Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 11 (2023) 109308

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jece

Current knowledge on the presence, biodegradation, and toxicity of

discarded face masks in the environment
Ana M. Oliveira a, Ana L. Patrício Silva b, *, Amadeu M.V.M. Soares b, Damià Barceló c, d,
Armando C. Duarte e, Teresa Rocha-Santos e
a
Department of Biology, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
b
Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM) and Department of Biology, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
c
Catalan Institute for Water research (ICRA-CERCA), H2O Building, Scientific and Technological Park of the University of Girona, Emili Grahit 101,17003 Girona,
Spain
d
Water and Soil Quality Research Group, Department of Environmental Chemistry, Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research (IDAEA-CSIC), Jordi
Girona 18–26, 08034 Barcelona, Spain
e
Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM) and Department of Chemistry, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Editor: Teik Thye Lim During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, facemasks became mandatory, with a great preference for
disposable ones. However, the benefits of face masks for health safety are counteracted by the environmental
Keywords: burden related to their improper disposal. An unprecedented influx of disposable face masks entering the
Plastic pollution environment has been reported in the last two years of the pandemic, along with their implications in natural
Microplastics
environments in terms of their biodegradability, released contaminants and ecotoxicological effects. This critical
Protective equipment
review addresses several aspects of the current literature regarding the (bio)degradation and (eco)toxicity of face
Face masks
Biodegradation masks related contaminants, identifying uncertainties and research needs that should be addressed in future
Toxicity studies. While it is indisputable that face mask contamination contributes to the already alarming plastic
pollution, we are still far from determining its real environmental and ecotoxicological contribution to the issue.
The paucity of studies on biodegradation and ecotoxicity of face masks and related contaminants, and the un­
certainties and uncontrolled variables involved during experimental procedures, are compromising eventual
comparison with conventional plastic debris. Studies on the abundance and composition of face mask-released
contaminants (microplastics/fibres/ chemical compounds) under pre- and post-pandemic conditions should,
therefore, be encouraged, along with (bio)degradation and ecotoxicity tests considering environmentally rele­
vant settings. To achieve this, methodological strategies should be developed to overcome technical difficulties to
quantify and characterise the smallest MPs and fibres, adsorbents, and leachates to increase the environmental
relevancy of the experimental conditions.

1. Introduction protecting us from others and vice versa.

COVID-19 is an acute (and, to some extent, severe) respiratory in­
fectious human disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, a type of coronavirus [1]
identified in Wuhan-China in December 2019 [2–4]. Since its discovery,
it has quickly spread across the globe, being classified as a pandemic in
early 2020 by the World Health Organization (WHO) [5]. Several rec­
ommendations emerged to reduce the chances of contracting the virus,
such as physical distance, frequent handwashing, and the use of personal
protective equipment (PPE), namely face masks [1,6]. Face masks act as
a barrier to transmitting infectious particles in bodily fluids [6,7],
Face masks soon became the icon of COVID-19 as a saviour item to
suppress contagion. Concomitantly, it also became an icon of COVID-19
pollution. Several studies have been addressing the implications of face
masks to the environment, considering their i) production, use, and
disposal (including Life Cycle Assessment) and implications on the
environmental footprint [8,9]; ii) presence and distribution in natural
ecosystems [10–15]; iii) presence and release of contaminants that
compose them [16–20]; and iv) the potential toxicity of such released
contaminants on aquatic and terrestrial organisms [19,21]. Recent re­
views have also critically discussed their short- and long-term

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ana.luisa.silva@ua.pt (A.L. Patrício Silva).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2023.109308
Received 30 September 2022; Received in revised form 5 January 2023; Accepted 10 January 2023
Available online 11 January 2023
2213-3437/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
A.M. Oliveira et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 11 (2023) 109308

environmental implications, but mostly considering their end-of-life polymeric material to produce ultra-fine fibres (2–5 µm thinner than
options [18,22,23] and how to mitigate/minimize their impact on spunbonded nonwoven fabric) [28,30,31]. These middle layers also
environmental and human health. However, little is known or discussed have an electrostatic absorption function, allowing particles, bacteria,
considering environmentally relevant scenarios on biodegradation and and pollutant filtration. Conversely, the inner and outer layers are often
the potential toxicity of face masks in natural settings and their non-woven fabrics obtained through spunbonded technology [31],
long-term implications. This paper reviews and critically discusses where molten polymers are extruded and stretched to form fila­
knowledge gathered within the last two years of the pandemic on the ments/fibres, which will then be laid in a web and bonded uniformly by
environmental implications of face masks, with particular emphasis on heat throughout the structure to guarantee good hydrophilicity and
their biodegradability and (eco)toxicity in aquatic and terrestrial eco­ provide more comfort [33,34]. The filtration efficiency of such dispos­
systems. It also highlights future research lines to predict the conse­ able masks is above 80% [35] and the usage period is up to 4 h [24].
quences of the massive loads of face masks in the environment. Aside from the polymeric material, disposable face masks possess
additives and extra components to make them more adjustable,
2. Face masks – types, composition, waste generation and comfortable, and fashionable. For example, certified disposable masks
management possess a nose wire frame made of metallic compounds (iron consti­
tuting 4.58 wt% of the total mass of the face mask, and the trace amount
Different face masks have been adopted worldwide, being essentially of zinc, calcium, titanium, and manganese) to allow a better adjustment
divided into three categories: a) Reusable, b) Surgical, and c) Respirators of the mask to the nose area [176]. Bioactive compounds can be incor­
(commonly used are presented in Table 1). Briefly, reusable face masks porated in face mask composition (particularly during the electrospun
usually have two or three fabric layers with at least one layer of cotton process) to increase antioxidant activity, thermal resistance, and anti­
[24]. Depending on the fabric combination, the filtration power in­ bacterial/antiviral properties [177]. The incorporation of pigments is
creases with the number of layers [23,24], which can be higher than also common to offer a panoply of coloured face masks to the general
70% in certified masks [9]. Although the use of reusable face masks public.
decreases the waste volume related to these items [26], it might result in Respirators, such as filtering facepieces (FFP), N95, KN95, are
greater water use and energy consumption for their production and certified disposable masks [24,25]. Their filtration efficiency is up to 80
washing processes [27]. In addition, reusable face masks also lose their times more effective than cloth masks and up to 15 times more than
effectiveness when the washing number is exceeded [27]. surgical masks [25]. FFP, in particular, can be divided into FFP1, FFP2,
In turn, surgical masks are disposable and mostly made of different and FFP3 according to their filtration efficiency, which is 80%, 94%, and
plastic nanofibres, being the most common polypropylene (PP) [28,29] 99%, respectively [24]. Albeit giving better protection and having a
(Table 1). They usually have three to five layers. The middle layers are higher period of use (8 h), these are mainly used by health professionals
often made by a nonwoven melt-blown process featuring electrostatic [24,36].
charging and filtration capacities. Such layers are also made by web The filtration efficiency is, however, highly affected by the usage
formation technology, where hot air is used to disperse the meltable time. For example, it is recommended a usage time of aproximately 3
–10 h for respirators, 3–7 h for medical masks and 4–9 h for handmade
Table 1
masks [37]. If such time is exceeded, their effectiveness is highly
Types of disposable facemasks, their composition, and main properties. affected, with the leakage of microfibres and granular microplastics
[38]. In addition, if the recommended number of washes is also excee­
Disposable Mask Composition Main Reference
Type Properties
ded, the quality of the fabrics will deteriorate [39], losing its effective­
ness [9]. Notwithstanding, given the reduced cost, lightness, and
Surgical PP spunbond nonwoven Filters [43,44]
breathability of the surgical ones, they have become the most used by
fabric (x2) particles > 5
PP, poly(butylene µm people in general [32,40,41]. In several countries, surgical masks are
terephthalate) or poly even mandatory in healthcare facilities (e.g., clinics, hospitals, general
(tetrafluoroethylene) melt healthcare practices).
blown filter
The clear preference for such masks and (most of all) their incorrect
Respirators FFP1 PP or PET spunbond Particles [44–46]
nonwoven fabric (x2) inward leak of
discard are both mirrored in the greater occurrence of this type of mask
PP melt blown non-woven 25% in different environments [12,14,15,42], which have implied important
filter Filter threats to natural environments. In the first trimester of the pandemic, a
Modacrylic support layer efficiency > monthly need of 89 million disposable masks was estimated to respond
80%
to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this number was greatly exceeded
Not adequate
for COVID-19 on a large scale in the following months [21], being, at least, billions of
protection face masks were needed and discarded worldwide (Fig. 1).
FFP2 PP or PET spunbond Particles [44,45] In the pre-COVID-19 period, face masks were mostly used by
nonwoven fabric (x2) inward leak of healthcare professionals and, being considered medical waste, they were
PP melt blown non-woven 11%
filter Filter
sorted out accordingly to their type into colour-coded bins [48] and then
Modacrylic support layer efficiency > incinerated or autoclaved, followed by safe disposal in landfills [49].
94% During the pandemic, the use of face masks was extended to all citizens.
FFP3 PP or PET spunbond Particles [44,45] Thus, according to several governmental guidelines, face masks’
nonwoven fabric (x2) inward leak of
end-of-life would be closed bins or trash bags [6,23] and then sent to
PP melt blown non-woven 5%
filter Filter landfills or incineration facilities [9]. Landfilling seems to be the
Modacrylic support layer efficiency > dominant method of municipal waste management and where the vast
99% majority of face masks end up [16,50,51]; with predictable impacts on
N95 PP or PET spunbond Filters [44,47] the soil, water and atmosphere due to the formation of leachates and
nonwoven fabric (x2) particles >
PP melt blown non-woven 100 nm
landfill gas [22,51]. The presence of face masks in landfills and anaer­
filter Filters > 95% obic digestors seems to affect methane productivity and kinetics nega­
Modacrylic nonwoven layer of solid and tively [52]. For example, in the digesters amended with face masks, the
liquid particles total cumulative methane production decreased by up to 18%, with a
> 0.3 µm
12–29% decrease in maximum methane production rates than the

