Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

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.

Objective

Assess the environmental impact of different strategies for the use of face mask.

Method

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.

Results

The environmental impact of single-use masks is the most unfavourable, with a GWP of 0.4-1.3 kg CO₂ eq., depending on the transport scenario, and a PL of 1.8 g, for a 1 month protection against COVID-19. The use of home-made cotton masks and prolonged use of medical masks through wait-and-reuse are the scenarios with the lowest impact.

Conclusion

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.

SUBMITTER: Bouchet A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8423512 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks. SETTING:14 secondary-level/tertiary-level hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam. PARTICIPANTS:1607 hospital HCWs aged ?18?years working full-time in selected high-risk wards. INTERVENTION:Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:Clinical respiratory illness (CRI), influenza-like illness (ILI) and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection. RESULTS:The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. CONCLUSIONS:This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12610000887077.