Three million face masks are discarded every minute as a result of mass adoption during the coronavirus pandemic, and experts warn it could soon lead to environmental catastrophe.
Face coverings are being worn by the majority of individuals around the world in order to curb the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus which causes Covid-19.
However, they pose a greater risk to the environment than carrier bags because of their ubiquity and the fact there is no way to safely decontaminate and recycle them.
In an article published by the University of Southern Denmark, experts call the huge amount of face masks being worn and thrown away a ‘ticking time bomb’.
They add that littering is causing masks to break down into dangerous microfibres and they may also be carrying harmful chemicals into the environment.
Three million face masks are discarded every minute as a result of mass adoption during the coronavirus pandemic, and experts warn it could soon lead to environmental catastrophe
Face coverings are being worn by the majority of individuals around the world in order to curb the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus which causes Covid-19
Environmental Toxicologist Elvis Genbo Xu from the University of Southern Denmark and Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering Zhiyong Jason Ren from Princeton University penned an article on the topic in the journal Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering.
And the conundrum of what to do with the recent deluge of masks truly is a new frontier for scientists, who have never before been faced with such a rapid explosion of a product for which there is no established responsible disposal method.
‘With increasing reports on inappropriate disposal of masks, it is urgent to recognise this potential environmental threat and prevent it from becoming the next plastic problem,’ the researchers warn.
Disposable face masks, although excellent at reducing viral transmission, are tricky when it comes to recycling as they are made from many different materials.
‘The common disposable surgical masks are made of three layers,’ the researchers explain.
‘The outer layer is made up of nonabsorbent material (e.g., polyester) that protects against liquid splashes.
‘The middle layer is non-woven fabrics (e. g., polypropylene and polystyrene) created using a meltblowing process, which prevents droplets and aerosols via an electrostatic effect.
‘The inner layer is made of absorbent material like cotton to absorb vapour.’
This graphic shows the potential environmental impact of face masks and what they can do to nature if not properly disposed of
In an article published by the University of Southern Denmark, experts call the huge amount of face masks being worn and thrown away a ‘ticking time bomb’
This all ensures adequate filtration, comfort and durability to protect the wearer and others from infectious droplets which may contain a pathogen.
Production of face masks is now on par with plastic bottles, at around 43 billion items a month.
But due to dogged efforts from green campaigners to improve recycling over many years, one in four bottles are now fully recycled. In contrast, no masks are.
If recklessly thrown away into nature, masks break down into micro and nanoplastic fibres in a matter of weeks.
These tiny fibres, less than 5mm and 1mm in size, respectively, pose a huge risk to animal and human health.
Microplastics have been found to travel on air currents and have been spotted in the most desolate parts of the world, including the Alps, Antarctica and the ‘death zone’ of Mt Everest.
The researchers put forward a variety of ways in which the environmental fallout of face masks can be minimised.
‘The environmental research community needs to move fast to understand and mitigate [the risks masks pose to the environment],’ they write.
‘Critical thinking of the three ‘Rs’ can be valuable: regulate (life-cycle evaluation on production, disposal and decontamination), reuse (disposable masks), and replace (biodegradable materials) single-use masks.’
They also recommend people switch, wherever possible, to cotton face masks opposed to disposable alternatives.