2
A.M. Oliveira et al.
Fig. 1. : Estimated global share of face masks discarded as Covid-19 waste per country.
Source: Benson et al. [175] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06343. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
control digester (without face masks) [52], compromising energy pro­
duction. Incineration, the second most used method to process PPE
waste [16,50], would be the best option to overcome the waste problem
as it eliminates pathogens and the ashes, which are later disposed to a
landfill, taking up lesser space [9,48,53]. However, given the amount of
discarded face masks, it would cause various environmental and health
impacts due to releasing many toxins and carbon dioxide (CO2) into the
atmosphere [48,53]. Recycling could also be an option, however, it is
not used since face masks are difficult to recycle [54]. Currently, no
infrastructure allows the safe disposal of these potentially contaminated
items [55]. Even if it did, recycling surgical face masks remain un­
practical as it is necessary to sort out the different plastic nanofibres that
constitute them and, posteriorly, disinfect them [9,16].
Apart from traditional waste management methods, several face
masks are discarded in the environment [16,53], resulting from plastic
leakage from waste treatment facilities, urban waste bins, or citizens’
waste disposal malpractice. Some surveys have already been carried out
to assess the disposal made by citizens. According to Tesfaldet et al.
[40], out of a total of 605 people, about 70.58% (= 427) claimed to use
regular bins to discard face masks, whereas Tan et al. [56] did an online
survey in China and found out that out of a total of 10290 surveyed
people only 30.1% (= 3097) had the same behaviour. Regarding
disposal in the environment, only 0.17% (= 1) of respondents confessed
to doing so [41]. Generally, the tendency to deliberately make garbage
can come from laziness, lack of sense at the time of the act, peer influ­
ence (since the rest of the people also do it, it is acceptable), and lack or
wrong location of waste bins [40,57]. In the case of the pandemic and
the disposal of masks, the inexistence of waste bins that do not require
touch to be opened also contributes to incorrect disposal [40].
3
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 11 (2023) 109308
3. Presence and implications of face masks on the environment
Face masks possess a lightweight and, consequently, low air resis­
tance, allowing quick dispersion of these items in natural environments
and eventual interaction with biota [18,29,40]. Thus, although much of
PPE waste (particularly face masks) is generated and discarded in
metropolitan areas, it may eventually end up in rivers and oceans
through surface runoff [16,40]. As seen in Table 2, several studies re­
ported the presence of PPE items in the last 2 years, particularly masks,
in both urbanized and natural environments.
Once in open environments, disposable face masks might undergo
weathering, fragmentation and (bio)degradation, due to physicochem­
ical and biochemical factors.
3.1. Potential (bio)degradation of disposable face masks
Plastics degradation is defined as changes in polymer properties that
are accompanied by a loss of functionality because of chemical, physical,
and/or biological processes, resulting in polymer chain bond breakage
[71]. It is limited and dependent on plastic’s properties, and biotic and
abiotic factors [72,73]. Biotic degradation results from the activity of
living organisms, particularly microorganisms, that break down poly­
mer chains (in the presence of oxygen – aerobically, or in its absence –
anaerobically) to CO2 or methane, water, and edible biomass/compost
[79]. Abiotic degradation can be divided into photodegradation char­
acterized by the action of light [74], thermal degradation by the action
of heat [71,75], mechanical degradation by the action of external forces
[75,76], and chemical degradation, which can even be divided into
hydrolysis through exposure to water (H2O) or oxidative degradation
through exposure to oxygen (O2) [76]. Depending on the desired
properties and durability, plastics can be photo/oxo-degradable,
hydro-degradable, biodegradable/compostable, among others.
A.M. Oliveira et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 11 (2023) 109308

