The environmental impacts of different mask options for healthcare settings in the UK.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, different strategies emerged to combat shortages of certified face masks used in the healthcare sector. These strategies included increasing production from the original manufacturing sites, commissioning new production facilities locally, exploring and allowing the reuse of single-use face masks via various decontamination methods, and developing reusable mask alternatives that meet the health and safety requirements set out in European Standards. In this article, we quantify and evaluate the life-cycle environmental impacts of selected mask options available for use by healthcare workers in the UK, with the objective of supporting decision- and policy-making. We investigate alternatives to traditional single-use face masks like surgical masks and respirators (or FFP3 masks), including cloth masks decontaminated in washing machines; FFP3 masks decontaminated via vapour hydrogen peroxide, and rigid half masks cleaned with antibacterial wipes. Our analysis demonstrates that: (1) the reuse options analysed are environmentally preferential to the traditional "use then dispose" of masks; (2) the environmental benefits increase with the number of reuses; and (3) the manufacturing location and the material composition of the masks have great influence over the life-cycle environmental impacts of each mask use option, in particular for single-use options.

The environmental performance of protecting seedlings with plastic tree shelters for afforestation in temperate oceanic regions: A UK case study.

Restoration of forested land represents an effective strategy to achieve net-zero target emissions by enhancing the removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. The most common afforestation strategy envisages planting seedlings, which are germinated and grown to the desired age at tree nurseries, with plastic shelters to increase growth and survival of trees. This article presents a comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study that compares the environmental performance of current and prospective scenarios for shelter-aided seedling planting compared with a base case where shelters are not employed. The study focuses on the UK, but results and conclusions are valid for other temperate oceanic regions. The scenarios investigated are a combination of different shelters materials and end-of-life (EoL) strategies. Our analysis demonstrates that (i) planting seedling without shelters is the most preferable option across most environmental impact categories (including Climate Change), and in terms of weighted results, (ii) polypropylene shelters are preferable to bio-based alternatives, including polylactic acid-starch blends and bio-polypropylene, (iii) recycling is the most environmentally advantageous EoL treatment. Our study also showed that that the carbon emissions of the scenarios investigated are negligible when compared to the amount of carbon sequestered by a tree in 25 years.

The impact and effectiveness of the general public wearing masks to reduce the spread of pandemics in the UK: a multidisciplinary comparison of single-use masks versus reusable face masks.

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.