Single-use Face Masks vs. Reusable Face Masks: Which are more eco-friendly?

This new study by UNEP and the Life Cycle Initiative, reviews five scientific Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) on face-masks to draw conclusions on which among the available alternatives, single-use or reusable, have the lowest environmental impacts, along their life cycle – from extraction of raw materials, to their end of life.

The report finds that reusable masks (particularly if made from synthetic materials) are less damaging for the environment than single-use face masks, and reusable cotton masks, if used responsibly and economically.

To identify which type of face masks are environmentally preferred; the study considers the following factors:

Number of reuses and washing practices (which are key to minimize environmental impacts)
Materials used
Guidelines and standards on how to use masks
Location of production vs. point of sale (transport)
End-of-life disposal

The report finds that reusable masks (particularly if made from synthetic materials) are less damaging for the environment than single-use face masks, and reusable cotton masks, if used responsibly and economically.

Disposable face masks made from synthetic materials that are used only a few times before thrown away.

Surgical/Medical mask (Single-use)

Single-use disposable face mask commonly known as FF2 or N95 masks.

Respirator-type mask (e.g., FFP2/N95)(Single-use)

Reusable face masks made from cotton or synthetic materials. Eco-friendly masks that are better for the environment.

Fabric/Cloth/Community mask (Non-medical, Reusable)

IMPORTANT NOTE

The recommendations from this meta-analysis are limited to face masks used by the general public, that is, masks worn by private persons to limit the spread of the virus in public places (as opposed to masks worn by health professionals in a hospital setting). Furthermore, the meta-analysis covers only face masks and not face shields or other types of hard-plastic masks, and provides no guidance on the effectiveness of different face mask designs with respect to limiting the transmission of COVID-19.

What you will find in this blog

What you need to know about single-use and reusable face masks
Why are single-use face masks a problem?
Policy recommendations for face masks
Related questions about face masks and our findings
About the single-use face masks and reusable alternatives report
References used for the single-use face masks and sustainable alternatives report

What you need to know about single-use and reusable face masks

Reusable face masks are generally environmentally preferred to single-use face masks, although the number of times they are used and how they are washed determine whether this is always the case.
Machine-washing of masks is found to be strongly preferred to hand-washing, when masks are washed together with the household laundry in full loads.

Reusable masks made from synthetic materials:

Reusable face masks made from synthetic materials, being lighter and with lower environmental impacts in some impact categories, show better environmental performance than single-use face masks and reusable cotton masks, provided they are reused sufficient times (approximately 10 to 20 times).
Reusable masks made from synthetic materials can be as effective, against COVID-19 virus, as single-use face masks if they are manufactured in accordance with the WHO guidelines and/or relevant national standards. Most guidelines on reusable face masks recommend they are made up of three layers and that the different layers be made of different fabrics.

Reusable masks made from cotton:

Cotton has relatively high environmental impacts due to the high use of water, land and agrichemicals in its cultivation.
Cotton masks did not generally show better environmental performance than single-use masks, unless they were made from repurposed fabric, in which case they have the lowest environmental impacts. However, unless they include a synthetic layer, e.g. a nonwoven filter, they are the least effective with respect to transmission of disease.

Single-use masks:

For single-use masks, the production phase, including the production of raw materials, is the most significant contributor to their environmental impacts.
If single-use masks are not locally produced (e.g., made in China) and transported (to Europe) by air rather than by sea, transport strongly influences their environmental impacts.
The LCA studies considered show that formal waste disposal of face masks (incineration and landfill) generally add only a small amount to environmental impacts. However, the studies did not consider the possible impacts of masks entering the natural environment, e.g., if they are littered.

For single-use masks, the production phase, including the production of raw materials, is the most significant contributor to their environmental impacts.

Why are single-use face masks a problem?

Mask-wearing, in most parts of the world, has become synonymous with the COVID-19 global pandemic, with many countries mandating or encouraging the wearing of face masks as one of the front-line measures in preventing the spread of the disease. This has resulted in a dramatic rise in the use of face masks by the general public, with global face mask usage estimated at 129 billion per month.

