ArticleEnvironment, development and sustainability2022
Life cycle assessment and circularity evaluation of the non-medical masks in the Covid-19 pandemic: a Brazilian case.
Article in Environment, development and sustainability, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Formulation improvement of a concentrated enzyme detergent for high-speed rail trains through life cycle assessment methodology.Environment, development and sustainability · 2023Article
- Plastic wastes in the time of COVID-19: Their environmental hazards and implications for sustainable energy resilience and circular bio-economies.The Science of the total environment · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper aims to evaluate the life cycle impact and the circularity of face masks to support government public policies in extreme consumption of these products as in the case of the Covid-19. The reference case was the Brazilian context for using and consuming Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Two types of face masks were defined for analysis: handmade reusable face masks made with cotton fabric and single-use face masks made with nonwoven fabric. To achieve this goal, the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) steps following ISO 14040 and the Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) by the Ellen Macarthur Foundation were applied. The results obtained show that the reuse of face masks has a better environmental performance over five uses. The comparative analysis between the ReCiPe 2016 and IMPACT World+ methods shows that the impact categories linked to human health are the most important in terms of environmental impact. Nevertheless, the trend toward improved environmental performance for the handmade reusable face mask has continued. The possibility of recycling shows that the reintegration of material after the use of the product could improve the environmental performance of both face masks. Finally, the reuse increases the circularity of cotton fabric masks compared to nonwoven fabric masks according to MCI. In this way, it is possible to observe that the handmade reusable face mask has a better environmental performance and a higher circularity than the single-use face mask. Thus, the results of the environmental performance and circularity of the face masks may support the decision of government agents to guide the public in the use of face masks, not only contributing to the protection of health against Covid-19, but also reducing the environmental impact of PPE. Furthermore, the methodological steps adopted in the study gives greater reliability in the conclusions obtained.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.