Coronavirus face masks could create an environmental disaster that will last generations
Hazardous to people and animals
Initially, discarded masks may risk spreading coronavirus to waste collectors, litter pickers, or members of the public who first come across the litter. We know that in certain conditions, the virus cansurvive on a plastic surgical maskfor seven days.
Over the medium to long term, animals and plants are also affected. Through its sheer mass, plastic waste cansmother environmentsand break up ecosystems. Some animals also cannot tell the difference between plastic items and their prey, subsequentlychoking on pieces of litter.
[Read:Most mobile apps suck — here’s how to fix them]
Even if they do not choke, animals can become malnourished as the materialsfill up their stomachsbut provide no nutrients. Smaller animals may also becomeentangledin the elastic within the masks or within gloves as they begin to break apart.
Plastics break down into smaller pieces over time, and the longer litter is in the environment, the more it will decompose. Plastics first break down intomicroplasticsand eventually into even smaller nanoplastics. These tiny particles and fibers are often long-lived polymers that can accumulate in food chains. Just one mask can produce millions of particles, each with the potential to also carrychemicalsandbacteriaup the food chain and potentially even into humans.
Littered areas also tend toencourage further littering, making the problem worse.
What you should do
In March, the World Health Organization estimated that89 million additional disposable maskswere needed globally per month in medical settings to combat COVID-19. In addition, a recent working paper by the Plastic Waste Innovation Hub at University College London has put the current domestic demand for the UK at24.7 billionmasks a year. However, the demand for domestic face masks in the UK drops dramatically – to around 136 million a year – if only reusable masks are used.
But even with reusable masks, their specific design andhow you choose to clean themmakes a difference. The University College London team examined the manufacture, use, and disposal of masks that were disposable, reusable, and reusable with disposable filters, to calculate their overall environmental impact. They found machine washing reusable masks with no filters had the lowest impact over a year.
Hand washing masks increased the environmental impact as – while machine washing uses electricity – manual washing uses more water and detergent for each mask. Disposable filters also increase the environmental impact because the small filters are often made from plastic similar to the disposable masks, with a filter discarded after every use.
Perhaps surprisingly, the working paper estimates that hand washing reusable masks with disposable filters had the highest environmental impact overall – higher even than using fully disposable masks.
With all of this in mind, we should take these steps to reduce the impact of wearing a face mask:
This article is republished fromThe ConversationbyKeiron Philip Roberts, Research Fellow in Clean Carbon Technologies and Resource Management,University of Portsmouth;Cressida Bowyer, Senior Research Fellow in the Faculty of Creative and Cultural Industries,University of Portsmouth;Simon Kolstoe, Senior Lecturer in Evidence Based Healthcare and University Ethics Advisor,University of Portsmouth, andSteve Fletcher, Professor of Ocean Policy and Economy,University of Portsmouthunder a Creative Commons license. Read theoriginal article.
Story byThe Conversation
An independent news and commentary website produced by academics and journalists.An independent news and commentary website produced by academics and journalists.
Get the TNW newsletter
Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week.