It is further estimated that 1.56 billion single-use masks could have entered the ocean in 2020, amounting to between 4,680 and 6,240 tonnes of plastic pollution to the marine environment. It is thus apparent that single-use face masks have the potential to be a considerable source of plastic in the environment.

As with other plastic debris, once in the environment, masks pose a range of threats including:

Wildlife can become entangled in the masks or ingest them
Masks can break-down into micro- and nano-plastics, with detrimental effects on organisms
Floating masks can become a vector of invasive species and microbial pathogens
Masks can serve as a source of chemical contaminants. A specific concern with face masks is that anti-viral coatings, could increase their negative impact on marine biota (flora and fauna).

“It is estimated that an equivalent of 570,219 plastic bottles (1.5 l) entering the ocean per year could be avoided if just 10% of the swiss population switched from using single-use face masks to cotton face masks.”

– Bouchet et al. 2021

Policy recommendations for face masks

Based on the analysis of five life cycle assessments and the review of ample literature, the UNEP report concludes that:

From an environmental perspective, countries should promote the use of reusable face masks for the general public (non-high-risk individuals).
The environmental impacts of hospitalisation can be very high, therefore wearing effective masks, to protect the wearer and those around them, is the best option, since it avoids potentially very high environmental impacts of medical treatment.
Countries should work with international organizations (e.g. WHO, ISO, etc) to develop a widely agreed set of minimum performance standards for reusable masks to ensure effectiveness of reusable masks. Such guidelines and standards should require producers of reusable masks to both meet a minimum effectiveness standard for protecting their population and maintain this performance for a specified number of washes.
Studies on how mask design, maintenance and wearing practices in community settings affect health outcomes are strongly recommended, for the development of guidelines and standards.
Policy makers should be aware of differences in environmental impacts between different fabrics and mask designs. Reusable face masks are shown to have lower environmental impacts under most scenarios, even more so when they are produced, with repurposed or recycled fabrics and fibres.
Airfreight should be avoided through better planning and/or local procurement of materials.
It is recommended to improve monitoring and gathering of waste data on face masks, as this would help in determining points of high littering and/or where interventions should be prioritized.

Read the full recommendations here.

“It is critical that policy makers understand and appreciate the implications and feasibility of proposed policies in the context of geographical constraints. Water and energy infrastructure is notable in the case of reusable face masks, with citizens requiring clean, hot water to care for these.”

Single-use Face Mask and Reusable Alternatives Report

The UNEP and Life Cycle Initiative 2022 report on single-use face masks is one of a series of meta-studies based on the review and analysis (meta-analysis) of the available life cycle assessment literature on single-use plastic products and their alternatives. The reports have a specific focus on taking a life cycle approach to plastic pollution to provide recommendations on single-use plastic products and their alternatives. Single-use products covered include menstrual products, nappies, tableware, beverage cups, bottles and grocery bags.

Given that the widespread global wearing of face masks is a recent phenomenon, only five peer-reviewed LCA studies on single-use face masks and their alternatives were found in the scientific literature. The following studies are covered in the meta-analysis:

The analysis also draws on insights from the wider LCA literature on single-use plastic products, textiles, and medical equipment to enrich the findings.

single-use-Face-mask-lca-report-comparison-table

Key parameters to consider when undertaking and interpreting LCAs of single-use face masks and their alternatives

Based on the studies reviewed in the meta-analysis, the following aspects are important considerations when undertaking and interpreting LCAs of single-use face masks and their alternatives:

Functional equivalence and face mask options: LCA comparisons of single-use vs. reusable fabric masks are only relevant in a community setting (i.e., for mask wearing by the general public), since fabric face masks are recommended only as a last resort in a health care setting.
Behaviour of consumers: The limited data available suggests that consumer behaviour with regards to washing and wearing masks is far from the ideal or recommended behaviour.
Modelling choices and choice of environmental impact indicators: As with behavioural assumptions, LCA modelling choices can have a large effect on the comparison of single-use and reusable face masks.
Geographical context: The available studies are limited in their geographic scope (UK, Switzerland, Italy and Singapore). Results are affected by factors that differ by geographic region, including electricity grid mix, transport to market, and waste management practices.

