ArticleSustainable production and consumption2022
The environmental impacts of different mask options for healthcare settings in the UK.
Article in Sustainable production and consumption, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Masks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infections: a state of the science review.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Greening healthcare through circular economy: advancing health and sustainability in policy and practice.European journal of public health · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the COVID-19 pandemic, different strategies emerged to combat shortages of certified face masks used in the healthcare sector. These strategies included increasing production from the original manufacturing sites, commissioning new production facilities locally, exploring and allowing the reuse of single-use face masks via various decontamination methods, and developing reusable mask alternatives that meet the health and safety requirements set out in European Standards. In this article, we quantify and evaluate the life-cycle environmental impacts of selected mask options available for use by healthcare workers in the UK, with the objective of supporting decision- and policy-making. We investigate alternatives to traditional single-use face masks like surgical masks and respirators (or FFP3 masks), including cloth masks decontaminated in washing machines; FFP3 masks decontaminated via vapour hydrogen peroxide, and rigid half masks cleaned with antibacterial wipes. Our analysis demonstrates that: (1) the reuse options analysed are environmentally preferential to the traditional "use then dispose" of masks; (2) the environmental benefits increase with the number of reuses; and (3) the manufacturing location and the material composition of the masks have great influence over the life-cycle environmental impacts of each mask use option, in particular for single-use options.
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.