Dangerous microplastics released from facemasks : Research Finds

 

The Hidden Environmental Cost of Face Masks: How Disposable Masks Contribute to Microplastic Pollution

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, disposable face masks became our everyday armor against an invisible enemy. Billions were produced, worn, and discarded, saving countless lives but leaving a lingering question: What happens to all that waste? A recent study published in Environmental Pollution (2024) by researchers Anna A. Bogush and Ivan Kourtchev from Coventry University sheds light on a troubling side effect—disposable masks as a sneaky source of microplastics and harmful chemicals leaching into our environment. If you're concerned about plastic pollution, ocean health, or the long-term legacy of the pandemic, this is a must-read. Let's dive into the findings and explore what it means for our planet.

The Pandemic's Plastic Boom: A Quick Recap

Remember 2020? As the world grappled with COVID-19, face masks went from niche medical gear to global essentials. The World Health Organization estimated healthcare alone needed 89 million masks monthly, while global usage hit a staggering 129 billion per month. These disposable face masks (DFMs)—think surgical masks and respirators—were hailed as lifesavers, blocking droplets and reducing virus transmission.

But here's the catch: Most DFMs are made from polypropylene (PP), a durable plastic, layered with other materials like polyethylene (PE) or nylon. They're not biodegradable, and improper disposal turned streets, beaches, and rivers into dumping grounds. Studies show littered masks spiked exponentially during the pandemic, with estimates of 3.4 billion discarded daily. That's not just trash—it's a ticking time bomb for microplastic pollution.

Microplastics (MPs) are tiny plastic particles under 5mm, infamous for infiltrating food chains, water supplies, and even human bodies. The Coventry study compares how different mask types release MPs and chemicals into water, mimicking environmental exposure. Spoiler: It's worse than you might think.

Unmasking the Study: What the Researchers Did

Bogush and Kourtchev tested five common DFM types:

• Surgical/medical masks: Type I (MMI), Type II (MMII), and Type IIR (MMIIR, fluid-repellent).
• Filtering face pieces (respirators): FFP2 (like N95) and FFP3.

They soaked whole new masks in ultra-pure water for 24 hours without shaking—no simulated waves or weathering, just static conditions to check for "built-in" contamination from manufacturing. Water samples were filtered and analyzed using advanced tools like Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) for MPs and Liquid Chromatography/High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry (LC-HRMS) for chemicals.

This setup highlights a key insight: Even brand-new masks release pollutants, likely from production flaws like fiber breakage or impurities. The results? Eye-opening numbers that underscore why we need better mask design and disposal strategies.

Key Findings: Microplastics Pouring Out

1. Quantity of Microplastics Released

All masks leaked MPs, but respirators were the worst offenders. FFP2 masks released about 1,067 MPs per mask, and FFP3 around 877—three to four times more than surgical masks (239-277 MPs each). Per gram of mask weight, FFP2 stood out at 185 MPs/g, suggesting denser materials or poorer quality control.

Globally, with billions discarded daily, this could mean trillions of MPs entering ecosystems yearly. The study notes no mechanical stress was applied, implying these particles are "pre-loaded" from manufacturing—debris from spinning fibers or contamination during packaging.

2. Size and Shape: Small and Sneaky

Most MPs were tiny—75-90% under 100 microns (about the width of a human hair). The smallest detected were around 10 microns, but even tinier nanoplastics (under 1 micron) are likely present, as other studies confirm. Release order by size: MMIIR > MMII > FFP3 > FFP2 > MMI.

Shapes? Fragments dominated (55-88%), often as broken PP fibers, over straight fibers. This matters because fragments are harder to filter out and more easily ingested by wildlife. Imagine fish mistaking these for food—it's a direct path up the food chain to our plates.

3. Types of Plastics Involved

Polypropylene ruled at 93-97% in surgical masks and 82-83% in respirators, matching their main material. But surprises included traces of PE, polycarbonate (PC), polyester/PET, nylon (PA), polyvinylchloride (PVC), and ethylene-propylene copolymer. Respirators released more variety (17-18% non-PP), possibly from ear loops or nose clips.

This diversity hints at cross-contamination in production or use of recycled plastics, amplifying pollution risks.

Chemical Additives: The Silent Leakers

Masks aren't just plastic—they contain additives for flexibility, color, or performance. The study screened for bisphenols (endocrine disruptors linked to hormone issues) and found bisphenol B (BPB) in MMII (0.25 μg/L) and MMIIR (0.42 μg/L). BPB, a BPA substitute, isn't typically in PP but could come from impurities or other components. Daily global release? Up to 214 kg—enough to contaminate vast water bodies.

Even more alarming: High levels of 1,4-bis(2-ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate (DOSS, 115-164 μg/L in MMII and MMIIR). Used as an emulsifier in cosmetics and food, DOSS was a key ingredient in oil spill dispersants like those in the Deepwater Horizon disaster. While considered "safe" in small doses, it may disrupt thyroid hormones and harm aquatic life.

No bisphenols or DOSS in respirators, but other studies flag heavy metals and phthalates in masks, adding to the toxic cocktail.

Environmental and Health Impacts: Why It Matters

These findings aren't abstract—they spell real trouble.

Environmental Toll

• Wildlife Harm: MPs from masks entangle animals or get ingested, blocking guts or leaching toxins. Studies show diatoms adsorb them, copepods reproduce less, and zebrafish accumulate them in tissues.
• Ecosystem Ripple: As "carriers," MPs transport pollutants like heavy metals or PAHs, amplifying contamination in rivers, oceans, and soils.
• Pandemic Legacy: With 0.15-0.39 million tons of mask waste potentially reaching oceans yearly, this adds to the 14 million tons of plastic entering seas annually.

Human Health Risks

• Inhalation and Ingestion: MPs in masks could enter lungs during wear, or we consume them via seafood. One study found MPs in nasal mucus from mask users.
• Toxicity: Accumulation may cause inflammation, immune issues, or hypersensitivity. Chemicals like BPB disrupt hormones, potentially affecting fertility or development.
• Pathogen Hitchhikers: Masks can harbor bacteria or viruses on MP surfaces, increasing infection risks if inhaled.

The study emphasizes smaller MPs (<100 μm) are most concerning—they evade filters and bioaccumulate easily.

What Can We Do? Solutions and Hope

This isn't doom and gloom—it's a call to action. The researchers urge science-based policies:

• Improve Production: Mandate MP-free manufacturing with better quality control and recycled materials screening.
• Promote Alternatives: Shift to reusable, washable masks or biodegradable options.
• Better Waste Management: Use the "5R" strategy (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Redesign, Restructure). Add labeled bins in public spaces and guidelines for safe disposal.
• Tech Innovations: Develop MP removal methods like biochar adsorption or froth flotation for water treatment.
• Policy Push: Governments should regulate PPE waste like other plastics, with global collaboration to track and mitigate.

As individuals, opt for reusable masks, dispose properly (not litter!), and support eco-friendly brands. Small changes add up—remember, the pandemic taught us collective action works.

Wrapping Up: A Masked Threat We Can't Ignore

The Coventry study reveals disposable face masks as an overlooked microplastic hotspot, releasing hundreds to thousands of particles per mask, plus chemicals like BPB and DOSS. Post-COVID, with usage still high in healthcare and travel, this pollution persists. It's a reminder that solutions to one crisis (health) can spark another (environmental).

By understanding these risks, we can push for sustainable PPE. Share this if it resonates—let's unmask the problem and protect our planet.

REFERENC: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749124005062

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD PDF OF ORIGINAL ARTICLE