Disposable Polypropylene Face Masks: A Potential Source of Micro/Nanoparticles and Organic Contaminates in Humans

Abstract

We have been effectively protected by disposable propylene face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, they may pose health risks due to the release of fine particles and chemicals. We measured micro/nanoparticles and organic chemicals in disposable medical masks, surgical masks, and (K)N95 respirators. In the breathing-simulation experiment, no notable differences were found in the total number of particles among mask types or between breathing intensities. However, when considering subranges, <2.5 μm particles accounted for ∼90% of the total number of micro/nanoparticles. GC-HRMS-based suspect screening tentatively revealed 79 (semi)volatile organic compounds in masks, with 18 being detected in ≥80% of samples and 44 in ≤20% of samples. Three synthetic phenolic antioxidants were quantified, and AO168 reached a median concentration of 2968 ng/g. By screening particles collected from bulk mask fabrics, we detected 18 chemicals, including four commonly detected in masks, suggesting chemical partition between the particles and the fabric fibers and chemical exposure via particle inhalation. These particles and chemicals are believed to originate from raw materials, intentionally and nonintentionally added substances in mask production, and their transformation products. This study highlights the need to study the long-term health risks associated with mask wearing and raises concerns over mask quality control.

Identification of Additives in Disposable Face Masks and Evaluation of Their Toxicity Using Marine Medaka (Oryzias melastigma)

“…Except for the identified additives, 27–66 additives, each with unknown properties and a confidence level of 4, were detected in each mask (Data set S3). Currently, a few studies have shown that various additives are present in masks. ,, For example, using nontarget analysis, 79 (semi)­volatile additives are determined in 20 masks, and 69 are determined in 60 masks . In addition, though this study identified 213 additives with confidence levels 1 and 2 in masks, many additives remained unidentified.…”

“…In early studies, various additives have been identified in the face masks and microplastics, but the categories and concentrations of the additives vary greatly between the two. − This difference may be attributed to the functionality of the plastic products as well as the screening methods used. , The additives in microplastics have been more extensively studied than those in face masks, emphasizing the need to explore the risk of additives in face masks on the marine ecosystem.…”

Identification and Prioritization of Organic Pollutants in Human Milk from the Yangtze River Delta, China

“…The AP derivative 2,5-di- tert -butylhydroquinone (DTBHQ), which was found at concentrations up to 121 ng/g lw, has a structure similar to that of synthetic phenolic antioxidants (SPAs). DTBHQ may be a byproduct of SPAs and has been detected in face masks . Besides, the compound 2- tert -butyl-1,4-benzoquinone (TBQ), which was found at concentrations up to 11 ng/g lw, is in the aldehydes and ketones category and is a metabolite of the SPA 2- tert -butyl-4-hydroquinone, which is used as a food additive and is cytotoxic .…”

High-Efficiency Effect-Directed Analysis Leveraging Five High Level Advancements: A Critical Review

“…GC- and LC-HRMS are advanced techniques commonly used for analyzing the causal toxicants in EDA. GC-HRMS, equipped with an electron ionization source, is frequently used for the analysis of low-polarity toxicants in environmental samples, such as low-polarity PAHs, , steroidal EDCs, and others . Meanwhile, polar toxicants, such as polar EDCs , and antimicrobials, , are generally analyzed by LC-HRMS equipped with electrospray ionization (ESI) or atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) sources.…”