Table 2 rooftop) compared to pristine ones (from 24300 to 25400 items before
Occurrence and density of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in ur­ ageing to 6.0 × 108 – 6.4 × 108 items after ageing) [85]. Similarly,
banized and natural environments. naturally weathered face masks on terrace topsoil (for 30 days) were
Country Sampling Face masks’ total Face masks’ mean Reference further submitted to dry state exposure (simulating atmospheric con­
Site density density ditions), to seawater, or freshwater (here simulating two distinct aquatic
(Face mask/m2) (Face mask/m2) environments, under static immersion for 10 h or mechanical agitation
Iran Beach 3.60 × 10-2 ————— [14] for 15 min), released 2–8 times more microfibres than the pristine ones.
Hong Kong Beach 7 × 10-1 ————— [58] The highest number of released microfibres was revealed in dry state (up
Bangladesh Urban 5.19 × 10-2 ————— [59]
to 100,780 microfibres/mask), followed by seawater under mechanical
Mexico Urban 1.88 × 10-2 ————— [60]
Morocco Beach ————— 1.20 × 10-3 [12] agitation (up to 66,112 microfibres/mask) and freshwater under me­
Iran Lake ————— 9.75 × 10-5 [61] chanical agitation (16,356 microfibres/mask) [70]. Thus, microfibres
Philippines Beach 7,82 × 10-3 ————— [42] release occurs to a greater extent in the dry state than in the wet state,
Turkey Urban 5.46 × 10-4 ————— [62] potentially due to the higher physical abrasion of soil particles that
Ethiopia Lake ————— 1.51 × 10-4 [63]
India Beach 1.06 × 10-3 ————— [13]
likely increased shedding. In addition, differences between aquatic en­
Canada Urban 1.70 × 10-3 ————— [40] vironments (seawater vs freshwater) are potentially related to water
Peru Beach 1.09 × 10-3 ————— [64] density and alkalinity during static immersion. Seawater had higher
Bangladesh Beach 6.25 × 10-2 ————— [65] density and alkaline pH, which put more hydrostatic pressure on the
Argentina Beach ————— 3.35 × 10-4 [15]
mask’s components than freshwaters, facilitating microfibres release.
Peru Beach ————— 6.23 × 10-4 [15]
Chile Beach ————— 6 × 10-3 [66] In most studies, the size of released microfibres is lower than 10 µm
Ghana Urban 3.1 × 10-1 ————— [67] [32,83,86], transparent, and come from the middle layer [85], possibly
Canada Riverside 1 × 10-4 ————— [68] since this is the most susceptible layer, for example, to UV light [87].
Thailand Urban 1.27 × 10-2 ————— [41] The release of even submicron particles from surgical face masks has
Morocco Beach ————— 1.09 × 10-5 [69]
been reported. Particles of nanometric size (0.1–0.5 µm and 0.1 µm)
India Urban 2.99 × 10-2* ————— [70]
have been detected by flow cytometry in water containing surgical face
*
Extrapolated value obtained from an estimated sidewalk width of approxi­ masks in mechanical agitation, with values (2.1 ± 1.4 × 1010 item­
mately 2 m over an 18 km extension. s/mask) significantly greater (by ~ 6 times) than those discovered for
microplastics (> 100 µm) by microscopy (1.2 ± 1.07 104 items/mask)
As a polymeric-based material, disposable face masks are not [88]. Thus, despite the generally low level of fabric deterioration that
different from any plastic waste that end up in natural environments, might be observed in laboratory experiments (average loss of 1–2% of
being, therefore, susceptible to degradation. However, face masks are the initial weight), the high number of micro/nanoplastics that can be
made mainly from durable polymeric materials such as PP and PE swiftly released from a single mask when weathering conditions are
(Table 1) that are characterised by a saturated chemical structure. Such simulated under realistic intensity levels of mechanical deterioration
saturated structures are less prone to bulk or molecular changes, raises great concerns. Considering the levels of micro and nanoplastics
including interaction with microorganisms [77]. For example, PP- and detected from this previous study and having in mind that approxi­
PE-based plastics take > 10 years to completely degrade under aerobic mately more than 10 million masks can reach the oceans monthly [89],
or anaerobic conditions, photodegradation and/or thermo-oxidative 1 × 1011 microfibres and 1 × 1018 micro/nanoplastics are potentially
degradation [78]. entering the aquatic ecosystem every day [88]. Since wastewater
Only a few studies addressed face mask degradation (Table 3). treatment plants or leachate treatment plants do not have filters to
Scanning electron microscopy of disposable face masks collected in remove these microplastics specifically, they end up either washed off as
urban and marine environments displayed microfibre fragmentation such or discharged into adjacent aquatic environments along with the
and the formation of cracks, whereas X-ray diffraction patterns showed a treated effluent [90]. Such micro(nano)plastics belong to the size frac­
notorious decrease in their crystallinity [15,62]. The inner layer of the tion easily uptake by aquatic organisms, which imposes a threat to their
face masks seems to be the most resistant to UV- or mechanical weath­ homeostasis with potential transfer along the food chains (as further
ering, followed by the outermost layer, while the middle layer was found discussed in Section 3.2).
to be the most sensitive one. The release of micro(nano)sized plastics is part of masks’ environ­
Surgical face masks aged in water under controlled conditions mental problem. Disposable masks also release hazardous chemical
revealed the breakage of loosely attached microfibres along with rough compounds often added during their manufacturing to enhance face
surfaces related to exposure time (e.g., [79,80]). For instance, surgical mask quality [16,97]; which might have bioaccumulative properties
face masks placed in water and subjected to agitation (simulating wave when released into the environment. A study conducted by Sullivan
influence), released on average between 50 [81], 400 [79] or even 900 et al. [94] even highlights that disposable facemasks in the environment
[82] microfibres per day. These numbers depend on the period during are among the primary sources of these environmental contaminants
which face masks are submerged, i.e., the longer the exposure time, the during and after the Covid-19 pandemic. The release of such additives
greater the number of microfibres released [81,83]. When photo- or depends not only on their chemical characteristics but also on the ma­
mechanical degradation is added to water agitation, the release of terial in which they are contained [98] and the level of fragmentation
fragments/microfibres skyrocket [83,84], reaching an average of 173 [99]. Face masks have a three-dimensional porous structure in which the
thousand fibres per day [79] or a total of 68 thousand microfibres at the additives are dispersed but not bounded [98,100], which contributes to
end of 240 h [81]. Here, the UV radiation likely provides sufficient en­ their release into the environment. Besides, the larger the polymer pore
ergy for the C–C and C–H bonds in the face masks polymeric material diameter, the more easily small additives move through the plastic [98].
to be broken, generating alkoxy and peroxyl radicals. This, in turn, led to This results in rapid leaching that can last up to 24 h, particularly in the
chain scission that, allied with mechanical abrasion, will increase frag­ case of less hydrophobic contaminants [101].
ments and fibres release. Between fragments and fibre release, the latter Bussan et al. [102] determined the levels of heavy metals present in
is present in a greater proportion [82]. 24 surgical and KN95 face masks using ICP-MS. These authors reported
The weathering state and exposure (air, seawater, freshwater) are that the concentrations of chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni), arsenic (As),
also major drivers of microplastics and microfibres release. For example, cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), and titanium (Ti) were below the detec­
the number of released microfibres by face mask greatly increased tion limit. In contrast, detectable concentration levels were observed for
2.5 × 104 times with the ageing process (air-exposure in a building copper (Cu), antimony (Sb), and lead (Pb), which implicated a potential

4
A.M. Oliveira et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 11 (2023) 109308

Table 3
Summary of degradation studies in face masks so far.
Mask Type Exposure Conditions Main Results Reference

Microplastics (MP) MP Size Degradation effects/other Other

quantity observations substances
released

Disposable Virgin face mask in an aqueous 4.47 μL/L from the outer Mostly 10–50 µm and Smooth surface —— [80]
surgical solution and shaken at 300 rpm for layer 200–500 µm
24 h 1.52 μL/L from the Outer layer mostly
middle layer between 15 and 50 µm
0.80 μL/L from the inner and 200–500 µm
layer Middle and inner layers
mostly between 10 and
200 µm
Virgin face mask in an aqueous 14.6 μL/L from the outer Mostly between 10 and —— —— [80]
solution with sand and shaken at layer 50 µm
300 rpm for 24 h 6.2 μL/L from the middle
layer
7.0 μL/L from the inner
layer
Virgin face mask UV-light 70.73 μL/L from the outer Mostly 20–500 µm Deformation/damage on the —— [80]
irradiated for 36 h, in an aqueous layer Outer layer mostly surface
solution and shaken at 300 rpm for 60.36 μL/L from the between 20 and 100 µm Increased roughness
24 h middle layer and 100–500 µm Fractured fibres
11.44 μL/L from the inner Inner layer mostly Middle layer suffered more from
layer between 30 and 100 µm weathering
and 100–500 µm
Middle layer mostly
between 50 and 200 µm
Virgin face mask UV-light 132.52 μL/L from the Mostly 20–500 µm —— —— [80]
irradiated for 36 h, in an aqueous outer layer Outer and inner layers
solution with sand and shaken at 210.23 μL/L from the mostly between 20 and
300 rpm for 24 h middle layer 100 µm and
184.94 μL/L from the 200–500 µm
inner layer Inner layer mostly
between 30 and 100 µm
and 100–500 µm
Middle layer mostly
between 10 and 200 µm
Disposable Virgin face mask in 3 L of ultrapure 3600 MPs/mask —— —— —— [85]
surgical water for 24 h
Virgin face mask in 3 L of ultrapure 5400 MPs/mask —— —— —— [85]
water with alcohol (75%) for 24 h
Virgin face mask in 3 L of ultrapure 4400 MPs/mask —— —— —— [85]
water with detergent (10 mg/L) for
24 h
Virgin face mask in 3 L of ultrapure 24,300, 36,400 and Mostly < 1 mm Mass loss of 0.47% —— [85]
water, shaken at 120 rpm for 24 h 55,900 MPs released in
and dried (x3) the first, second and third
wash cycle, respectively
116,600 MPs/mask in
total
Virgin face mask in 3 L of ultrapure 27,000, 43,200 and Mostly < 1 mm Mass loss of 0.85% —— [85]
water with alcohol (75%) and 76,800 MPs released in
shaken at 120 rpm for 24 h and the first, second and third
dried (x3) wash cycle, respectively
147,000 MPs/mask in
total
Virgin face mask in 3 L of ultrapure 28,800, 50,000 and Mostly < 1 mm Mass loss of 1.14% —— [85]
water with detergent (10 mg/L) 88,000 MPs released in
and shaken at 120 rpm for 24 h the first, second and third
and dried (x3) wash cycle, respectively
168,800 MPs/mask in
total
Aged face mask (in a building 24,300–25,400 MPs/24 h —— —— —— [85]
rooftop for 2 months) and shaken before ageing to
at 150 rpm for 24 h (x3) 6.0 × 108 – 6.4 × 108
MPs/24 h after ageing
Disposable Virgin face mask UV-irradiated 61 ± 19 MPs/mask 1–5 mm Mean mass loss of 0.19% —— [79]
surgical (10 h at 65 ◦ C alternating with 2 h 117,400 ± 42,345 MPs/ 25–500 µm
at 50 ◦ C (x15)), in an aqueous mask
solution and shaken at 4000 rpm
for 24 h
Disposable Virgin face masks in an aqueous 202 MPs/surgical mask —— —— —— [81]
surgical, solution and shaken at 150 rpm for 161 MPs/KF94
KF94, FFP1 48 h 160 MPs/FFP1
and KF-AD 74 MPs/KF-AD
(continued on next page)

