Environmental implication of personal protection equipment in the pandemic era: LCA comparison of face masks typologies

Abstract

In the present global health emergency, face masks play a key role in limiting the diffusion of the COVID-19 pandemic, by acting as physical barriers to avoid droplets and filtrate exhalations coming from infected subjects. Since the most widespread devices are disposable products made of plastic materials, this means that relevant quantities of fossil resources will be consumed, and huge amounts of wastes will be generated. The present paper aims to compare the environmental performances of five different typologies of face masks (i.e. 3D printed reusable mask with filter, surgical mask, filtering face-piece masks – FFPs with and without valve, washable masks), considering an average Italian use scenario and the whole mask lifecycle: materials, manufacturing processes, use, sanitization, and disposal. The Life Cycle Assessment methodology has been used to assess the environmental impacts in terms of both ReCiPe midpoints and endpoints. Reusable masks and masks with interchangeable filters could potentially contribute to improve the environmental performances in all the considered impact and damage categories. Eco-design actions can be developed starting from the study results.

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

“…Allison et al [35] carried out an investigation comparing single-use masks with reusable ones, considering various scenarios, finding that the use of reusable masks reduces the amount of waste entering general waste streams. Results obtained by Schmutz et al [36] and Boix et al [37] comparing surgical and reusable masks instead highlight the great dependence that the impact calculations have on the use phase (personal behavior) and materials used. However, these studies do not offer a global comparison of the different models of masks available on the market, a clear vision when comparing the different impacts (environmental, circularity, etc.…”

Could Nanotechnology Help to End the Fight Against COVID-19? Review of Current Findings, Challenges and Future Perspectives

“…70 This indicates that advanced technologies for the development of eco-design approaches for PPE production are needed. 71 Nanostructures can impart their role by reducing single-use PPE by replacing them with novel reusable, selfcleaning, effective, and efficient antiviral products to minimize environmental challenges. This can be brought about by the application of antiviral NPs, nanofibers, and NPcoatings to acquire super-hydrophobicity, synergistic effects, self-cleaning functionalities with photothermal and photocatalytic sterilization.…”

“…Intrinsic antiviral NPs, nanofibers and NP-coatings that can provide super-hydrophobicity, water-repelling, synergistic, and self-cleaning effects are some of the applicable nanostructures. 71 , 72 Nanotechnology can generally convey advanced therapeutic, diagnostic, and prevention options than conventional as summarized in Table 1 .…”

“…70 This indicates that advanced technologies for the development of eco-design approaches for PPE production are needed. 71 …”

Determination of hydrogen peroxide on N95 masks after sanitization using a colorimetric method

“…Due to a shortage of the worldwide supply of N95 masks, the option to extend their useful life was considered by the World Health Organization [1] , the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [2] , Health Canada [3] and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control [4] . Additionally the reuse of mask could reduce waste-burden created by PPEs [5] . Many physical and chemical sanitization approaches have been investigated for bactericidal and virucidal efficacy, filtration performance, and fit test as the masks may lose their filtration efficiency due to the sanitation procedures [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] .…”