Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
2.
ACS Appl Mater Interfaces ; 13(43): 51132-51140, 2021 Nov 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1483083

ABSTRACT

Apart from claiming the lives of more than 3.2 million people, the COVID-19 pandemic is worsening the global plastic pollution every day, mainly with the overflux of single-use polypropylene (PP) face masks. In this scenario, as an innovative solution to mitigate plastic pollution as well as to meet the rising electrical energy demand, we are introducing an all-flexible and facile waste material-based triboelectric nanogenerator (WM-TENG), aiding toward the circular economy. The WM-TENG operating in contact separation mode is fabricated using the PP from a used face mask in combination with recovered Mylar sheets from solid wastes as triboelectric contact layers and a flexible supporting structure. After detailed investigation and trials to study the effect of various disinfection mechanisms of PP materials on the energy output of WM-TENG, UV-C radiation is selected for disinfecting the used masks owing to the retention of electrical energy output. Under a tapping force of 3 N, the WM-TENG having an active area of 6 cm2 delivers an open-circuit voltage of 200 V and a short-circuit current density of 0.29 mA/m2, respectively. The WM-TENG also delivered a maximum power density of 71.16 mW/m2 under 108 Ω load. Additionally, the WM-TENG is demonstrated for powering electronic gadgets such as a calculator, digital thermometer, and LCD clock. This flexible and low-cost nanogenerator without any complex fabrication steps is a sustainable solution for the alarming plastic pollution as well as the rising energy demands.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/economics , Electric Power Supplies/economics , Masks/economics , Nanotechnology/economics , Polypropylenes/economics , Waste Products/economics , Humans
3.
PLoS One ; 16(9): e0257806, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1443844

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Most universities that re-open in the United States (US) for in-person instruction have implemented the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) guidelines. The value of additional interventions to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is unclear. We calculated the cost-effectiveness and cases averted of each intervention in combination with implementing the CDC guidelines. METHODS: We built a decision-analytic model to examine the cost-effectiveness of interventions to re-open universities. The interventions included implementing the CDC guidelines alone and in combination with 1) a symptom-checking mobile application, 2) university-provided standardized, high filtration masks, 3) thermal cameras for temperature screening, 4) one-time entry ('gateway') polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, and 5) weekly PCR testing. We also modeled a package of interventions ('package intervention') that combines the CDC guidelines with using the symptom-checking mobile application, standardized masks, gateway PCR testing, and weekly PCR testing. The direct and indirect costs were calculated in 2020 US dollars. We also provided an online interface that allows the user to change model parameters. RESULTS: All interventions averted cases of COVID-19. When the prevalence of actively infectious cases reached 0.1%, providing standardized, high filtration masks saved money and improved health relative to implementing the CDC guidelines alone and in combination with using the symptom-checking mobile application, thermal cameras, and gateway testing. Compared with standardized masks, weekly PCR testing cost $9.27 million (95% Credible Interval [CrI]: cost-saving-$77.36 million)/QALY gained. Compared with weekly PCR testing, the 'package' intervention cost $137,877 (95% CrI: $3,108-$19.11 million)/QALY gained. At both a prevalence of 1% and 2%, the 'package' intervention saved money and improved health compared to all the other interventions. CONCLUSIONS: All interventions were effective at averting infection from COVID-19. However, when the prevalence of actively infectious cases in the community was low, only standardized, high filtration masks clearly provided value.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/economics , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , Masks/economics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , United States , Universities
4.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 17680, 2021 09 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1392893