5
A.M. Oliveira et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 11 (2023) 109308

Table 3 (continued )
Mask Type Exposure Conditions Main Results Reference

Microplastics (MP) MP Size Degradation effects/other Other

quantity observations substances
released

Disposable Virgin face masks in an aqueous 183 ± 78.42 MPs/mask Mostly 100–500 µm Fibres predominant over —— [82]
surgical and solution and shaken at 120 rpm for fragments (>70%)
N95 24 h
Worn face masks (24 h of usage) in 1246.6 ± 403.50 MPs/ Mostly 100–500 µm Fibres predominant over —— [82]
an aqueous solution and shaken at mask fragments (>70%)
120 rpm for 24 h
Disposable Virgin face masks in an aqueous 2118 fibres/day Mostly < 10 µm and Looser structure after —— [83]
surgical solution and shaken at 200 rpm for 800 MPs/day > 50 µm immersion
9 days Many fibres appeared
fractured
Many surface cracks and
holes
Worn and discarded face masks in Mean 25,958 fibres/day —— Plastic material is brittle and —— [83]
an aqueous solution and shaken at Mean 21,441 MPs/day fragmentary
200 rpm for 9 days Significantly increased
fibres’ release
Disposable Virgin face mask MPs in an 272 ± 12.49 MPs/cm2 Mostly 0.1–1 mm Middle layer released the —— [84]
surgical, aqueous solution and shaken at surgical face mask greatest number of fibres
common and 60 rpm from 0 to 240 h 54,400 ± 2498 MPs/
FFP common mask
165.7 ± 9.2 MPs/cm2
common mask
187.9 ± 9.45 MPs/cm2
FFP
Virgin face mask MPs in an 68,000 ± 4808 MPs/ Mostly 0.1–1 mm Middle layer released the —— [84]
aqueous solution with sand and common mask greatest number of fibres
shaken at 60 rpm from 0 to 240 h Increased roughness
Deformation/damage on
fibre surface
Disposable Virgin face masks in soil exposed to 22,053.84 ± 647.84 MPs/ New masks: Aged face masks release —— [70]
surgical the environment (sun and rain) for new mask 0.119–2.042 mm higher amount of fibres
30 days. New and aged dry masks 100,780.17 ± 35,538.62 Weathered masks: Middle released higher
rubbed 120 times inside a closed MPs/aged mask 0.091–2.621 mm number of fibres, followed
chamber by the outer layer and the
inner layer
Virgin face masks in soil exposed to 2171.40 MPs/mask (new —— Aged face masks release ————— [70]
the environment (sun and rain) for mask on freshwater) higher amount of fibres
30 days. New and aged masks put 3679.20 MPs/mask (new Middle released higher
in water (freshwater and marine) mask on seawater) number of fibres, followed
in static immersion for 10 h 7921.07 MPs/mask (aged by the outer layer and the
mask on freshwater) inner layer
11,785.20 MPs/mask
(aged mask on seawater)
Virgin face masks in soil exposed to 3445.40 MPs/mask (new —— Aged face masks release ————— [70]
the environment (sun and rain) for mask on freshwater) higher amount of fibres
30 days. New and aged masks put 5623.20 MPs/mask (new Middle released higher
in water (freshwater and marine) mask on seawater) number of fibres, followed
and rubbed continuously for 16,356.00 MPs/mask by the outer layer and the
15 min (aged mask on inner layer
freshwater)
66,112.50 MPs/mask
(aged mask on seawater)
Disposable Virgin face masks in an aqueous Mean 2.23 × 103 MPs/ Mostly < 1 µm Middle layer with higher ————— [86]
surgical and solution shaken for 3 min and then mask > 1 µm fibre roughness
N95 leachates were removed (x10) Mean 2.43 × 109 MPs/
mask < 1 µm
Disposable Virgin face mask in an aqueous 2.6 × 103 MPs/mask (1 s) Mostly < 0.5 µm Increased deterioration with ————— [88]
surgical solution and exposed to shear up to 2.8 × 104 MPs/ time
damage with a kitchen chopper for mask (120 s)
1, 15, 30, 60 and 120 s Mean 2.1 ± 1.4 × 1010
MPs/mask
Disposable Virgin middle layer MPs ————— ————— Increased roughness ————— [91]
surgical (<300 µm) in soil with soil Surface deterioration
invertebrates for 21 and 28 days Fragmentation of fibres of
< 1 µm
Disposable Virgin face mask mixed with wet ————— ————— Loss of carbon of 10% ————— [92]
surgical topsoil (cambisol) for 6 months in
the dark at 25 ◦ C
Virgin face mask in an aqueous ————— ————— Low decomposition rate ————— [92]
solution for 6 months in the dark at C-release of about 1.8 mg
25 ◦ C after 1 month
————— ————— ————— [92]
(continued on next page)

6
A.M. Oliveira et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 11 (2023) 109308

Table 3 (continued )
Mask Type Exposure Conditions Main Results Reference

Microplastics (MP) MP Size Degradation effects/other Other

quantity observations substances
released

Virgin face mask outer, middle and Additional carbon-release of

inner layers (separately) mixed 12% on soil with outer and
with wet topsoil (cambisol) for 6 inner layer and 20% with
months in the dark at 25 ◦ C middle layer, compared to
pure soil
Middle layer less resistant to
mineralization (MRT of 7
years)
Physical deterioration in
middle layer
Loss of carbon of 6%
Disposable Virgin face masks in an aqueous Surgical masks: 1136 Mostly < 500 µm Mass loss from 0.006% to ————— [93]
surgical, solution and shaken at 220 rpm for ± 87–2343 ± 168 MPs/ 0.019%
common and 24 h (piece⋅d)
N95 Common masks: 1034
± 119–2547 ± 185 MPs/
(piece⋅d)
N95 masks: 801
± 71–2667 ± 97 MPs/
(piece⋅d)
Disposable Virgin face masks in 1,5 L of ————— Fibrous particles from ————— Cd, Co, Cu, Pb, [94]
surgical deionized water and gently stirred 25 µm to 2.5 mm Sb, and Ti
every hour for 4 h detected in
leachates
Sb
concentrations
ranging from 111
to 393 μg/L
Cu
concentrations
ranging from
0.85 μg/L to
4.17 μg/L
Highest
concentration of
Pb of 6.79 μg/L
All face masks
released polar
organic species
(e.g., polyamide-
66, polyamide-6
and many
oligomers of
polyamide)
Polyethylene
glycol-like
derivatives and
aromatic amines
compounds
detected in some
masks
N-Undecyl-1-
undecanamine
detected in one
face mask
Disposable Virgin face masks pieces placed in ————— ————— ————— Five phthalate [95]
surgical and an air sampling system for 24 h at esters (PAEs)
N95 37 ◦ C detected
PAEs mass load
ranged from 55
± 35–1700
± 140 ng on
surgical masks
PAEs mass load
ranged from
2300
± 150–5200
± 800 ng on
respirators
Disposable Virgin face masks in 1 L of 76–276 MPs/L Mostly 40–225 µm MPs increased with exposure Co, Cu, Ni, Sr, Ti [96]
surgical and deionized water and stirred at time and Zn detected
respirators Surgical masks released in all samples
(continued on next page)