Single- use face masks and their alternatives: Recommendations from Life Cycle Assessments

UNEP, 2022

Download the full report

Report references

Al Jazeera (2020). Which Countries Have Made Wearing Face Masks Compulsory?. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/countries-wearing-face-masks-compulsory-200423094510867.html. Accessed 9 September 2020.

Allison, A.L., Ambrose-Dempster, E., Aparsi, T.D., Bawn, M., Arredondo, M.C., Chau, C. et al. (2020). The Impact and Effectiveness of the General Public Wearing Masks to Reduce the Spread of Pandemics in the UK: A Multidisciplinary Comparison of Single-Use Masks versus Reusable Face Masks. UCL Open: Environment, (29 October 2020 (preprint for open peer review)). https://ucl.scienceopen.com/document?vid=8b1c9c0d-c4da-442b-b24f-086487a8be2e.

Ammendolia, J., Saturno, J., Brooks, A.L., Jacobs, S. and Jambeck, J.R. (2021). An Emerging Source of Plastic Pollution: Environmental Presence of Plastic Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Debris Related to COVID-19 in a Metropolitan City. Environmental Pollution, 269, 116160.

Ardusso, M., Forero-López, A.D., Buzzi, N.S., Spetter, C. V. and Fernández-Severini, M.D. (2021). COVID-19 Pandemic Repercussions on Plastic and Antiviral Polymeric Textile Causing Pollution on Beaches and Coasts of South America. Science of The Total Environment, 763, 144365.

Arpe (2020). Sustainable and Customisable Masks. https://arpebarcelona.com/arpe-sustainable-masks/. Acccessed 20 April 2021.

Asim, N., Badiei, M. and Sopian, K. (2021). Review of the Valorization Options for the Proper Disposal of Face Masks during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Environmental Technology and Innovation, 23, 101797.

Benson, N.U., Fred-Ahmadu, O.H., Bassey, D.E. and Atayero, A.A. (2021). COVID-19 Pandemic and Emerging Plastic-Based Personal Protective Equipment Waste Pollution and Management in Africa. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 9(3), 105222.

Benson, N.U., Bassey, D.E. and Palanisami, T. (2021). COVID Pollution: Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Global Plastic Waste Footprint. Heliyon, 7(2), e06343.

Bhattacharjee, S., Bahl, P., Chughtai, A.A. and MacIntyre, C.R. (2020). Last-Resort Strategies during Mask Shortages: Optimal Design Features of Cloth Masks and Decontamination of Disposable Masks during the COVID-19 Pandemic. BMJ Open Respiratory Research, 7(1), e000698.

Boix Rodríguez, N., Formentini, G., Favi, C. and Marconi, M. (2021a). Engineering Design Process of Face Masks Based on Circularity and Life Cycle Assessment in the Constraint of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability, 13(4948).

Boix Rodríguez, N., Formentini, G., Favi, C. and Marconi, M. (2021b). Environmental Implication of Personal Protection Equipment in the Pandemic Era: LCA Comparison of Face Masks Typologies. Procedia CIRP, 98, 306–311.

Boucher, J., Billard, G., Simeone, E. and Sousa, J. (2020). The Marine Plastic Footprint: Towards a Science-Based Metric for Measuring Marine Plastic Leakage and Increasing the Materiality and Circularity of Plastic. The Marine Plastic Footprint, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, Global Marine and Polar Programme. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/48957.

Bouchet, A., Boucher, J., Schutzbach, K., Senn, N., Genton, B. and Vernez, D. (2021). Which Strategy for Using Medical and Community Masks? A Prospective Analysis of Their Environmental Impact. BMJ Open, 11(9), e049690.

CEN Workshop Agreement (2020). CWA 17553 – Community Face Coverings – Guide to Minimum Requirements, Methods of Testing and Use.

Chu, J., Ghenand, O., Collins, J., Byrne, J., Wentworth, A., Chai, P.R. et al. (2021). Thinking Green: Modelling Respirator Reuse Strategies to Reduce Cost and Waste. BMJ Open, 11(7).