ABSTRACT

The Covid-19 pandemic led to threatening shortages in healthcare of medical products such as face masks. Due to this major impact on our healthcare society an initiative was conducted between March and July 2020 for reprocessing of face masks from 19 different hospitals. This exceptional opportunity was used to study the costs impact and the carbon footprint of reprocessed face masks relative to new disposable face masks. The aim of this study is to conduct a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to assess and compare the climate change impact of disposed versus reprocessed face masks. In total 18.166 high quality medical FFP2 face masks were reprocessed through steam sterilization between March and July 2020. Greenhouse gas emissions during production, transport, sterilization and end-of-life processes were assessed. The background life cycle inventory data were retrieved from the ecoinvent database. The life cycle impact assessment method ReCiPe was used to translate emissions into climate change impact. The cost analysis is based on actual sterilization as well as associated costs compared to the prices of new disposable face masks. A Monte Carlo sampling was used to propagate the uncertainty of different inputs to the LCA results. The carbon footprint appears to be 58% lower for face masks which were reused for five times compared to new face masks which were used for one time only. The sensitivity analysis indicated that the loading capacity of the autoclave and rejection rate of face masks has a large influence on the carbon footprint. The estimated cost price of a reprocessed mask was €1.40 against €1.55. The Life Cycle Assessment demonstrates that reprocessed FFP2 face masks from a circular economy perspective have a lower climate change impact on the carbon footprint than new face masks. For policymakers it is important to realize that the carbon footprint of medical products such as face masks may be reduced by means of circular economy strategies. This study demonstrated a lower climate change impact and lower costs when reprocessing and reusing disposable face masks for five times. Therefore, this study may serve as an inspiration for investigating reprocessing of other medical products that may become scarce. Finally, this study advocates that circular design engineering principles should be taken into account when designing medical devices. This will lead to more sustainable products that have a lower carbon footprint and may be manufactured at lower costs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Equipment Reuse/economics , Masks/economics , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Sterilization/economics , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans
5.
Am J Trop Med Hyg ; 105(1): 81-87, 2021 05 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1236889

ABSTRACT

Shortages of essential supplies used to prevent, diagnose, and treat COVID-19 have been a global concern, and price speculation and hikes may have negatively influenced access. This study identifies variability in prices of products acquired through government-driven contracts in Ecuador during the early pandemic response, when the highest mortality rates were registered in a single day. Data were obtained from the National Public Procurement Service (SERCOP) database between March 1 and July 31, 2020. A statistical descriptive analysis was conducted to extract relevant measures for commonly purchased products, medical devices, pharmaceutical drugs, and other goods. Among the most frequently purchased products, the greatest amounts were spent on face masks (US$4.5 million), acetaminophen (US$2.2 million), and reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay kits (US$1.8 million). Prices varied greatly, depending on each individual contract and on the number of units purchased; some were exceptionally higher than their market value. Compared with 2019, the mean price of medical examination gloves increased up to 1,307%, acetaminophen 500 mg pills, up to 796%, and oxygen flasks, 30.8%. In a context of budgetary constraints that actually required an effective use of available funds, speculative price hikes may have limited patient access to health care and the protection of the general population and health care workers. COVID-19 vaccine allocations to privileged individuals have also been widely reported. Price caps and other forms of regulation, as well as greater scrutiny and transparency of government-driven purchases, and investment in local production, are warranted in Ecuador for improved infectious disease prevention.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Personal Protective Equipment/economics , SARS-CoV-2 , Acetaminophen/economics , Analgesics, Non-Narcotic/economics , COVID-19 Vaccines/supply & distribution , Economics, Hospital , Ecuador/epidemiology , Health Personnel , Humans , Masks/economics , Time Factors
6.
PLoS One ; 16(4): e0249677, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1194500

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused severe health and economic impacts globally. Strategies to safely reopen economies, travel and trade are a high priority. Until a reliable vaccine is available, non-pharmaceutical techniques are the only available means of disease control. In this paper, we aim to evaluate the extent to which social distancing (SD) and facemask (FM) use can mitigate the transmission of COVID-19 when restrictions are lifted. We used a microsimulation activity-based model for Sydney Greater Metropolitan Area, to evaluate the power of SD and FM in controlling the pandemic under numerous scenarios. The hypothetical scenarios are designed to picture feasible futures under different assumptions. Assuming that the isolation of infected cases and the quarantining of close contacts are in place, different numerical tests are conducted and a full factorial two-way MANOVA test is used to evaluate the effectiveness of the FM and SD control strategies. The main and interactive effects of the containment strategies are evaluated by the total number of infections, percentage of infections reduction, the time it takes to get the pandemic under control, and the intensity of active cases.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/prevention & control , Masks/economics , Masks/trends , Physical Distancing , Humans , Models, Theoretical , Pandemics/prevention & control , Quarantine , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Travel
7.
Int J Psychol ; 56(4): 607-622, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1136986