7
A.M. Oliveira et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 11 (2023) 109308

Table 3 (continued )
Mask Type Exposure Conditions Main Results Reference

Microplastics (MP) MP Size Degradation effects/other Other

quantity observations substances
released

120 rpm at 25 ◦ C in the dark for 5, more MPs than respirators Cd, Cr, Mn and
10 and 15 days Fibres > MPs Pb detected only
Increased deformation and in surgical masks
damage on the surface with leachates
time Concentrations
of all detected
heavy metals
higher in surgical
masks
Acetophenone
(AP), 2,4-Di-tert-
butylphenol
(DTBP) and bis
(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
detected in all
samples
Tributyl
acetylcitrate and
benzaldehyde,
2,4-dimethyl-
detected in some
samples
AP,
benzothiazole,
DTBP, bisphenol-
A (BPA) and
phthalide
detected in
surgical masks
leachates
AP,
benzothiazole
and DTBP
detected in
respirators
leachates

for their leaching [102]. When comparing leachates from both types of
face masks, concentrations of all detected heavy metals were higher in
surgical masks leachates than in N95 respirators [96]. Regarding only
surgical face masks, inorganic substances such as Cu, Sb, Cd, and Pb
(often associated with the addition of colour) have been detected in
leachates obtained from pristine disposable masks agitated in water,
with concentrations up to 4.17, 393, 1.92, and 6.79 μg/L, respectively
[94]. Other authors detected metals such as Ti, aluminium (Al), silica
(Si), magnesium (Mg), strontium (Sr), Cr, manganese (Mn), iron (Fe),
cobalt (Co), Ni, and zinc (Zn) in all three layers [19,96,103]. However,
their variety and concentrations, except for Zn [99], were higher in the
outer layer [100,104], possibly because this is the only coloured layer.
In specific cases, like Argentina, where antiviral face masks impregnated
with silver (Ag) and Cu nanoparticles were popularized, the environ­
mental threat posed by their incorrect disposal is more pronounced
[104]. The main concern is the possible leaching of metal nanoparticles
from commercial products (e.g., face masks and antiviral textiles) since
they could negatively impact aquatic environments due to their high
reactivity [105].
In addition, polar organic species related to polyamide-66 monomer
and oligomers (nylon-66 synthesis), polyethylene glycol [94,106] and
phthalate esters plasticizers (most commonly di-methyl phthalate,
di-n-butyl phthalate, di-ethyl phthalate, di-isobutyl phthalate, and di
(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate) were also detected [95]. The release of such
chemical compounds was observed within the first hours of face mask
exposure to water (with agitation and/or mechanical stress), as also
observed with the release of micro(nano)plastics.
Furthermore, biotic degradation or biodegradation might also occur
through the action of microorganisms, usually bacteria or fungi [74,
107]. Beyond being affected by polymer characteristics, it also depends
on the organism [73], which, in turn, depends on the environment in
which degradation occurs [107]. Since the levels of exposure to each one
of these factors vary with the depth in the water column or soil layers,
the predominant type of degradation varies throughout it (Fig. 2).
Knicker & Velasco-Molina [92] conducted a 6-month microcosm
experiment at 25 ºC to test the microbial degradability of 10 × 10 mm
pieces of single mask layers and a whole mask mixed with topsoil
(Cambisol). The slow carbon pool of the centre mask revealed a mean
residence time (MRT) of 7 years, whereas the remaining mask material
such mean residence time was between 19 and 28 years, which is longer
than those determined for the slow fraction of the natural solid organic
matter (although not supporting extremely long residence times of mask
residues in natural soils). Results showed that disposable face masks are
prone to biodegradation, although their nature still had to be revealed in
future studies. In addition, the persistence of face masks in soils (for
decades) might be sufficiently long to release a great quantity of micro
(nano)plastics and hazardous chemical compounds, imposing a threat to
soil organisms, as observed for collembolans and earthworms [91].
Face mask biodegradation in aquatic environments remains uncov­
ered. However, as most face masks are PP-based materials, they are
likely hardly degradable in the aquatic environment [108,109], taking
possibly up to 450 years for this to occur [109]. Notwithstanding, for
biodegradation to start happening, there must first be abiotic degrada­
tion since, without it, the mask’s surface will be hydrophobic, inhibiting
the attachment of microorganisms [107]. After attachment, microor­
ganisms can grow over time using PP as the carbon source [107]. At first,

8
A.M. Oliveira et al.
Fig. 2. Exemplification of the main degradation type according to the environment. A) water; B) soil.
they secrete enzymes that break the main chain into smaller fragments
that can pass the semi-permeable outer bacterial membranes [71]. After
assimilation, microorganisms use the polymeric backbone as a source of
carbon and energy in a process called mineralization [73,108], resulting
in, if in aerobic conditions, an increase in biomass and the formation of
CO2 and H2O [107].
3.2. Interaction with the biota
In both terrestrial and aquatic environments, face masks greatly
interfere with the biota [110], either on a physiochemical or biological
level (as further discussed in Section 3.3).
Physically, several wildlife species driven by curiosity or by biolog­
ical needs have already been reported to interact with PPE, particularly
disposable face masks. For example, cases of entanglement, asphyxia,
ingestion, and nest material usage by terrestrial and aquatic organisms
have been reported worldwide (Table 4). These interactions occurred at
a macroscale (i.e., with face masks macrodebris). However, in both
aquatic or terrestrial environments, face masks face biotic and abiotic
factors that affect their physical and chemical integrity, resulting in their
fragmentation into smaller pieces of secondary microplastics (< 5 mm)
and nanoplastics (< 100 nm) [108,111].
If deposited on the soil surface, face masks fragments and microfibres
can disperse quickly, altering soil characteristics [91,110] and affecting
their inhabitants. Mészáros et al. studied the effect of fragments ob­
tained from different surgical face masks on the root system of Brassica
napus (L.) seedlings and determined that changes depended on fragment
size [112]. Besides, ingestion of these fragments by soil invertebrates
may occur. Kwak & An and Kokalj et al. exposed some of these in­
vertebrates to soil contaminated with microfibres from face masks and,
in both cases, their ingestion and mobilization were detected [91,103].
Eisenia andrei, Folsomia candida, Porcellio scaber, Tenebrio molitor larvae,
and Enchytraeus crypticus are detritivores and bioturbators, thus
contributing to the dispersion of fibres over a wider soil area, affecting
increasingly greater proportions of soil.
Being small in size, colourful and floatable, microplastics and
microfibres released from face masks can also be easily accessible to
aquatic organisms that can (un)intentionally ingest them [113]. Once
9
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 11 (2023) 109308
ingested, such items give a false sense of satiety, which will reduce food
intake, leading to starvation and, eventually death [18,57,114]. Acci­
dental ingestion can also be verified, albeit through distinct processes,
by filtering organisms [16,113] and deposit feeders [115]. Until the
death of the organism that consumed it, plastic fragments can penetrate
tissues [113] and, consequently, enter the food chain since, when higher
trophic level organisms prey on these, microplastics will be transferred.
Indeed, microplastics derived from various types of plastics have already
been reported in several groups of organisms, for example, bivalves
[116], crustaceans [117–120], cephalopods [121] and fish [122,123].
Microplastics derived from face masks have also already been detected
in rotifers, bivalves, crustaceans and fish [86]. Since these organisms
have commercial value and as consumers that we are, there is a high
probability that microplastics will end up on our plate, potentially
affecting human health [16].
However, microplastics can also enter our system through other
routes, for example, inhalation [124]. While face masks contribute to
the decreased risk of consumption of microplastics and other particles
present in the air [125,126], they also increase the probability of
inhaling fibres from the mask itself [38,127]. Used masks whose usage
period exceeds the 4 h recommendation through continuous use or reuse
tend to release a greater amount of fibres than new ones [38,82] and, as
these fibres are contained in the small area between the face and the face
mask, it increases the likelihood of inhalation and, thus, their entry into
the respiratory system [86,127].
3.3. Adsorbents and leachates
When exposed to contaminated environments, while leaching
intrinsic chemicals, plastics also sorb those contaminants from the
environment. Face masks can act as vectors of persistent organic com­
pounds (POPs) [129], viruses [130], pharmaceuticals [131], toxins and
heavy metals [16,132], which likely exacerbates the widespread of
those pollutants and their toxicity on biota that interact with or ingest
such items.
Persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which may include poly­
chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organo-chlorine pesticides, and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), are synthetic and chemically stable
A.M. Oliveira et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 11 (2023) 109308

