The impact and effectiveness of the general public wearing masks to reduce the spread of pandemics in the UK: a multidisciplinary comparison of single-use masks versus reusable face masks.

Abstract

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.

Disposal Behavior of Used Masks during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Moroccan Community: Potential Environmental Impact

“…By using these values, we estimated the equivalent GHG footprint for the masks worn in the two studied regions in Morocco ( Table 3 ). With these estimations, the highest contribution to the GHG footprint was linked to the transportation of PPE from China (the main PPE manufacturer), at about 74.3% [ 69 ]. Morocco is self-sufficient in non-woven masks.…”

COVID-19 false dichotomies and a comprehensive review of the evidence regarding public health, COVID-19 symptomatology, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, mask wearing, and reinfection

“…If the benefits of masks are to be considered (i.e., reduction of respiratory infectious disease transmission, mutual protection, positive prosocial signaling), potential downsides should not be utterly disregarded [55,59]. The latter include shortage of medical masks and FFRs for HCWs [534,535], cross-contamination due to inappropriate mask wearing [536,537], risk compensation or complacency toward other preventive measures (evidence in favor [538][539][540], evidence against [541][542][543][544][545][546][547]), psychosocial effects (e.g., threats to autonomy, psychological relatedness, competence) [455,548,549], communication and learning difficulties [518,[550][551][552][553][554][555], physiological effects (e.g., subjective breathing discomfort or difficulties 22 , skin problems, headache, ocular dryness and irritation; these effects are more likely if there is a related predisposing condition) [454,455,556,[562][563][564][565], and environmental pollution from mask waste [566][567][568][569]. Of note, these lingering concerns are not reasons to refrain from community masking (using medical masks or face cloth coverings) but are opportunities to maximize the benefits of masking, improve mask designs, and sharpen public health policies and messaging.…”

Which strategy for using medical and community masks? A prospective analysis of their environmental impact

“…In the absence of recycling, the production of waste in this country, as a consequence of the use of one mask each day for a year by the entire British population, was estimated at 124 000 tons, including 66 000 tons of non-recyclable contaminated plastic. 14 Many countries are attempting to restrict the use of single-use plastics, including restricting the use of plastic bags. The increase in plastic waste is putting pressure on the waste management system to find new strategies to deal with this change.…”