ABSTRACT

Nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPI) such as stay-at-home orders aim at curbing the spread of the novel coronavirus, SARS-COV-2. In March 2020, a large proportion of the German population supported such interventions. In this article, we analyse whether the support for NPI dwindle with economic worries superimposing virus-related worries in the months to follow. We test seven pre-registered1 hypotheses using data from the German COSMO survey (Betsch, Wieler, Habersaat, et al. 2020), which regularly monitors behavioural and psychological factors related to the pandemic. The present article covers the period from March 24, 2020 to July 7, 2020 (Ntotal  = 13,094), and, in addition, includes a validation study providing evidence for the reliability and validity of the corresponding COSMO measures (N = 612). Results revealed that virus-related worries decreased over time, whereas economic worries remained largely constant. Moreover, the acceptance of NPIs considerably decreased over time. Virus-related worries were positively associated with acceptance of NPIs, whereas this relationship was negative regarding economic worries (albeit smaller and less consistent). Unexpectedly, no interactions between virus-related worries and economic worries were found. We conclude that individual differences in virus-related and economic threat perceptions related to COVID-19 play an important role in the acceptance of NPIs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/psychology , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , Socioeconomic Factors , Surveys and Questionnaires , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anxiety/economics , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/psychology , Anxiety/therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Masks/economics , Masks/trends , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Reproducibility of Results , Young Adult
8.
J Infect Dev Ctries ; 15(1): 51-57, 2021 Jan 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1079733

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a global pandemic. The virus spreads through respiratory droplets and close contact. Therefore, the availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare professionals is essential. 3D printing technology could represent a valid option to ameliorate PPE shortages. METHODOLOGY: Custom-made face mask were designed on the basis of facial scan and then 3D-printed. The whole protocol is executed with freeware software and only required a 3D printer. Six healthcare workers wore the device weekly thus expressing a judgment regarding quality of work, respiratory and skin comfort. RESULTS: The estimated total cost of a single mask is approximately 5 USD. The virtual design of a complete mask lasted 68 minutes on average. Most healthcare workers rated comfort as very good. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the encouraging results obtained, we can confidently confirm that custom-made masks are novel and useful devices that may be used in the fight against COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Equipment Design/methods , Masks/standards , Printing, Three-Dimensional , Equipment Design/instrumentation , Female , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Masks/economics , Printing, Three-Dimensional/economics
9.
Anaesthesia ; 76(5): 617-622, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1066603

ABSTRACT

Disposable N95 respirator masks are the current standard for healthcare worker respiratory protection in the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to shortages, qualitative fit testing can have low sensitivity for detecting poor fit, leading to inconsistent protection. Multiple groups have developed alternative solutions such as modified snorkel masks to overcome these limitations, but validation of these solutions has been lacking. We sought to determine if N95s and snorkel masks with attached high-efficiency filters provide consistent protection levels in healthcare workers and if the addition of positive pressure via an inexpensive powered-air purifying respirator to the snorkel mask would provide enhanced protection. Fifty-one healthcare workers who were qualitatively fitted with N95 masks underwent quantitative mask fit testing according to a simulated workplace exercise protocol. N95, snorkel masks with high-efficiency filters and snorkel masks with powered-air purifying respirators were tested. Respiratory filtration ratios were collected for each step and averaged to obtain an overall workplace protocol fit factor. Failure was defined as either an individual filtration ratio or an overall fit factor below 100. N95s and snorkel masks with high-efficiency filters failed one or more testing steps in 59% and 20% of participants, respectively, and 24% and 12% failed overall fit factors, respectively. The snorkel masks with powered-air purifying respirators had zero individual or overall failures. N95 and snorkel masks with high-efficiency filter respirators were found to provide inconsistent respiratory protection in healthcare workers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Cost-Benefit Analysis/standards , Health Personnel/standards , Masks/standards , N95 Respirators/standards , Adult , COVID-19/economics , Cohort Studies , Equipment Design/economics , Equipment Design/standards , Female , Health Personnel/economics , Humans , Male , Masks/economics , Middle Aged , N95 Respirators/economics , Occupational Exposure/economics , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment/economics , Personal Protective Equipment/standards , Prospective Studies , Reproducibility of Results
10.
J Craniofac Surg ; 31(6): e640-e642, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1052239

ABSTRACT

On January 8, 2020, a novel coronavirus was officially announced as the causative pathogen of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.On February 26, COVID-19 has been recognized in 34 countries, with a total of 80,239 laboratory-confirmed patients and 2700 deaths.Protecting healthcare workers from infectious hazards is paramount to ensuring their safety in delivering health care.In addition, being able to protect healthcare workers, constituting the front-line response against high-threat respiratory pathogens, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, is important for reducing secondary transmission in healthcare-associated outbreaks.Authors present a simple, reliable, and cheap protocol to produce a custom-made sterilizable filtering facepiece 2/3 masks for healthcare providers during pandemic COVID-19 emergency.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Masks/supply & distribution , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Humans , Masks/economics , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , SARS-CoV-2 , Sterilization
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL