Abstract
After more than one year form the first cases of Sars-Cov-2 infection, it is now clear that the most effective mean to prevent the diffusion of the pandemic is the use of face masks, that however are based on fossil materials and could potentially generate an environmental problem. This study wants to quantitatively investigate the environmental impacts related to the life cycle of a single use surgical mask through the use of the Life Cycle Assessment methodology. Results highlight significant impacts due to the material supply and transport, as well as product packaging and distribution. The study outcomes can be also useful to set potential eco-design strategies for the product environmental improvement.
Keywords: surgical mask, life cycle assessment, eco-design, COVID-19
References
- 1.WHO. Available online: https://covid19.who.int/.
- 2.WHO. Global Influenza Preparedness Plan, 2005. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 3.Zhang R, Li Y, Zhang AL, Wang Y, Molina MJ. Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19. PNAS. 2020;117:14857–14863. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2009637117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.European Committee for Standardization. EN 14683:2019 “Facial masks for medical use - Requirements and test methods", Brussels, 2019.
- 5.European Committee for Standardization. EN 149:2001 “Respiratory protective devices - Filtering half mask against particles - Requirements, tests, marking", Brussels, 2001.
- 6.Armentano I, Barbanera M, Carota E, Crognale S, Marconi M, Rossi S, Rubino G, Scungio M, Taborri J, Calabrò G. Polymer Materials for Respiratory Protection: Processing, End Use and Testing Methods. ACS Appled Polymer Materials. 2021;3:531–548. [Google Scholar]
- 7.European Parliament and Council. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (Text with EEA relevance), Brussels, 2008.
- 8.Aragaw TA. Surgical face masks as a potential source for microplastic pollution in the COVID-19 scenario. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2020;159:111517. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Fadare OO, Okoffo ED. Covid-19 face masks: A potential source of microplastic fibers in the environment. Science of The Total Environment. 2020;737:140279. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.WHO. World Health Organization Shortage of Personal Protective Equipment Endangering Health Workers Worldwide. Available online: https://www.who.int/news/item/03-03-2020-shortage-of-personal-protective-equipment-endangering-health-workersworldwide.
- 11.Govern of Canada. COVID-19: Compostable Disposable Surgical Masks and Compostable Disposable Respirators Used in the Canadian Healthcare System. Available online: https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/101.nsf/eng/00117.html.
- 12.Ertz M, Patrick K. The future of sustainable healthcare: Extending product lifecycles. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2020;153:104589. [Google Scholar]
- 13.McGain F, Story D, Lim T, McAlister S. Financial and environmental costs of reusable and single-use anaesthetic equipment. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2017;118(6):862–869. doi: 10.1093/bja/aex098. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Seresirikachorn K, Phoophiboon V, Chobarporn T, Tiankanon K, Aeumjaturapat S, Chusakul S, Shidvongs K. Decontamination and reuse of surgical masks and N95 filtering. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. 2021;42(1):25–30. doi: 10.1017/ice.2020.379. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Sousa AC, Veiga A, Maurício AC, Lopes MA, Santos JD, Neto B. Assessment of the environmental impacts of medical devices: A review. Environment Development and Sustainability. 2021;23:9641–9666. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Lee AWL, Neo ERK, Khoo Z-Y, Yeo Z, Tan YS, Chng S, Yan W, Lok BK, Low JSC. Life cycle assessment of single-use surgical and embedded filtration layer (EFL) reusable face mask. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2021;170:105580. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105580. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Confederation of Paper Industries. Health Sciences Authority, 2020.
- 18.ISPRA. Rapporto rifiuti urbani 2019. Available online: https://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/pubblicazioni/rapporti/rapporto-rifiuti-urbani-edizione-2019-dati-di-sintesi
- 19.ENI. Available online: http://www.eniscuola.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/pdf_rifiuti_6.pdf
- 20.Guangzhou Yubo Machinery Technology Co., Ltd. Available online: https://www.yubomachinery.com/.
- 21.Zhangjiagang MG Machinery Co., Ltd. Available online: https://www.machinemg.com/
- 22.Comez International s.r.l. Available online: https://www.comez.com/.
- 23.Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMF, Stam G, Verones F, Vieira MDM, Hollander A, Zijp M, vanZelm R. ReCiPe 2016 – A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level – Report I: Characterization – RIVM Report 2016-0104. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, 2016.
- 24.Rodriguez NB, Formentini G, Favi C, Marconi M. Engineering Design Process of Face Masks Based on Circularity and Life Cycle Assessment in the Constraint of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability. 2021;13:4948. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Nonwovens Industry. Available online: https://www.nonwovens-industry.com/issues/2015-05-01/view_features/meltblown-pla-nonwoven-materials-push-the-innovation-index-forward/