Environmental impact of Personal Protective Equipment supplied to health and social care services in England in the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

Objectives Use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) has been central to controlling spread of SARS-CoV2. This study aims to quantify the environmental impact of this, and to model strategies for its reduction. Methods Life cycle assessment was used to determine environmental impacts of PPE supplied to health and social care in England during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The base scenario assumed all products were single-use, air freighted, and disposed via clinical waste. Scenario modelling was used to determine the effect of 1) switching mode of, or eliminating, international travel during supply, 2) reducing glove use 3) using reusable alternatives, 4) maximal recycling. Results The carbon footprint of PPE supplied during the study period totalled 158,838 tonnes CO2e, with greatest contributions from gloves, aprons, face shields, and Type IIR surgical masks. The estimated damage to human health was 314 DALYs (disability adjusted life years), impact on ecosystems was 0.67 species.year (loss of local species per year), and impact on resource depletion costing US $ 20.4 million. Scenario modelling indicated one-third of the carbon footprint could be avoided through switching to shipping, and by 41% through manufacturing PPE in the UK. The carbon footprint was reduced by 83% compared with the base scenario through a combination of UK manufacturing, reducing glove use, using reusable gowns and reuse of face shields, and maximal recycling, estimated to save 259 DALYS, 0.54 species.year, and US $ 15 million due to resource depletion. Conclusions The environmental impact of PPE could be reduced through shipping supplies or domestic manufacture, rationalising glove use, using reusables where possible, and optimising waste management.

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

“…However, in order to assess the whole environmental impact, it would be necessary to consider lifecycle analysis (LCA) of each type of face mask. Rizan et al (2021) used a LCA to determine environmental impacts of personal protective equipment (PPE) distributed to health and social care in England during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic. They concluded that the environmental impact could be reduced through different actions, among which it was the reuse of PPE.…”

The Life of a Face Mask: from Production to Use to Disposal

“…The surge in mask usage to combat SARS-CoV-2 transmission has prompted research on the environmental impact of masks. Numerous elements can be considered, such as microplastics [10,12], carbon footprints of personal protective equipment (PPE) [42], and the prospect of biodegradable masks [11]. One study took a more comprehensive approach by examining four metrics: carbon footprint, non-renewable cumulative energy demand, water depletion according to the AWARE methodology (hereafter water footprint), and overall environmental impacts [43].…”

Mitigating the environmental impact of plastic PPE: more than just disposal

“…With cumulative use, even simple PPE has major consequences. A standard box of nitrile gloves, for example, has the same CO 2 equivalent as driving 20 miles in a petrol car 3. Simple and effective ways of minimising unnecessary PPE use include employing “runners” outside high risk areas to fetch equipment and drugs and the avoidance of “hygiene theatre” (conspicuous PPE use) in low risk settings.…”

“…Zhang and colleagues focus on single use face masks1; reusable respirator masks and powered air purifying respirators are available, but they are seldom designed for healthcare and can be challenging to clean. Reusable gowns, laundered before re-circulation, have been widely adopted and reduce environmental effects by 65% 3. Recycling PPE presents challenges in terms of material separation and risk of contamination, so design should focus on single materials able to feed into closed loop recycling, complemented by regulatory approvals and systems facilitating safe handling.…”