Table 4 hydrophobicity [135,136] since most of these contaminants can be

Reports of interactions between face masks and biota since the beginning of the defined as being hydrophobic organic contaminants (HOCs), thus, not
COVID-19 pandemic. having much affinity with water [132]. Instead, they tend to sorb to
Country Species Interaction with face masks marine plastic debris [102], which contains both crystalline and amor­
The Netherlands Fulica atra Incorporation in the nest
phous regions, the last being where sorption of HOCs generally occurs
Felis catus Carrying since there is lower molecule organization [98]. PP, in particular, has
Eptesicus serotinus Entanglement three forms of orientation, resulting in a variation between them in the
Laridae sp. Entanglement crystal ratio [137]. Isotactic polypropylene (i-PP), the one that face
Canis lupus familiaris Ingestion
masks are composed of [54], has the higher ratio meaning that it has the
Anas platyrhynchos Entanglement
Corvus corone Ingestion most crystalline regions; however, there are also amorphous regions that
Corvus corone Incorporation in the nest could justify eventual HOCs sorption [137]. Besides, PP degradation
Milvus migrans Carrying decreases crystalline regions, which could justify higher sorption [15].
Coloeus monedula Incorporation in the nest By being sorbed, the contaminants are removed from the water
Columba livia domestica Entanglement
Columba palumbus Entanglement
column [139], resulting in decreased availability in the water [135,
Larus argentatus Carrying 139]. However, since plastic particles are still accessible for ingestion,
Coloeus monedula Carrying both additives and sorbed contaminants remain available to marine
United Kingdom Canis lupus familiaris Ingestion biota [138] and, if ingested, will leach on the gastrointestinal tract and
Cygnus olor Entanglement
eventually, along with smaller microplastics, absorbed by tissues [98,
Laridae sp. Entanglement
Falco peregrinus Entanglement 139] and transported to the circulatory system [140]. Thus, through
Vulpes vulpes Entanglement bioaccumulation and biomagnification, there will be the poisoning of
Laridae sp. Carrying several marine animals [114,132]. Studies concerning the adsorption of
Anas platyrhynchos Entanglement external contaminants on micro/nano)plastics derived from weathered
Mergus merganser Entanglement
PPE items must be conducted and compared with conventional
Larus argentatus Ingestion
United States of America Sphoeroides testudineus Entanglement micro/nano)plastics [141]. Even considering the withdrawal of the
Canis lupus familiaris Ingestion mandatory mask usage by the public, the massive loads of such items on
Haemorhous mexicanus Incorporation in the nest earth compartments within these 2.5 years will require attention in the
Buteo jamaicensis Entanglement
near future.
Corvus corone Incorporation in the nest
Anhinga ahninga Entanglement
Uria aalge Entanglement 3.4. (Eco)toxicological effects
Australia Climacteris picumnus Entanglement
Eudyptula minor Incorporation in the nest Environmental toxicology is a multidisciplinary field of science that
Corvus coronoides Entanglement
Porphyrio melanotus Carrying
studies the adverse effects of chemical, biological, and physical agents
Chelonia mydas Ingestion on living organisms (including organs, tissues, cell types, organelles, and
Eudyptula minor Incorporation in the nest biochemical reactions) [142]. Ecotoxicology is a branch of environ­
Germany Haliaeetus albicilla Entanglement mental toxicology that goes higher in biological organisation, address­
Mus musculus Incorporation in the nest
ing adverse effects on populations, natural communities, and ecosystems
Columbidae sp. Entanglement
Ciconia ciconia Incorporation in the nest [143,144]. Micro(nano)plastics, effects can be milder to severe [94]
Canada Turdus migratorius Entanglement depending on the biological organization level in study [127]. Such
Larus argentatus Entanglement particles can induce physical stress due to their tridimensionality and
France Octopus vulgaris Hiding spot physical properties, and/or induce chemical stress when serving as
Carcinus maenas Entanglement
Italy Anas platyrhynchos Entanglement
vectors of transport of chemical contaminants and pathogens, or by
Larus michahellis Ingestion presenting a cocktail of hazardous chemicals that are added voluntarily
Ireland Cygnus olor Entanglement during their production as additives to increase polymer properties and
Fraticula arctica Entanglement prolong their life [145].
Finland Phalacrocorax carbo Incorporation in the nest
Few studies have addressed the potential (eco)toxicological effects of
Brazil Spheniscus magellanicus Ingestion
Malaysia Macaca fascicularis Chewing contaminants derived from face masks (Table 5; schematically repre­
Philippines Coral sp. Entanglement sented in Fig. 3). Concerning soil organisms, such consequences can
Belgium Haematopus longirostris Carrying hugely affect the yield and quality of, for example, crops with a potential
India Sciuridae sp. Incorporation in the nest economic impact. Soil invertebrates, which are bioturbators and in­
Scotland Pica pica Entanglement
Namibia Arctocephalus pusillus Entanglement
dicators of soil quality [146], are soil dependent not only for food but
Japan Chelonia mydas Ingestion also for respiration as most of them breathe through the skin (except for
Barbados Eretmochelys imbricata Entanglement the larvae of Tenebrio molitor [147]). Either way, they easily ingest
Tenerife Delphinus delphis Ingestion microfibres and assimilate the additives or adsorbents present in masks,
Source:Adapted from Hiemstra et al. [128]. namely metals and organic contaminants, and bioaccumulate them
[146–149]. Although most results showed no effects on survival, their
compounds that do not readily degrade in the environment [132]. In biological abundance will, in the long term, decrease due to changes in
addition to metals being face masks’ additives and, therefore, being reproduction, growth and immune responses, thus, limiting the
considered leachate, they can also be adsorbents. They occur naturally ecosystem function and services they provide. Moreover, if all plants and
and are essential to the marine environment [133]. However, their crops have the same reaction as Brassica napus (variation in roots
levels can exceed acceptable values due to urbanization, industrializa­ properties, [112]), the uptake of nutrients from the soil and, hence,
tion and the broad use of fertilizers and pesticides [134]. growth will diminish.
As occurs in the leaching of additives, the sorption of these com­ Regarding aquatic organisms, all mentioned organisms are consid­
pounds is also dependent on the characteristics of the plastic and the ered key elements in the food chain. As a primary producer, this reaction
contaminant itself, except with particle size that does not have any from Phaeodactylum tricornutum can jeopardize the following trophic
relationship with sorption [135]. Indeed, sorption is mainly related to levels, resulting in a cascade effect that ends up compromising the entire
food web [19,83],

10
A.M. Oliveira et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 11 (2023) 109308

Table 5
Ecotoxicological effects of exposure to face masks’ microplastics (MPs) and/or leachates.
ORGANISM MICROPLASTICS EXPOSURE TIME ECOTOXICOLOGICAL EFFECTS REFERENCE

SOIL Folsomia candida MPs-fibres 28 days Inhibited reproduction [91]

Middle Layer Retarded growth of juveniles
MPs < 300 µm
1000 mg/kg

Eisenia Andrei MPs-fibres 21 days Decreased intracellular esterase activity [91]

Middle layer Spermatogenesis’ inhibition
MPs < 300 µm
1000 mg/kg

Porcellio scaber MPs-fibres 3 weeks No effect on survival [103]

All layers Variation in immune response
MPs < 250 µm
0.06%, 0.5% and 1.5% w/w

Tenebrio molitor larvae MPs-fibres 3 weeks No effect on survival [103]

All layers Change in energy-related biomarkers
MPs < 250 µm
0.06%, 0.5% and 1.5% w/w

Enchytraeus crypticus MPs-fibres 3 weeks No significant effect on survival or reproduction [103]

All layers
MPs < 250 µm
0.02%; 0.06%; 0.17%; 0.5% and 1.5% w/w

Brassica napus (L.) seedlings MPs-fibres 5 and 14 days Variation in lateral roots number [112]
All layers Variation in primary root length
0.25, 1, 4, 6.25 cm2 squares
0.5% and 1% (w/v)
AQUATIC Daphnia magna MPs-fibres 48 h No effect on mobility or survival [87]
All layers
MPs < 250 µm
1 mg/L,10 mg/L and 100 mg/L

Tigriopus japonicus nauplii MPs-fibres All life cycle At 100 MPs/mL: [83]
All layers Increased time of maturation
10 µm <MPs< 50 µm Increased birth spacing time
0, 1, 10 and 100 MPs/mL Decreased fecundity

Danio rerio larvae UV-degraded fragments and leachates 10 days Down-regulation of reproduction genes [19]
All layers Up-regulation of immune response genes
< 2 mm
10 mg/L

Phaeodactylum tricornutum Face masks leachates and fibres 24, 48 and 72 h Changes in photosynthetic apparatus [99]
All layers Changes in intrinsic properties
< 0.47 µm
CELL LINE MC 3T3-E1 Face masks leachates 24 h Inhibited growth [96]
All layers Decreased viability
40 µm <MPs< 225 µm

As seen through the examples, ecotoxicological responses depend on
a wide variety of factors, especially the species, type of contamination,
concentrations tested and time of exposure and, despite that, most of
them include oxidative stress leading to reproductive failure, reduced
growth and feeding and, eventually, to higher mortality [9].
These results are in line with those verified for other types of plastics.
In oysters, for example, when adults Crassostrea gigas are exposed to
microplastics, they exhibit no interferences on growth, but it impacts
oxidative stress and lipid peroxidation, having also been registered
feeding modifications and lower fertilization success which increased
their mortality [150,151]. Oysters’ larvae are also affected, derived or
not from parental exposure [150,152]. The descendants of Crassostrea
gigas exposed parents can suffer from developmental abnormalities,
which results in lower mobility and lower growth rates [150,151], and
those from Pinctada margaritifera have increased mortality [152]. On
Scrobicularia plana, polystyrene microplastics induced DNA damage,
neurotoxicity and oxidative damage [140].
Regarding mussels, it also induced oxidative stress and an increase in
antioxidant enzyme activities on Perna viridis [153] and changes in
immunological responses and gene expression as well as neurotoxic and
genotoxicity effects on Mytilus galloprovincialis [154]. On the other hand,
exposed crabs (Carcinus maenas) exhibited reduced food consumption
and, thus, reduced energy available for growth [155] and, on shrimps,
exposure of Palaemonetes pugio resulted in acute toxicity being fibres the
most toxic microplastics [117] although, according to Carreras-Colom
et al. there were no adverse effects on Aristeus antennatus [118]. On
fish, Dicentrarchus labrax fed with PP microplastics, virgin or contami­
nated, had an intestinal inflammatory response and an imbalance in gut
microbiota, however, with no alterations in their growth [156]. On
Trachurus trachurus and Oryzias latipes, it impacted reproduction due to
anomalies in the production of vitellogenin [157,158]. Also, on Oryzias
latipes, it was verified gene expression alterations and liver toxicity and
pathology [158,159]. In Apostichopus japonicus sea cucumbers, although
microfibres are the most commonly ingested microplastics, they are
eliminated without interfering with growth and faecal production
[115]. Still, changes were observed in immunity and oxidative stress
indices [115]. The annelid Arenicola marina exposed to PVC had reduced
antioxidant capacity, immunity, feeding and ability to build holes which