Cordova, M.R., Nurhati, I.S., Riani, E., Nurhasanah and Iswari, M.Y. (2021). Unprecedented Plastic-Made Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Debris in River Outlets into Jakarta Bay during COVID-19 Pandemic. Chemosphere, 268, 129360.

De-la-Torre, G.E., Rakib, M.R.J., Pizarro-Ortega, C.I. and Dioses-Salinas, D.C. (2021). Occurrence of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Associated with the COVID-19 Pandemic along the Coast of Lima, Peru. Science of The Total Environment, 774, 145774.

De-la-Torre, G.E. and Aragaw, T.A. (2021). What We Need to Know about PPE Associated with the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Marine Environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 163, 111879.

Eckelman, M., Mosher, M. and Sherman, J. (2012). Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Disposable and Reusable Laryngeal Mask Airways. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 114(5), 1067–1072.

European Environment Agency (2021a). Impact of COVID-19 on Single-Use Plastics and the Environment in Europe. Eionet Report – ETC/WMGE 2021/4. Mol: European Topic Centre Waste and Materials in a Green Economy. https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-wmge/products/impact-of-covid-19-on-single-use-plastics-and-the-environment-in-europe.

European Environment Agency (2021b). Plastic in Textiles : Potentials for Circularity and Reduced Environmental and Climate Impacts. Eionet Report – ETC/WMGE 2021/1. Mol: European Topic Centre Waste and Materials in a Green Economy. https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-wmge/products/plastic-in-textiles-potentials-for-circularity-and-reduced-environmental-and-climate-impacts.

Geddes, L. (2020). The Face Mask Test: Which Are the Best at Limiting the Spread of Covid? The Guardian, 30 October. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/30/face-mask-test-which-best-at-limiting-spread-covid. Accessed 20 April 2021.

Haque, M.S., Uddin, S., Sayem, S.M. and Mohib, K.M. (2021). Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Induced Waste Scenario: A Short Overview. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 9(1), 104660.

Javid, B., Weekes, M.P. and Matheson, N.J. (2020). Covid-19: Should the Public Wear Face Masks? BMJ, 369, m1442.

Kassam, A. (2020). ‘More Masks than Jellyfish’: Coronavirus Waste Ends up in Ocean. The Guardian, 8 June. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/08/more-masks-than-jellyfish-coronavirus-waste-ends-up-in-ocean. Accessed 20 April 2021,

Kumar, H., Azad, A., Gupta, A. and Sharma, J. (2020). COVID ‑ 19 Creating Another Problem ? Sustainable Solution for PPE Disposal through LCA Approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability, (0123456789).

Lee, A.W.L., Neo, E.R.K., Khoo, Z.Y., Yeo, Z., Tan, Y.S., Chng, S. et al. (2021). Life Cycle Assessment of Single-Use Surgical and Embedded Filtration Layer (EFL) Reusable Face Mask. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 170(September 2020), 105580.

Liao, L., Xiao, W., Zhao, M., Yu, X., Wang, H., Wang, Q. et al. (2020). Can N95 Respirators Be Reused after Disinfection? How Many Times? ACS Nano, 14(5), 6348–6356.

MacIntrye, C., Tham, D., Seale, H. and Chungthai, A. (2020). Shortages of Masks and the Use of Cloth Masks as a Last Resort. BMJ (online).

O’Kelly, E., Pirog, S., Ward, J. and Clarkson, P.J. (2020). Ability of Fabric Face Mask Materials to Filter Ultrafine Particles at Coughing Velocity. BMJ Open, 10(9), e039424.

OceansAsia (no date). PPE & the Negative Effects on the Environment. https://oceansasia.org/reusable-masks/. Accessed 20 April 2021.

Okuku, E., Kiteresi, L., Owato, G., Otieno, K., Mwalugha, C., Mbuche, M. et al. (2021). The Impacts of COVID-19 Pandemic on Marine Litter Pollution along the Kenyan Coast: A Synthesis after 100 Days Following the First Reported Case in Kenya. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 162(September 2020), 111840.

