Cotton and Surgical Masks—What Ecological Factors Are Relevant for Their Sustainability?

Schmutz, Mélanie; Hischier, Roland; Batt, Till; Wick, Peter; Nowack, Bernd; Wäger, Patrick; Som, Claudia

doi:10.3390/su122410245

Cited by 39 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The carbon footprint of a mask is the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions over its lifecycle. The carbon footprint of a cotton mask and surgical mask is 0.23 kg CO 2 -eq and 0.24 kg CO 2 -eq respectively [43], which are low compared to other common emission sources such as driving a car or residential heating. The average passenger vehicle emits about 0.404 kg of CO 2 per mile [44].…”

Section: Carbon Footprintmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Numerous elements can be considered, such as microplastics [10,12], carbon footprints of personal protective equipment (PPE) [42], and the prospect of biodegradable masks [11]. One study took a more comprehensive approach by examining four metrics: carbon footprint, non-renewable cumulative energy demand, water depletion according to the AWARE methodology (hereafter water footprint), and overall environmental impacts [43].…”

Section: Environmental Impactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The water footprint of face masks is important considering that water depletion and pollution threaten Earth's freshwater resources [46]. The average American's annual water footprint is 2,840 m 3 [47], while the water footprint per cotton and surgical mask is approximately 3.5 m 3 water-eq and 0.07 m 3 water-eq respectively [43]. The water impact of both mostly comes from production; washing of the cotton masks plays a minor role in the overall water consumption [43].…”

Section: Water Footprintmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The average American's annual water footprint is 2,840 m 3 [47], while the water footprint per cotton and surgical mask is approximately 3.5 m 3 water-eq and 0.07 m 3 water-eq respectively [43]. The water impact of both mostly comes from production; washing of the cotton masks plays a minor role in the overall water consumption [43]. Disposing one cotton mask in a year would increase an American's water footprint by 0.12% while disposing 365 surgical masks in a year would increase the water footprint by 0.9%.…”

Section: Water Footprintmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The disposal method of a mask (e.g., incineration, landfilling) affects how the environment is impacted. Schmutz et al (2020) assumed incineration of masks at the end of their use, a valid assumption for densely populated countries [43]. However, only 11.1% of worldwide municipal solid waste (MSW) is incinerated [48].…”

Section: Disposalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Life of a Face Mask: from Production to Use to Disposal

Mooney

Tasnim

Kulyk

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Face mask usage is a critical means of limiting SARS-CoV-2 airborne transmission. To the best of our knowledge, a single study reviewing all major life stages of a mask has yet to be conducted. Here, we first describe the production and material sourcing of respirators, surgical/procedural masks, and cloth masks. We then evaluate filtration efficiency, fit, and breathability in estimating emitted viral load and personal compliance. In decontamination, vaporous hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet germicidal irradiation are feasible and effective methods for large healthcare systems, while washing is recommended for masks with no electrostatic charge (e.g., cotton masks). Finally, we discuss how disposal of masks only contributes marginally to current environmental issues. Insights into the life cycle stages of masks may inform mask use and support mitigation strategies in preventing the spread of respiratory diseases.

show abstract

Section: Carbon Footprintmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Environmental Impactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Water Footprintmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Water Footprintmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Disposalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Life of a Face Mask: from Production to Use to Disposal

Mooney

Tasnim

Kulyk

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Environmental Impacts of Personal Protective Clothing Used to Combat COVID‐ 19

Uddin

Afroj

Hasan

et al. 2021

Advanced Sustainable Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Personal protective clothing is critical to shield users from highly infectious diseases including COVID‐19. Such clothing is predominantly single‐use, made of plastic‐based synthetic fibers such as polypropylene and polyester, low cost and able to provide protection against pathogens. However, the environmental impacts of synthetic fiber‐based clothing are significant and well‐documented. Despite growing environmental concerns with single‐use plastic‐based protective clothing, the recent COVID‐19 pandemic has seen a significant increase in their use, which could result in a further surge of oceanic plastic pollution, adding to the mass of plastic waste that already threatens marine life. In this review, the nature of the raw materials involved in the production of such clothing, as well as manufacturing techniques and the personal protective equipment supply chain are briefly discussed. The environmental impacts at critical points in the protective clothing value chain are identified from production to consumption, focusing on water use, chemical pollution, CO 2 emissions, and waste. On the basis of these environmental impacts, the need for fundamental changes in the business model is outlined, including increased usage of reusable protective clothing, addressing supply chain “bottlenecks”, establishing better waste management, and the use of sustainable materials and processes without associated environmental problems.

show abstract

Face masks and respirators: Towards sustainable materials and technologies to overcome the shortcomings and challenges

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The unprecedented threat of COVID‐19 and the likelihood of other emerging infectious diseases have accentuated the need for sustainable and effective masks and respirators (MAR). MAR assists in minimizing the risk of infection and controlling the spread of pathogens. However, during the COVID‐19 pandemic, there was a worldwide scarcity of MAR due to unprecedented global demand. There are also notable limitations in commonly used MAR, such as low filtration efficiency, poor fit, non‐reusability, physiological impact, lack of biocompatibility and non‐biodegradability, and inability to kill pathogens. Therefore, there remains an unmet need for a comprehensive study focusing on potential materials and new technologies for MAR. Here we outline a comprehensive overview of the limitations of conventional MAR followed by required potential solutions (such as using nanofibers/graphene base filters/metal‐organic framework as filter media, laser scanning and 3D printing for fit and seal, applying antimicrobial nanomaterials coating on filter media, using reusable and biodegradable materials, developing high‐performing cloth masks, improving hydrophobicity, etc.). The information on potential materials and new technologies of MAR and research evidence outlined here can inform further research and development of high‐performing and sustainable respiratory protection technologies to improve the health and safety of the first responders and the community.

show abstract

Cotton and Surgical Masks—What Ecological Factors Are Relevant for Their Sustainability?

Cited by 39 publications

References 6 publications

The Life of a Face Mask: from Production to Use to Disposal

The Life of a Face Mask: from Production to Use to Disposal

Environmental Impacts of Personal Protective Clothing Used to Combat COVID‐ 19

Face masks and respirators: Towards sustainable materials and technologies to overcome the shortcomings and challenges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About