Attached is the manuscript of our Open Commentary en i led The environmental dangers of employing single-use face masks as part of a COVID-19 exit strategy hich my co-authors and I would like to submit for publication in the journal UCL Open: Environment. We, the authors of this paper, are a multidisciplinary group of academics including chemists, materials scientists, engineers, designers, artists, and social scientists from University College London. We are part of the UCL Plastic Waste Innovation Hub whose aim is to develop new ways of designing-out waste from plastic packaging (https://www.plasticwastehub.org.uk). In this Open Commentary we are responding to the current situation in the UK where the general population is under lockdown measures as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Without an available vaccine the government is considering different policy options to enable the restoration of freedom of movement and to restart the economy. One measure being considered by many countries is the mandatory wearing of face masks by the general population. This is due to a growing body of evidence to suggest that even basic face masks can be effective in reducing the spread of the virus, by reducing the range and volume of exhaled water droplets containing SARS-CoV-2. Although the World Health Organisation (WHO) does not currently recommend this measure as a means of preventing the spread of COVID-19, a growing number of countries have been adopting this precautionary measure including China, South Korea, Germany, Scotland, Spain amongst many others. In the UK due to shortages of PPE to supply to front-line workers in the hospitals and care homes, there is reluctance to adopt this measure in case this intensifies the shortage of PPE. If and when such PPE shortages abate there may be growing pressure to adopt this precautionary measure. The aim of this paper is to examine the environmental impact of the UK adopting masks for the general population in particular the amount of contaminated plastic waste produced. We conclude that if the government decides to require the wearing of face masks in public, it should mandate reusable masks and not single-use masks. This will preserve single-use mask supplies for front-line healthcare workers, and reduce the environmental risks associated with the disposal of 66,000 tonnes of contaminated plastic mask waste in the household waste stream. Additionally, the use of reusable masks by the general population would significantly reduce plastic waste and the climate change impact of this policy measure. The methodology of the paper is applicable to the analysis of other countries whose use of single-use masks is also likely to be an important environmental issue for the next 12 months.

Based on the Actiotope Model of Giftedness, this article introduces a learningresource-oriented approach for gifted education. It provides a comprehensive categorization of learning resources, including five exogenous learning resources termed educational capital and five endogenous learning resources termed learning capital. Evidence from the literature is presented that supports the validity of each of the categories. Finally, 12 implications of a learning resource orientation for gifted education are discussed in relation to four areas: gifted education orientations, gifted identification, gifted education principles, and gifted learning resources management.

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.

This study examined the academic and affective profiles of gifted students who were classified under the five prototypes of low-income White students, low-income African American students, low-income other minority students, high nonverbal and low verbal students, and twice-exceptional students. A total of 37 vignettes were developed and analyzed based on interviews with selected students, their teachers, and parents. Within and cross-prototype themes were derived. Both cognitive and affective impacts were found, suggesting the power of gifted program membership on enhancing self-confidence and building higher level skills of communication and thinking. All groups interviewed appeared to think that the gifted program had been good for the students in the study, providing challenge at the cognitive level and self-confidence at the affective level. Differences that emerged through the analysis of stakeholder perspectives suggested that students were the least aware of learning problems, but more aware than their parents or teachers of the affective and social issues affecting them. Parents seemed most attuned to their child's heightened self-esteem as a result of identification and program participation. Teachers seemed very aware of learning problems displayed by the child, typically related to perceived motivation, organization, and social skills.