Ou, Q., Pei, C., Chan Kim, S., Abell, E. and Pui, D.Y.H. (2020). Evaluation of Decontamination Methods for Commercial and Alternative Respirator and Mask Materials – View from Filtration Aspect. Journal of Aerosol Science, 150, 105609.

Pascoe, M.J., Robertson, A., Crayford, A., Durand, E., Steer, J., Castelli, A. et al. (2020). Dry Heat and Microwave-Generated Steam Protocols for the Rapid Decontamination of Respiratory Personal Protective Equipment in Response to COVID-19-Related Shortages. Journal of Hospital Infection, 106(1), 10–19.

Patrício Silva, A.L., Prata, J.C., Walker, T.R., Campos, D., Duarte, A.C., Soares, A.M.V.M. et al. (2020). Rethinking and Optimising Plastic Waste Management under COVID-19 Pandemic: Policy Solutions Based on Redesign and Reduction of Single-Use Plastics and Personal Protective Equipment. Science of the Total Environment, 742.

Phelps Bondaroff, T. and Cooke, S. (2020). Masks on the Beach: The Impact of COVID-19 on Marine Plastic Pollution. OceansAsia. https://oceansasia.org/covid-19-facemasks/#861/1/.

Prata, J.C., Silva, A.L.P., Walker, T.R., Duarte, A.C. and Rocha-Santos, T. (2020). COVID-19 Pandemic Repercussions on the Use and Management of Plastics. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(13), 7760–7765.

Ritchie, H. and Roser, M. (2018). Plastic Pollution. https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution. Accessed 10 January 2022.

Rowan, N.J. and Laffey, J.G. (2021). Unlocking the Surge in Demand for Personal and Protective Equipment (PPE) and Improvised Face Coverings Arising from Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic – Implications for Efficacy, Re-Use and Sustainable Waste Management. Science of The Total Environment, 752, 142259.

Ryan, P.G., Maclean, K. and Weideman, E.A. (2020). The Impact of the COVID-19 Lockdown on Urban Street Litter in South Africa. Environmental Processes, 7(4), 1303–1312.

Sandin, G. and Peters, G.M. (2018). Environmental Impact of Textile Reuse and Recycling – A Review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 184(March), 353–365.

Sandin, G., Roos, S. and Johansson, M. (2019). Environmental Impact of Textile Fibers – What We Know and What We Don’t Know. Fiber Bible Part 2. Göteborg: Mistra future fashion. http://mistrafuturefashion.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Sandin-D2.12.1-Fiber-Bibel-Part-2_Mistra-Future-Fashion-Report-2019.03.pdf

Schmutz, M., Hischier, R., Batt, T., Wick, P., Nowack, B., Wäger, P. et al. (2020). Cotton and Surgical Masks—What Ecological Factors Are Relevant for Their Sustainability? Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(24), 1–13.

Selvaranjan, K., Navaratnam, S., Rajeev, P. and Ravintherakumaran, N. (2021). Environmental Challenges Induced by Extensive Use of Face Masks during COVID-19: A Review and Potential Solutions. Environmental Challenges, 3(February), 100039.

United Nations Environment Programme (2021). Addressing Single-Use Plastic Products Pollution Using a Life Cycle Approach. Nairobi. https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/35109.

Vozzola, E., Overcash, M. and Griffing, E. (2020). An Environmental Analysis of Reusable and Disposable Surgical Gowns. AORN JOURNAL, 111(3), 315–325.

World Health Organization (2020a). Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): Masks. https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-masks. Accessed 20 April 2021.

World Health Organization (2020b). Mask Use in the Context of COVID-19: Interim Guidance. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-community-during-home-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak.

World Wide Fund for Nature Italy (2020). Nello Smaltimento Di Mascherine e Guanti Serve Responsabilità. WWF Italy. https://www.wwf.it/scuole/?53500%2FNello-smaltimento-di-mascherine-e-guanti-serve-responsabilita. Accessed 17 July 2020.

YouGov (2020). Just 13% of Reusable Mask Wearers Are Washing Them Frequently Enough, and in the Right Way. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/articles-reports/2020/08/31/just-13-reusable-mask-wearers-are-washing-them-fre. Accessed 20 April 2021.