Life cycle assessment studies to evaluate the sustainability of various facemasks used during COVID-19: A UAE case study

A pandemic of a novel Coronavirus emerged in December of 2019 (COVID-19), causing devastating public health impact across the world. In the absence of a safe and effective vaccine or antivirals, strategies for controlling and mitigating the burden of the pandemic are focused on non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as social-distancing, contact-tracing, quarantine, isolation, and the use of face-masks in public. We develop a new mathematical model for assessing the population-level impact of the aforementioned control and mitigation strategies. Rigorous analysis of the model shows that the disease-free equilibrium is locally-asymptotically stable if a certain epidemiological threshold, known as the reproduction number (denoted by ℛ c ), is less than unity. Simulations of the model, using data relevant to COVID-19 transmission dynamics in the US state of New York and the entire US, show that the pandemic burden will peak in mid and late April, respectively. The worst-case scenario projections for cumulative mortality (based on the baseline levels of anti-COVID non-pharmaceutical interventions considered in the study) decrease dramatically by 80% and 64%, respectively, if the strict social-distancing measures implemented are maintained until the end of May or June, 2020. The duration and timing of the relaxation or termination of the strict social-distancing measures are crucially-important in determining the future trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study shows that early termination of the strict social-distancing measures could trigger a devastating second wave with burden similar to those projected before the onset of the strict social-distancing measures were implemented. The use of efficacious face-masks (such as surgical masks, with estimated efficacy ≥ 70%) in public could lead to the elimination of the pandemic if at least 70% of the residents of New York state use such masks in public consistently (nationwide, a compliance of at least 80% will be required using such masks). The use of low efficacy masks, such as cloth masks (of estimated efficacy less than 30%), could also lead to significant reduction of COVID-19 burden (albeit, they are not able to lead to elimination). Combining low efficacy masks with improved levels of the other anti-COVID-19 intervention strategies can lead to the elimination of the pandemic. This study emphasizes the important role social-distancing plays in curtailing the burden of COVID-19. Increases in the adherence level of social-distancing protocols result in dramatic reduction of the burden of the pandemic, and the timely implementation of social-distancing measures in numerous states of the US may have averted a catastrophic outcome with respect to the burden of COVID-19. Using face-masks in public (including the low efficacy cloth masks) is very useful in minimizing community transmission and burden of COVID-19, provided their coverage level is high. The masks coverage needed to eliminate COVID-19 decreases if the masks-based intervention is combined with the strict social-distancing strategy.

Study design Systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 standard World Health Organization-specific and COVID-19-specific sources through May 3, 2020. Key findings In a review of 25,697 patients, transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 meter or more compared with less than 1 meter. Protection was increased as distance was lengthened (absolute risk, 3% with longer distance vs 13% with shorter distance). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of interaction (adjusted risk, 3% with face masks vs 17% without). There was a stronger association with protection using N95 masks compared with disposable surgical masks or reusable cotton masks. Eye protection also was associated with less infection. Conclusion These findings support physical distancing of 1 meter or more. Optimum use of face masks and eye protection in public and health care settings should be informed by these findings. Commentary Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person to person through close contact. With no effective pharmacologic interventions or vaccine expected in the near future, reducing the rate of infection (flattening the curve) is a priority. Added benefits are likely with even larger physical distances, such as 2 meters (6 feet, which we keep hearing about) or more. The use of face masks, including N95 and surgical or similar masks (12- to 16-layer cotton or gauze masks), and eye protection is clearly beneficial. For the general public, this report confirms previous recommendations that physical distancing of more than 1 meter is highly effective and that face masks are associated with protection. Other basic measures, such as hand hygiene, are still needed. I am growing more disheartened by my fellow man (and woman) as things open up during the pandemic. This past weekend, I went to a barbecue outside of Philadelphia, which was attended by many physicians, and to my older brother’s outdoor 70th birthday party in northern New Jersey, which was especially hard-hit by the virus. At both events, none of the guests wore masks but would sidle up to my wife, my son, and me as if everything were normal. I can think of four reasons that people would not follow recommendations such as maintaining at least 3- to 6-foot distancing and wearing face masks: (1) they know they don’t have the virus (even without being tested); (2) they know they won’t get sick because they’re young, or they’re older but otherwise healthy; (3) they don’t believe the science (I don’t have patience for these people); or (4) they believe we are all going to get the virus anyway, so get it over with and let’s move on (I know very intelligent people who support this last reason). I don’t want to tread political waters, but I wish these individuals would acknowledge there may be others who don’t agree with this laissez-faire reasoning. Some people may want to maintain social distancing at an outdoor event—and maybe even wear a face mask.

The ongoing COVID-19 disease significantly affects not only human health, it also affects the wealth of country’ economy and everyday routine of human life. To control the spread of the virus, face mask is used as primary personal protective equipment (PPE). Thus, the production and usage of face masks significantly increase as the COVID-19 pandemic still escalating. Further, most of these masks contain plastics or other derivatives of plastics. Therefore, this extensive usage of face masks generates million tons of plastic wastes to the environments in a short span of time. This study aims to investigate the environmental impact induced by face mask wastes and sustainable solution to reduce this waste. An online survey was carried out to identify the types of face mask and number of masks used per week by an individual from 1033 people. Based on this survey and available literature, this study quantifies the amount of plastics waste generated by face masks. However, this survey was limited with certain ages, country and durations (July–August 2020). Thus, the prediction of plastic waste generation, only provide fundamental knowledge about the mask wastes. Results revealed that there is a huge plastic waste remained in land and marine environment in the form of mask waste, which will contribute to micro-plastic pollution. Therefore, this paper also highlights the sustainable approach to the mask production by integrating the use of natural plant fiber in the woven face mask technology to reduce the plastic waste induced by masks. Further, upcycling the mask waste and producing construction materials also discussed.