Environmental Impacts of Personal Protective Clothing Used to Combat COVID- 19

Abstract

Personal protective clothing is critical to shield users from highly infectious diseases including COVID-19. Such clothing is predominantly single-use, made of plastic-based synthetic fibers such as polypropylene and polyester, low cost and able to provide protection against pathogens. However, the environmental impacts of synthetic fiber-based clothing are significant and well-documented. Despite growing environmental concerns with single-use plastic-based protective clothing, the recent COVID-19 pandemic has seen a significant increase in their use, which could result in a further surge of oceanic plastic pollution, adding to the mass of plastic waste that already threatens marine life. In this review, the nature of the raw materials involved in the production of such clothing, as well as manufacturing techniques and the personal protective equipment supply chain are briefly discussed. The environmental impacts at critical points in the protective clothing value chain are identified from production to consumption, focusing on water use, chemical pollution, CO₂ emissions, and waste. On the basis of these environmental impacts, the need for fundamental changes in the business model is outlined, including increased usage of reusable protective clothing, addressing supply chain "bottlenecks", establishing better waste management, and the use of sustainable materials and processes without associated environmental problems.

Keywords: COVID‐19; environmental impact; personal protective equipment; plastic pollution; protective clothing; sustainability.

Figure 1

PPE and health: The hidden cost of plastic‐based PPE waste. a) Estimated Number of PPE (medical masks, examination gloves, and protective goggles) needed per month during COVID‐19 pandemic according to a model carried out by WHO in March 2020. b) The impact of plastic on human health from bisphenol A, PVC. Plastic‐based PPE in c) air, d) soil, and e) sea.

Figure 2

Plastic consumers and polymers. a) Leading plastic‐consuming countries and continents in the world. b) Global demand for polymer materials and specific contributions of PE – polyethylene, PP – polypropylene, PS – polystyrene, PVC – poly(vinyl chloride), PET – poly(ethylene terephthalate), and PU – polyurethane) within the total EU demand for plastic of 50.7 million tons.^{[ 20 ]}

Figure 3

Protective clothing manufacturing. a) Melt‐blown process. b) Thermal bonding technique for web formation. c) Pad‐dry‐cure finishing technique to impart antimicrobial or other functional finishes and d) Three‐layer SMS structure which is most commonly used for personal protective clothing to protect against highly infectious diseases. ((a), (c), and (d) Reproduced with permission.^{[ 2 ]} Copyright 2020, American Chemical Society).

Figure 4

Global protective clothing supply chain. China is the largest manufacturer of protective clothing. UK, USA, EU, Mexico and Brazil are receiving countries (leading consumer countries). Bangladesh, India and Bhutan are emerging manufacturing countries. The other countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Bhutan, African countries, and South American countries are importing countries of protective medical clothing.^{[ 41} , ^{42 ]}

Figure 5

Pre‐COVID‐19 and during COVID‐19: The global import and export market for four types of PPEs in 2019 (Pre‐COVID‐19) and 2020 (During COVID‐19). a)Top importing countries b) top exporting countries. The USD value represents the total export/import in that particular year based on the six‐digit HS Code (underneath each item). However, this six‐digit code also includes other products based on the category given above.^{[ 53} , ^{54 ]}

Figure 6

Environmental impacts of personal protective clothing based on six‐digit HS Code. a) Disposable gown (HS Code 621010) with weight ≈224 g pc⁻¹.^{[ 104 ]} b) Surgical face mask (HS Code 630790) with weight ≈2.45 g pc⁻¹.^{[ 105 ]} Environmental impacts are calculated and compared based on import data for three major countries in 2019 (Pre‐COVID‐19) versus 2020 (during COVID‐19). Import data is taken in tons from ITC Database.^{[ 53} , ^{54 ]}

Figure 7

The use of chemical additives during PPE manufacturing and end‐use stages. PPE pollution can contain various additive chemicals, which are usually used to provide certain properties and functionalities to the PPEs. PVC typically requires the most additives (≈73% of total production volume), followed by PEs and PPs (10% by volume). Chemical additives are used during manufacturing (fiber spinning, wet processing, and finishing) and end‐use (sterilizing, cleaning, and disinfecting) of protective clothing.

Figure 8

Mitigation of environmental impacts of PPE. a) Carbon footprints of PPEs used by the NHS in UK from February to August 2020 of the COVID‐19 pandemic in the base and optimized scenarios (UK manufacture, eliminating glove use, reuse of gowns and face shields, recycling). b) Carbon footprint of individual single‐use PPE items with process breakdowns (production of PPE materials, transportation, waste, production of packaging materials, and electricity consumption during manufacturing). c) Environmental impacts (endpoint categories) of alternative scenarios for PPEs used by the NHS in UK from February to August 2020 of the COVID‐19 pandemic. The base scenario includes shipping, single‐use, and clinical waste. Alternative scenarios are the use of UK manufacturing, reduce (zero glove use), reuse (reusable gown, reuse of face shield, all other items single‐use), recycling, and combination of measures. (DALYs = disability‐adjusted life years, loss of local species per year in species year, and extra costs involved for future mineral and fossil resource extraction in US $). c) Reproduced with permission.^{[ 22 ]} Copyright 2021, The Royal Society of Medicine.