COVID-19 face masks: A new source of human and environmental exposure to organophosphate esters

Fernández-Arribas, Julio; Moreno, Teresa; Bartrolì, Rafael; Eljarrat, Ethel

doi:10.1016/j.envint.2021.106654

Cited by 83 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although most of the EDIs of OPEs indicated a limited human health risk, it was notable that under the worst scenario, the highest concentration of TCEP and TBOEP showed a possible risk to children [69]. Food ingestion, face mask, hand wipes, and other exposure pathways should also be concerned to determine the human health risk in further studies [113,114].…”

Section: Casual Environmental Exposurementioning

confidence: 99%

Organophosphate Esters in China: Fate, Occurrence, and Human Exposure

Zhi-hui

Yin

Wen

et al. 2021

Toxics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organophosphate esters (OPEs) are widely used as flame retardants and plasticizers. OPEs have been released into various environments (e.g., water, sediments, dust and air, and soil). To investigate the occurrence and distribution of OPEs in various environments in China, this review collects and discusses the published scientific studies in this field. Chlorinated OPEs, as flame retardants, are the predominant OPEs found in the environment. The analysis of data revealed large concentration variations among microenvironments, including inflowing river water (range: 0.69–10.62 µgL−1), sediments (range: 0.0197–0.234 µg/g), dust (range: 8.706–34.872 µg/g), and open recycling sites’ soil (range: 0.122–2.1 µg/g). Moreover, OPEs can be detected in the air and biota. We highlight the overall view regarding environmental levels of OPEs in different matrices as a starting point to monitor trends for China. The levels of OPEs in the water, sediment, dust, and air of China are still low. However, dust samples from electronic waste workshop sites were more contaminated. Human activities, pesticides, electronics, furniture, paint, plastics and textiles, and wastewater plants are the dominant sources of OPEs. Human exposure routes to OPEs mainly include dermal contact, dust ingestion, inhalation, and dietary intake. The low level of ecological risk and risk to human health indicated a limited threat from OPEs. Furthermore, current challenges and perspectives for future studies are prospected. A criteria inventory of OPEs reflecting the levels of OPEs contamination association among different microenvironments, emerging OPEs, and potential impact of OPEs on human health, particularly for children are needed in China for better investigation.

show abstract

Section: Casual Environmental Exposurementioning

confidence: 99%

Organophosphate Esters in China: Fate, Occurrence, and Human Exposure

Zhi-hui

Yin

Wen

et al. 2021

Toxics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the evaluation has not considered the transportation, packing, and waste treatment emission that is accounted as a significant source of GHGs emissions. If the average mass of each surgical mask is 2.54g [42], the emission from the production phase was calculated from this study to be about 3 tonnes CO 2 eq per tonne surgical mask. The transportation by air from China to Europe and waste incineration in Europe had estimated about 9.6 and 1.9 tonnes CO 2 eq per tonne surgical masks, respectively [43].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applicability of Membranes in Protective Face Masks and Comparison of Reusable and Disposable Face Masks with Life Cycle Assessment

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the COVID-19 pandemic period, the role of face masks is critical as a protective physical barrier to prevent droplets and filtrate exhalations coming from infected subjects or against various environmental threats, including the SARS-Cov-2 virus. However, the plastic and microplastic waste from the used face masks pollute the environment, cause a negative impact on human health and the natural ecosystem, as well as increase landfill and medical waste. The presented paper focuses on providing an overview of the application of membrane technology in face mask products as well as the development of protection mechanisms in the future. The authors performed an environmental analysis of reusable (cloth) masks and disposable masks (surgical masks and filtering facepiece respirators) using the Life Cycle Assessment methodology to assess the impacts on the environment, human health, and ecosystem. IMPACT 2002+ V2.14, ReCiPe 2016 Endpoint (H) V1.02, IPCC 2013 GWP 100a V1.03 methods were applied using specialized software (SimaPro V9.1). The disposable masks consistently provide higher protection, though they also carry several multiple environmental burdens. Conversely, reusable masks improve environmental performance, reduce 85% of waste, have a 3.39 times lower impact on climate change, and are 3.7 times cheaper than disposable masks.

show abstract

“…There is scarce data about the potential degradation and toxicological effect of PPE. Buried (e.g., landfilled) or in water compartments, littered PPE will undergo fragmentation and biodegradation due to physicochemical and biochemical processes while releasing a myriad of micro(nano)plastics and leachable hazardous chemicals such as plasticizers, metals, organophosphate esters, as recently reported in laboratory conditions ( Saliu et al, 2019 , Sullivan et al, 2021 , Wang et al, 2021 , Fernández-Arribas et al, 2021 ). The only available data suggests that disposable face masks (as individual layers or as a blend) can easily decompose in natural topsoils (75% of the water holding capacity, 25°C), with a mean residence time of 2 to 3 days, releasing approximately 3 to 5% of the total mask carbon as CO 2 ( Knicker and Velasco-Molina, 2021 ).…”

Section: Negative Effects Of Covid-19 Pandemic On the Environment – An Intimidating Journeymentioning

confidence: 91%

Implications of COVID-19 pandemic on environmental compartments: Is plastic pollution a major issue?

Silva

Tubić

Vujić

et al. 2022

Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 anthropause has impacted human activities and behaviour, resulting in substantial environmental and ecological changes. It has assisted in restoring the ecological systems by improving, for instance, air and water quality and decreasing the anthropogenic pressure on wildlife and natural environments. Notwithstanding, such improvements recessed back, even to a greater extent, when considering increased medical waste, hazardous disinfectants and other chemical compounds, and plastic waste disposal or mismanagement. This work critically reviews the short- and long-term implications of measures against COVID-19 spreading, namely on human activities and different environmental compartments. Furthermore, this paper highlights strategies towards environmental restoration, as the recovery of the lost environment during COVID-19 lockdown suggests that the environmental degradation caused by humans can be reversible. Thus, we can no longer delay concerted international actions to address biodiversity, sustainable development, and health emergencies to ensure environmental resilience and equitable recovery.

show abstract

COVID-19 face masks: A new source of human and environmental exposure to organophosphate esters

Abstract: Graphical abstract

Cited by 83 publications

References 23 publications

Organophosphate Esters in China: Fate, Occurrence, and Human Exposure

Organophosphate Esters in China: Fate, Occurrence, and Human Exposure

Applicability of Membranes in Protective Face Masks and Comparison of Reusable and Disposable Face Masks with Life Cycle Assessment

Implications of COVID-19 pandemic on environmental compartments: Is plastic pollution a major issue?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About