Which strategy for using medical and community masks? A prospective analysis of their environmental impact.
COVID-19
health & safety
public health
Journal
BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 09 2021
06 09 2021
Historique:
entrez:
7
9
2021
pubmed:
8
9
2021
medline:
11
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The use of personal protective equipment, especially medical masks, increased dramatically during the COVID-19 crisis. Medical masks are made of synthetic materials, mainly polypropylene, and a majority of them are produced in China and imported to the European market. The urgency of the need has so far prevailed over environmental considerations. Assess the environmental impact of different strategies for the use of face mask. A prospective analysis was conducted to assess the environmental impact of different strategies for the use of medical and community masks. Eight scenarios, differentiating the typologies of masks and the modes of reuse are compared using three environmental impact indicators: the Global Warming Potential (GWP100), the ecological scarcity (UBP method, from German 'Umweltbelastungpunkte') and the plastic leakage (PL). This study attempts to provide clear recommendations that consider both the environmental impact and the protective effectiveness of face masks used in the community. The environmental impact of single-use masks is the most unfavourable, with a GWP of 0.4-1.3 kg CO The use of medical masks with a wait and reuse strategy seems to be the most appropriate when considering both environmental impact and effectiveness. Our results also highlight the need to develop procedures and the legal/operational framework to extend the use of protective equipment during a pandemic.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34489285
pii: bmjopen-2021-049690
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049690
pmc: PMC8423512
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e049690Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Mar Pollut Bull. 2020 Oct;159:111517
pubmed: 32763564
ACS Nano. 2020 May 26;14(5):6348-6356
pubmed: 32368894
Lancet Microbe. 2020 May;1(1):e10
pubmed: 32835322
Extreme Mech Lett. 2020 Oct;40:100924
pubmed: 32835043
Heliyon. 2021 Feb;7(2):e06343
pubmed: 33655084
Science. 2015 Feb 13;347(6223):768-71
pubmed: 25678662
Research (Wash D C). 2020 Aug 7;2020:7286735
pubmed: 32832908
Joule. 2020 Jul 15;4(7):1337-1341
pubmed: 32835174
Nature. 2021 Jan;589(7842):343
pubmed: 33452515
PLoS One. 2012;7(1):e29744
pubmed: 22295066
PeerJ. 2019 Jun 26;7:e7142
pubmed: 31289698
Sci Total Environ. 2020 Oct 1;737:140279
pubmed: 32563114
Emerg Infect Dis. 2009 Feb;15(2):233-41
pubmed: 19193267
Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2020 Jul;127:109883
pubmed: 34234614
Public Health Rep. 2010 Mar-Apr;125(2):178-91
pubmed: 20297744
Energy (Oxf). 2020 Nov 15;211:118701
pubmed: 32868962
J Hosp Infect. 2020 Sep;106(1):10-19
pubmed: 32652212
Mar Pollut Bull. 2020 Dec;161(Pt B):111777
pubmed: 33099058
J Aerosol Sci. 2020 Dec;150:105609
pubmed: 32834104
Chem Eng J. 2021 Feb 1;405:126683
pubmed: 32834764
Sci Total Environ. 2020 Nov 20;744:140851
pubmed: 32755777
Euro Surveill. 2020 Dec;25(49):
pubmed: 33303066
Health Soc Care Community. 2021 Sep;29(5):1522-1529
pubmed: 33125773