IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i24p10245-d458702.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cotton and Surgical Masks—What Ecological Factors Are Relevant for Their Sustainability?

Author

Listed:
  • Mélanie Schmutz

    (Technology and Society Laboratory, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa), CH-9014 St. Gallen, Switzerland)

  • Roland Hischier

    (Technology and Society Laboratory, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa), CH-9014 St. Gallen, Switzerland)

  • Till Batt

    (Biomimetic Membranes and Textiles Laboratory, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa), CH-9014 St. Gallen, Switzerland)

  • Peter Wick

    (Particles-Biology Interactions Laboratory, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa), CH-9014 St. Gallen, Switzerland)

  • Bernd Nowack

    (Technology and Society Laboratory, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa), CH-9014 St. Gallen, Switzerland)

  • Patrick Wäger

    (Technology and Society Laboratory, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa), CH-9014 St. Gallen, Switzerland)

  • Claudia Som

    (Technology and Society Laboratory, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa), CH-9014 St. Gallen, Switzerland)

Abstract

With the COVID-19 pandemic, wearing facemasks became common. Many initiatives arose to develop new types of reusable textile masks in order to overcome a shortage of surgical masks for the health care personnel and for the civil society. Having such high demand of facemasks raises the question about what factors define their environmental sustainability. This paper presents a first simplified Life-Cycle-Assessment (LCA) comparing surgical masks and 2-layered cotton masks. The aim of the paper is to identify and understand the relevant ecological factors in order to support decision making on how textile masks could be designed in a more sustainable manner. The results of our simplified LCA show that the cotton masks were performing better than the surgical masks and vice versa depending on the environmental impact that was looked at. It was also found that the lifespan and the weight of the cotton masks are two variables having a great importance for their overall environmental performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Mélanie Schmutz & Roland Hischier & Till Batt & Peter Wick & Bernd Nowack & Patrick Wäger & Claudia Som, 2020. "Cotton and Surgical Masks—What Ecological Factors Are Relevant for Their Sustainability?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-13, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:24:p:10245-:d:458702
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/24/10245/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/24/10245/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lynne Peeples, 2020. "Face masks: what the data say," Nature, Nature, vol. 586(7828), pages 186-189, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Honglei Lu & Chunxiao Zhu & Xin Cao & Yen Hsu, 2022. "The Sustainability Evaluation of Masks Based on the Integrated Rank Sum Ratio and Entropy Weight Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-13, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abigail B. Schneider & Bridget Leonard, 2022. "From anxiety to control: Mask‐wearing, perceived marketplace influence, and emotional well‐being during the COVID‐19 pandemic," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(1), pages 97-119, March.
    2. Kalgotra, Pankush & Gupta, Ashish & Sharda, Ramesh, 2021. "Pandemic information support lifecycle: Evidence from the evolution of mobile apps during COVID-19," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 540-559.
    3. Francis L. Huang & Wendy Reinke & Keith Herman, 2021. "Does Worrying Matter? Priming and Attitudes Toward Mask Wearing in a Midwestern State," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, November.
    4. Shockey, James W, 2021. "Social Aspects of COVID Mitigation," SocArXiv sgjvp, Center for Open Science.
    5. Jean-Michel Wendling & Thibaut Fabacher & Philippe-Pierre Pébaÿ & Isabelle Cosperec & Michaël Rochoy, 2021. "Experimental Efficacy of the Face Shield and the Mask against Emitted and Potentially Received Particles," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-14, February.
    6. Cliodhna O’Connor & Nicola O’Connell & Emma Burke & Ann Nolan & Martin Dempster & Christopher D. Graham & Gail Nicolson & Joseph Barry & Gabriel Scally & Philip Crowley & Lina Zgaga & Luke Mather & Ca, 2021. "Media Representations of Science during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Analysis of News and Social Media on the Island of Ireland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-23, September.
    7. Ge Song & Hu Cao & Lanyi Liu & Min Jin, 2022. "Analysis of Marine Microplastic Pollution of Disposable Masks under COVID-19 Epidemic—A DPSIR Framework," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Eitan Altman & Mandar Datar & Francesco Pellegrini & Samir Perlaza & Daniel Sadoc Menasché, 2022. "The Mask Game with Multiple Populations," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 147-167, March.
    9. Shumway, Spencer & Hopper, Jonas & Tolman, Ethan Richard & Ferguson, Daniel & Hubble, Gabriella & Patterson, David & Jensen, Jamie, 2020. "Using structural equation modeling to model compliance with COVID-19 related non-pharmaceutical interventions amongst university students in the United States," SocArXiv 9nzr7, Center for Open Science.
    10. Molin, Eric & Kroesen, Maarten, 2022. "Train travel in corona time: Safety perceptions of and support for policy measures," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 196-209.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:24:p:10245-:d:458702. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.