Affiliations 

  • 1 Henan Province Forest Resources Sustainable Development and High-value Utilization Engineering Research Center, School of Forestry, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450002, China
  • 2 Biofuel Research Team (BRTeam), Terengganu, Malaysia
  • 3 Key Laboratory of the Three Gorges Reservoir Region's Eco-Environment, Ministry of Education, Chongqing University, Chongqing, 400045, China
  • 4 Higher Institution Centre of Excellence (HICoE), Institute of Tropical Aquaculture and Fisheries (AKUATROP), Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, 21030 Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia
  • 5 Centre for Human Health and Performance, Department of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
J Clean Prod, 2021 Sep 01;313:127880.
PMID: 34131367 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127880

Abstract

On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization identified SARS-CoV-2 as a public health emergency of global concern. Accordingly, the demand for personal protective equipment (PPE), including medical face masks, has sharply risen compared with 2019. The new situation has led to a sharp increase in energy demand and the environmental impacts associated with these product systems. Hence, the pandemic's effects on the environmental consequences of various PPE types, such as medical face masks, should be assessed. In light of that, the current study aimed to identify the environmental hot-spots of medical face mask production and consumption by using life cycle assessment (LCA) and tried to provide solutions to mitigate the adverse impacts. Based on the results obtained, in 2020, medical face masks production using fossil-based plastics causes the loss of 2.03 × 103 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs); 1.63 × 108 PDF*m2*yr damage to ecosystem quality; the climate-damaging release of 2.13 × 109 kg CO2eq; and 5.65 × 1010 MJ damage to resources. Besides, annual medical face mask production results in 5.88 × 104 TJ demand for exergy. On the other hand, if used makes are not appropriately handled, they can lead to 4.99 × 105 Pt/yr additional damage to the environment in 2020 as determined by the EDIP 2003. Replacement of fossil-based plastics with bio-based plastics, at rates ranging from 10 to 100%, could mitigate the product's total yearly environmental damage by 4-43%, respectively. Our study calls attention to the environmental sustainability of PPE used to prevent virus transmission in the current and future pandemics.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.