Laundering of face masks represents an additional source of synthetic and natural microfibers to aquatic ecosystems

Abstract

From the onset of Covid-19 pandemic, the use of face masks has been adapted as one of the main measures to slow down the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus worldwide. The inadequate handling and management of face masks lead to a massive dispersal in the environment, resulting in a new source of microfibers because of their breakdown and/or degradation. In addition, the laundering of reusable face masks of different polymeric composition can represent an additional sources of microfibers to natural ecosystems, but it was largely neglected. The present study explored the release of synthetic or natural microfibers from reusable and disposable face masks of five different fabrics when subjected to a cycle of laundering in a domestic washing machine. After a single wash, face masks released an average (± SE) of 284.94 ± 73.66 microfibers, independently of the fabrics. Focusing on the fabrics composing the face masks, polyurethane (541.33 ± 51.84 microfibers) and cotton-based (823.00 ± 112.53 microfibers) face masks released the highest amount of synthetic and natural microfibers, respectively. Considering the crucial role of face masks to counteract the pandemic and the increasing trend of their use, further studies represent a priority to estimate the contribution of face mask-derived microfibers to freshwater contamination.

Evaluation of the Microbiological Effectiveness of Three Accessible Mask Decontamination Methods and Their Impact on Filtration, Air Permeability and Physicochemical Properties

“…The measured static water contact angles are presented in Table S2 , where it could be observed that all contact angles measured for the distinct layers of all non-processed (control) masks were well above 90° (between 115.4° and 151.3°, for PP-based layers, and 132.9°, for the only PET-based layer). This indicates as expected that all the layer materials employed in these RPD originally presented a high hydrophobic nature [ 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 ].…”

“…As mentioned above, the studied decontamination treatments may affect some of the polymeric materials’ morphological properties, namely porosity, average pore diameters, fibre densities and fibre charges of the distinct layers that comprise the RPD, affecting the safety, efficiency and other functional and comfort-related properties of these types of protective devices [ 25 , 29 , 35 , 41 , 51 ]. In this context, mercury intrusion results ( Figure S3 ) showed that after 10 treatment cycles using the H 2 O 2 , NaClO and steam bag treatments, only relatively small variations were observed for the overall porosity (%) and median pore sizes of the original RPD ( Table S7 ).…”

Binational survey of personal protective equipment (PPE) pollution driven by the COVID-19 pandemic in coastal environments: Abundance, distribution, and analytical characterization

“…Microfibers shed easily from this type of mask, similar to the release of polyester fibers from textiles during laundry ( Rathinamoorthy and Balasaraswathi, 2021 ). Importantly, it has been estimated that microfibers released from face masks range between 284.9 and 823 particles per wash ( De Felice et al, 2022 ). While most studies overlook the smaller components of PPE, here we identified PET and PA as the main composition of the elastic cords in two face masks, similar to the report by Shen et al (2021) .…”

Using the concept of circular economy to reduce the environmental impact of COVID-19 face mask waste

“…Although reusable masks can reduce the overall wastage, microfibers released after cleansing the mask diffuse into the aquatic environment [ 36 ]. There have been more discussions on the sustainability of reusable masks [ [37] , [38] , [39] , [40] , [41] , [42] , [43] , [44] , [45] , [46] , [47] , [48] ].…”