Applicability of Membranes in Protective Face Masks and Comparison of Reusable and Disposable Face Masks with Life Cycle Assessment
In the COVID-19 pandemic period, the role of face masks is critical as a protective physical barrier to prevent droplets and filtrate exhalations coming from infected subjects or against various environmental threats, including the SARS-Cov-2 virus. However, the plastic and microplastic waste from t...
Guardado en:
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | article |
Lenguaje: | EN |
Publicado: |
MDPI AG
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/46e5346c8bb24139840d0957726b554e |
Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
Sumario: | In the COVID-19 pandemic period, the role of face masks is critical as a protective physical barrier to prevent droplets and filtrate exhalations coming from infected subjects or against various environmental threats, including the SARS-Cov-2 virus. However, the plastic and microplastic waste from the used face masks pollute the environment, cause a negative impact on human health and the natural ecosystem, as well as increase landfill and medical waste. The presented paper focuses on providing an overview of the application of membrane technology in face mask products as well as the development of protection mechanisms in the future. The authors performed an environmental analysis of reusable (cloth) masks and disposable masks (surgical masks and filtering facepiece respirators) using the Life Cycle Assessment methodology to assess the impacts on the environment, human health, and ecosystem. IMPACT 2002+ V2.14, ReCiPe 2016 Endpoint (H) V1.02, IPCC 2013 GWP 100a V1.03 methods were applied using specialized software (SimaPro V9.1). The disposable masks consistently provide higher protection, though they also carry several multiple environmental burdens. Conversely, reusable masks improve environmental performance, reduce 85% of waste, have a 3.39 times lower impact on climate change, and are 3.7 times cheaper than disposable masks. |
---|