Thinking green: modelling respirator reuse strategies to reduce cost and waste

Abstract

ObjectivesTo compare the impact of respirator extended use and reuse strategies with regard to cost and sustainability during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignCost analysis.SettingUSA.ParticipantsAll healthcare workers within the USA.InterventionsNot applicable.Main outcome measuresA model was developed to estimate usage, costs and waste incurred by several respirator usage strategies over the first 6 months of the pandemic in the USA. This model assumed universal masking of all healthcare workers. Estimates were taken from the literature, government databases and commercially available data from approved vendors.ResultsA new N95 respirator per patient encounter would require 7.41 billion respirators, cost $6.38 billion and generate 84.0 million kg of waste in the USA over 6 months. One respirator per day per healthcare worker would require 3.29 billion respirators, cost $2.83 billion and generate 37.22 million kg of waste. Decontamination by ultraviolet germicidal irradiation would require 1.64 billion respirators, cost $1.41 billion and accumulate 18.61 million kg of waste. H2O2 vapour decontamination would require 1.15 billion respirators, cost $1.65 billion and produce 13.03 million kg of waste. One reusable respirator with daily disposable filters would require 18 million respirators, cost $1.24 billion and generate 15.73 million kg of waste. Pairing a reusable respirator with H2O2 vapour-decontaminated filters would reduce cost to $831 million and generate 1.58 million kg of waste. The use of one surgical mask per healthcare worker per day would require 3.29 billion masks, cost $460 million and generate 27.92 million kg of waste.ConclusionsDecontamination and reusable respirator-based strategies decreased the number of respirators used, costs and waste generated compared with single-use or daily extended-use of disposable respirators. Future development of low-cost,simple technologies to enable respirator and/or filter decontamination is needed to further minimise the economic and environmental costs of masks.

Patient and Health Care Worker Perceptions of Communication and Ability to Identify Emotion When Wearing Standard and Transparent Masks

“…Additionally, this study did not evaluate the costs of transparent masks, which could limit their availability. 19 However, we have conducted a prior study comparing costs of multiple respirator-use strategies, including distribution of 1 reusable, transparent respirator to all US health care workers, and found this to be less costly than the current practice of using disposable standard respirators. 14 , 15 , 16 , 19 Further cost-benefit studies of transparent masks should be performed as they become more commercially available.…”

“…All surveys included brief video clips showing a study author smiling while wearing a custom-designed transparent mask created by members of the study team and a standard opaque N95 mask ( Figure , A). 19 , 20 Respondents were then asked questions regarding whether they were able to detect the author’s emotion and whether they felt positively toward the use of transparent masks to communicate in a health care setting. They were also asked questions specific to mask wearing and communication as well as mask preference and fit in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.…”

Piezoelectric Nanofiber Membrane for Reusable, Stable, and Highly Functional Face Mask Filter with Long‐Term Biodegradability

“…This heavy and continuous demand of one‐time use, nondegradable facemasks continues to build up the amount of permanent trash and potentially leads to an environmental crisis. [ 8 ]…”

A spatiotemporal machine learning approach to forecasting COVID-19 incidence at the county level in the USA

“…While substantial uncertainty exists surrounding the continuing spread of COVID-19, a robust forecast can be used to inform policy, targeted interventions, and mitigation strategies. During the pandemic, forecasts have been used to allocate medical resources that are in short supply (e.g., ventilators, personal protective equipment, gowns, sanitizer) to the areas with high COVID risk [ 17 , 18 , 33 ]. Moreover, they have influenced the assignment of travel nurses, a group of qualified nurses who are not employed at specific locations, but rather, have multiple short-term appointments at hospitals located anywhere in the USA based on demand [ 3 ].…”