Assessing face mask littering in urban environments and policy implications: The case of Bangkok

Abstract

Face mask usage is one of the preventive measures encouraged worldwide to limit the transmission of the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic. Hence, production and mass use of face masks is on the rise due to the pandemic as well as government rules that mandate citizens to wear face masks. However, the improper disposal of face masks has been polluting the environment with enormous hazardous waste. In this study, a face mask littering assessment in an urbanized environment, Bangkok, was carried out. Three streets in the city were selected and observed for face mask littering for 5 h per day for 42 days. Moreover, a questionnaire from 605 participants was recorded to determine mask handling and disposal practices. The study found a total of 170 single-use face masks within a 13.30 km path. Furthermore, the highest (40) and lowest (17) cumulative litter were recorded on Sunday and Monday, respectively. Buffer analysis at 300 m showed 47% of mask litter was found within five mass transit stations, while 15% are within a single street market. Of 605 respondents, 82.15% used a single-use face mask. Surprisingly, most of them (70.58%) disposed of used face masks in regular bins along with their household waste. The results highlight three policy implications to tackle the growing problem: raising awareness, regulation, and provision of bins designed for used face masks in strategic places and supporting innovations and research for eco-friendly face masks.

Effective recycling of disposable medical face masks for sustainable green concrete via a new fiber hybridization technique

“…Consequently, global use of face masks, especially disposable medical face masks (DMFMs), has soared to unprecedented levels. Before COVID-19, the annual global market for face masks was estimated to be approximately $0.73 billion; it is now expected to exceed $22 billion [7] . Due to a lack of environmental protection measures and public negligence, DMFMs are being discarded openly in the environment, in public places such as parks, streets, highways, beaches, and sewage channels resulting in tens of thousands of tons of non-biodegradable micro-plastic waste that eventually pollutes the natural environment [8] , [9] .…”

“…Due to a lack of environmental protection measures and public negligence, DMFMs are being discarded openly in the environment, in public places such as parks, streets, highways, beaches, and sewage channels resulting in tens of thousands of tons of non-biodegradable micro-plastic waste that eventually pollutes the natural environment [8] , [9] . The findings of recent surveys conducted in Bangkok [7] , Lima city [8] , Chile [10] , Australia [11] , South America [12] , Europe [13] , Africa [14] , and the Arabian Peninsula [15] indicate a massive increase in waste PPEs since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Other studies have reported the densities of waste PPE items to be approximately 0.005–0.3 items per square meter of area, which is a significantly high value [9] , [16] .…”

Density variability of COVID-19 face mask litter: A cautionary tale for pandemic PPE waste monitoring

“…In short, among studies with mean face mask densities between 0.01 and 8.0 × 10 −3 m −2 , those data sets having higher mean densities also displayed correspondingly higher variability about those means. Secondary analyses on density variability within individual studies could be performed on 24 sets of data presented in 18 papers ( Akhbarizadeh et al 2021 ; Ammendolia et al 2021 ; De-la-Torre et al 2021 ; France 2021 ; Haddad et al 2021 ; Rakib et al 2021; Thiel et al 2021 ; Abedin et al 2022 ; Amuah et al 2022 ; Cueva 2022 ; De-la-Torre et al 2022 ; Gunasekaran et al 2022 ; Hassan et al 2022 ; Kutralam-Muniasamy and Shruti 2022 ; Mghili et al 2022 ; Ribeiro et al 2022 ; Sajorne et al 2022 ; Tesfaldet et al 2022 ). In all cases, various diverse measures of data variability, such as standard deviation (SD), standard error (SE), SD range, boxplot range, overall range, unspecified error bar range, were found to be positively correlated with mean densities, with significant relationships (Spearman's rank correlation coefficients) existing in fully 15 of the cases ( Fig.…”

Current knowledge on the presence, biodegradation, and toxicity of discarded face masks in the environment

“…In addition, if the recommended number of washes is also exceeded, the quality of the fabrics will deteriorate [38] , losing its effectiveness [9] . Notwithstanding, given the reduced cost, lightness, and breathability of the surgical ones, they have become the most used by people in general [32] , [40] , [41] . In several countries, surgical masks are even mandatory in healthcare facilities (e.g., clinics, hospitals, general healthcare practices).…”

“…According to Tesfaldet et al [40] , out of a total of 605 people, about 70.58% (= 427) claimed to use regular bins to discard face masks, whereas Tan et al [56] did an online survey in China and found out that out of a total of 10,290 surveyed people only 30.1% (= 3,097) had the same behaviour. Regarding disposal in the environment, only 0.17% (= 1) of respondents confessed to doing so [41] . Generally, the tendency to deliberately make garbage can come from laziness, lack of sense at the time of the act, peer influence (since the rest of the people also do it, it is acceptable), and lack or wrong location of waste bins [40] , [57] .…”