| Summary: | <p class="first" id="d207098e237">During the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the UK government mandated the use of
face masks in various public settings and recommended the use of reusable masks to
combat shortages of medically graded single-use masks in healthcare. To assist decision-making
on the choice of masks for future pandemics, where shortages may not be a contributing
factor, the University College London (UCL) Plastic Waste Innovation Hub has carried
out a multidisciplinary comparison between single-use and reusable masks based on
their anatomy, standalone effectiveness, behavioural considerations, environmental
impact and costs. Although current single-use masks have a higher standalone effectiveness
against bacteria and viruses, studies show that reusable masks have adequate performance
in slowing infection rates of respiratory viruses. Material flow analysis (MFA), life
cycle assessment (LCA) and cost comparison show that reusable masks have a lower environmental
and economic impact than single-use masks. If every person in the UK uses one single-use
mask each day for a year, it will create a total of 124,000 tonnes of waste, 66,000
tonnes of which would be unrecyclable contaminated plastic waste (the masks), with
the rest being the recyclable packaging typically used for transportation and distribution
of masks. Using reusable masks creates >85% less waste, generates 3.5 times lower
impact on climate change and incurs 3.7 times lower costs. Further behavioural research
is necessary to understand the extent and current practices of mask use; and how these
practices affect mask effectiveness in reducing infection rates. Wearing single-use
masks may be preferred over reusable masks due to perceptions of increased hygiene
and convenience. Understanding behaviour towards the regular machine-washing of reusable
masks for their effective reuse is key to maximise their public health benefits and
minimise environmental and economic costs.
</p>
|
|---|