing face masks during the Covid-19 pandemic

Abstract

Introduction/background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to threatening shortages in the healthcare of medical products such as face masks. Due to this major impact on our healthcare society, an initiative was conducted between March and July 2020 for reprocessing face masks from 19 different hospitals. This exceptional opportunity was used to study the cost impact and the effects of the CO2 footprint of reprocessed face masks relative to new disposable face masks.Aim: The aim of this study is to conduct a life cycle assessment (LCA) to assess and compare the environmental impact of disposed versus reprocessed face masks.Methods: In total, 18,166 high-quality medical FFP2 face masks were reprocessed through steam sterilization between March and July 2020. CO2 emissions equivalent (kg CO2 eq) and other impact categories, such as water consumption during production, transport, sterilisation and end-of-life processes, were assessed. A Monte Carlo model was used to predict the sensitivity of different factors in the whole process on the kg CO2 eq.Results: The average kg CO2 eq appears to be 42% lower for reprocessed face masks based on a rejection rate of 20% than new ones. The sensitivity analysis indicated that the loading capacity of the autoclave and rejection rate of face masks have a large influence on kg CO2 eq. The estimated cost price of a reprocessed mask was €1,40 against €1.55.Discussion: The life cycle assessment (LCA) demonstrates that reprocessed FFP2 face masks from a circular economy perspective have a lower environmental impact on kg CO2 eq and water usage than new face masks. For policymakers, it is important to realize that the CO2 footprint of medical products such as face masks may be reduced by means of circular economy strategies.Conclusion: This study demonstrated a lower environmental impact and financial burden for reprocessed medical face masks than for new face masks without compromising qualifications. Therefore, this study may serve as an inspiration for investigating the reprocessing of other medical products that may become scarce. Finally, this study advocates that circular design engineering principles should be taken into account when designing medical devices. This may lead to more sustainable products that require less CO2, have less water consumption and lower costs.

Engineering Design Process of Face Masks Based on Circularity and Life Cycle Assessment in the Constraint of the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…Indeed, the mentioned work highlights that quilt and cotton are appropriate cloth-from-cotton material for making a nonmedical mask with the highest quality of filtration efficiency and breathability while having the lowest environmental impact, whereas polypropylene fabric is the worst material in terms of environmental impact. Alternatively, another interesting research work [72] tried to investigate the adoption of recycled material from reprocessed FFP2 face masks. The study demonstrated how the reprocessed material has a lower environmental impact and financial burden than new disposable face masks without compromising qualifications and filtration efficiency.…”

Life Cycle Assesment of 3D Printing Filament from Disposable Mask

“…The manufacture of 3D printing filaments generates global warming potential. However, if you look at the GWP generated from disposable masks of 6.55E+00 kg CO2-eq [12], making filament from disposable mask waste can be an alternative to reducing the potential for global warming. The decrease in GWP can be more significant if the stages in the production process are not too long, one of which is through education on mask disinfection at home.…”

Study on the use of waste polypropylene-based mask in crude oil as viscosity reducer

“…During the COVID-19, the use of waste polypropylene based masks increased sharply. However, many discarded masks were thrown away at will or improperly disposed of after use [1][2][3]. The mask mainly consists of an inner and outer spunbonded layer and an intermediate meltblown layer, which is composed of polypropylene.…”