11
A.M. Oliveira et al.
Fig. 3. : Potential implications of face masks and their contaminants on aquatic and terrestrial environments, and on human health.
leads to higher mortality [160]. However, on another annelid, the oli­
gochaeta Lumbriculus variegatus, exposure to microplastics did not affect
it much as it showed no oxidative damage and growth and reproduction
were not affected even in chronic exposures [161].
Exposure to fragments and fibres released from face masks (Table 5)
seems not to induce lethal effects in organisms from terrestrial or aquatic
environments studied, even at concentrations not yet reported in the
field. Notwithstanding, some sub-lethal effects were observed, mainly
reflected in physiological and biochemical changes. For example, Ten­
ebrio molitor presented alteration in energy-related biomarkers after 3
weeks of exposure to fibres in concentrations > 0.5% w/w [103]. Eco­
toxicological effects of face masks are not only related to the fragments
released but also to the chemical additives that are present in their
polymer matrix. For instance, it has been reported that the toxic effects
of face mask leachates containing endocrine-disrupting degradation
products induced a similar effect to face mask fragments alone in Danio
rerio [19]. Although many of the leachable chemicals from face masks
are recognized for their toxic effects on a wide range of aquatic and
terrestrial organisms, they have not always been accounted for in the
ecotoxicological studies conducted so far.
Although the number of studies addressing the effects of face masks
released contaminants be increasing, there is still limited data on how
they transfer through the food chain and their direct or indirect impacts
on human health [60,162]. In general, human exposure to face
mask-derived contaminants often happens through dermal contact
(skin), inhalation (air), and ingestion (food and water) [163]. For
example, face masks contain metals (such as titanium dioxide – TiO2 in
quantities ranging from 100 to 2000 mg/kg [164]) that can induce
carcinogenic and mutagenic effects [165,166]. Concomitantly, inor­
ganic and organic contaminants released from face masks can lead to
oxidative stress and damage the development of neurodegenerative
diseases [165,167]. For example, phthalates were detected in several
disposable face masks with concentrations ranging from 115 ng/g to
37700 ng/g, which results in an estimated daily intake ranging from
3.71 to 639 ng/kg-bw/day that can be aggravated in toddlers (4–5 times
higher) [168]. Although non-carcinogenic risks related to the inhalation
of phthalates were found to be within safe levels, 89.3% of the face mask
samples exhibited potential carcinogenic effects on humans [168]. A
considerable amount of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), PAHs, and
alkanes were also detected on face masks in a landmark study [169].
In addition to the adverse effects of face masks’ chemicals, inhaled
microplastics and microfibres can induce, for instance, lung inflamma­
tion. In a 720 h experiment simulating breathing with different types of
12
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 11 (2023) 109308
face masks (including disposable or reusable ones) alert for the inhala­
tion danger of microfibres after a long wearing period (except for N95)
[38]. If not retained by airway clearance mechanisms, fibres may cause
localized responses such as its additives and sorbed contaminants may
result in genotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, carcinogenicity and muta­
genicity [127,170]. Microplastics and microfibres released from face
masks may also contribute to the dispersion of pathogens [18] and
antibiotic resistance genes (ARG) in the environment [171]. The
dispersion of ARG and consequent lateral gene transfer (LGT) between
unilateral and/or multicellular microorganisms may increase microor­
ganisms’ resistance to antibiotic treatments [171]. According to Zhou
et al. [171], the architecture of face masks (microscopy meshing) can
provide a preferable base substrate for microbial communities,
including antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Given the visible extent of the
impact on nature, more research is needed to understand the environ­
mental implications of incorrect PPE disposal.
The (eco)toxicological effects reported so far lack environmental
integration, and the experimental procedures present several un­
certainties and uncontrolled variables that compromise the eventual
comparison between face masks release contaminants and conventional
plastic debris. For example, there is great variability of face masks
released fragments (micro-nanoplastics/fibres) in terms of physical
characteristics (e.g., size-distribution, behaviour), and most (eco)toxi­
cological studies miss the smallest microplastics fraction (including
nanoplastics), which generally pass undetected. On the other hand, tests
with environmentally relevant concentrations are a challenge, mainly
because it is hard to determine the exact proportion of the face masks
released contaminants found in the environment. Up to now, no study
has attempted to quantify face mask-released contaminants (micro­
plastics/fibres/ chemical compounds) abundance and composition
under pre- and post-pandemic conditions, particularly in areas highly
impacted by face mask pollution.
4. Final remarks, research, and policy needs
The COVID-19 pandemic came to exacerbate plastic pollution,
bringing increased concerns. Despite face masks’ crucial role in con­
trolling pandemic scenarios, their incorrect disposal may disturb several
ecosystems, affecting their biota through direct physical interactions or
by-products derived from their degradation. Studies assessing their
impact are increasing daily but still lack environmental integration. To
have a consolidated knowledge of the real implications of face masks on
the environment, in the short and long term, for a proper risk assessment
A.M. Oliveira et al.
and management, it is necessary to quantify the abundance and
composition of face mask-released contaminants (microplastics/fibres/
chemical compounds) under pre- and post-pandemic conditions,
particularly in areas highly impacted by face masks pollution. In addi­
tion, future studies should consider: i) degradation of masks under
relevant environmental settings (including in situ experiments),
comparing the behaviour of their microplastics to those of more con­
ventional plastics; ii) release of leachates; iii) ecotoxicological effects
considering environmentally relevant conditions (e.g., tested concen­
trations, the ageing process, among others), focusing on the potential for
bioaccumulation and how this may eventually affect us as consumers;
iv) sorption/desorption of contaminants, and v) face masks as a vector of
pathogens and antibiotic resistance genes.
Although the mandatory use of face masks by ordinary citizens in
public places has been eased in many countries worldwide, such items
will remain present in certain routines (e.g., in healthcare facilities) and
always “around” in the case of a new epidemic or pandemic scenario.
Measures and strategies have been discussed and proposed to mitigate
the problem at hand by, for instance, improving the management of
plastic waste during pandemic scenarios (e.g., as reviewed by Tripathi
et al. [172]), improving recycling or production (with biobased biode­
gradable options) of these materials [22,173,174]. In parallel, legisla­
tion restricting certain plastics, such as single-use plastics, should be
straightened, along with the stimuli on research and technology towards
the development of sustainable and biodegradable options and new
routes of faster degradation and mineralization of such items. Citizen
science programs (e.g., collecting plastic waste on beaches) and social
media must be on the political radar to increase people’s awareness and
knowledge, which are essential requirements for responsible behaviours
towards the use of plastics, waste prevention, and environmental
conservation.
Ultimate success depends on exploring the synergies between the
interested and concerned parties, from researchers, industry, govern­
ment and non-government agencies, media, and the general public. Such
synergism will enable meaningful progress on sustainable plastics with
superior quality and efficiency when considering their waste production
and management. Such interactivity will also align in terms of methods,
regulations, and goals towards plastics production and management to
avoid miscommunication that disenfranchises stakeholders and ulti­
mately delays technological progress.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to CESAM by FCT/MCTES (UIDP/50017/2020 + UIDB/
50017/2020 + LA/P/0094/2020) through national funds. A.L.P.S. was
funded by the Portuguese Science Foundation (FCT) through CEECIND/
01366/2018 research contract; under POCH funds, co-financed by the
European Social Fund and Portuguese National Funds from MEC.
References
[1] S. Baloch, M.A. Baloch, T. Zheng, X. Pei, The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-
19) pandemic, Tohoku J. Exp. Med. 250 (2020) 271–278, https://doi.org/
10.1620/tjem.250.271.
[2] Y.C. Kim, A. Reyes-Sandoval, Chapter 7—Viral-vectored vaccines against SARS-
CoV-2, in: S. Rosales-Mendoza, M. Comas-Garcia, O. Gonzalez-Ortega (Eds.),
13
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 11 (2023) 109308
Biomed. Innov. to Combat COVID-19, Academic Press, London, UK, 2022,
pp. 115–127.
[3] D. Wu, T. Wu, Q. Liu, Z. Yang, The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak: what we know, Int. J.
Infect. Dis. 94 (2020) 44–48, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.03.004.
[4] WHO, Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), World Heal, Organ (2020) https://www.
who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-
hub/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19 (accessed October 22, 2021).
[5] W.H.O., Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Situation report – 51, 2020.
[6] J. Humphreys, The importance of wearing masks in curtailing the COVID-19
pandemic, J. Fam. Med. Prim. Care. 9 (2020) 2606, https://doi.org/10.4103/
JFMPC.JFMPC_578_20.
[7] C. Gordon, A. Thompson, Use of personal protective equipment during the
COVID-19 pandemic, Br. J. Nurs. 29 (2020) 748–752.
[8] I. Mvovo, H.B. Magagula, Prevalence of Covid-19 personal protective equipment
in aquatic systems and impact on associated fauna, Environ. Syst. Decis. 1 (2022)
1–10, https://doi.org/10.1007/S10669-022-09851-5/TABLES/2.
[9] J.C. Prata, A.L.P. Silva, A.C. Duarte, T. Rocha-Santos, Disposable over reusable
face masks: public safety or environmental disaster, Environments 8 (2021) 31,
https://doi.org/10.3390/environments8040031.
[10] V.V. Ribeiro, G.E. De-la-Torre, Í.B. Castro, COVID-19-related personal protective
equipment (PPE) contamination in the highly urbanized southeast Brazilian
coast, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 177 (2022), 113522, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
MARPOLBUL.2022.113522.
[11] E. Okuku, L. Kiteresi, G. Owato, K. Otieno, C. Mwalugha, M. Mbuche, B. Gwada,
A. Nelson, P. Chepkemboi, Q. Achieng, V. Wanjeri, J. Ndwiga, L. Mulupi,
J. Omire, 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, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 162 (2021), 111840, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2020.111840.
[12] B. Mghili, M. Analla, M. Aksissou, Face masks related to COVID-19 in the beaches
of the Moroccan Mediterranean: an emerging source of plastic pollution, Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 174 (2022), 113181, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2021.113181.
[13] K. Gunasekaran, B. Mghili, A. Saravanakumar, Personal protective equipment
(PPE) pollution driven by the COVID-19 pandemic in coastal environment,
Southeast Coast of India, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 180 (2022), 113769, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113769.
[14] R. Akhbarizadeh, S. Dobaradaran, I. Nabipour, M. Tangestani, D. Abedi,
F. Javanfekr, F. Jeddi, A. Zendehboodi, Abandoned Covid-19 personal protective
equipment along the Bushehr shores, the Persian Gulf: an emerging source of
secondary microplastics in coastlines, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 168 (2021), 112386,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOLBUL.2021.112386.
[15] G.E. De-la-Torre, D.C. Dioses-Salinas, C.I. Pizarro-Ortega, M.D.F. Severini, A.D.
F. López, R. Mansilla, F. Ayala, L.M.J. Castillo, E. Castillo-Paico, D.A. Torres, L.
M. Mendoza-Castilla, C. Meza-Chuquizuta, J.K. Vizcarra, M. Mejía, J.J.V. De La
Gala, E.A.S. Ninaja, D.L.S. Calisaya, W.E. Flores-Miranda, J.L.E. Rosillo,
D. Espinoza-Morriberón, K.N. Gonzales, F.G. Torres, G.N. Rimondino, M. Ben-
Haddad, S. Dobaradaran, T.A. Aragaw, L. Santillán, Binational survey of personal
protective equipment (PPE) pollution driven by the COVID-19 pandemic in
coastal environments: abundance, distribution, and analytical characterization,
J. Hazard. Mater. 426 (2022), 128070, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2021.128070.
[16] Z. Wang, C. Guy, K.T.W. Ng, C. An, A new challenge for the management and
disposal of personal protective equipment waste during the COVID-19 pandemic,
7034–7034, Sustainability 13 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/SU13137034.
[17] L. Lin, B. Yuan, B. Zhang, H. Li, R. Liao, H. Hong, H. Lu, J. Liu, C. Yan, Uncovering
the disposable face masks as vectors of metal ions (Pb(II), Cd(II), Sr(II)) during
the COVID-19 pandemic, Chem. Eng. J. 439 (2022), 135613, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.CEJ.2022.135613.
[18] A.L.P. Silva, J.C. Prata, C. Mouneyrac, D. Barcelò, A.C. Duarte, T. Rocha-Santos,
Risks of Covid-19 face masks to wildlife: present and future research needs, Sci.
Total Environ. 792 (2021), 148505, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2021.148505.
[19] M. Sendra, P. Pereiro, M.P. Yeste, B. Novoa, A. Figueras, Surgical face masks as a
source of emergent pollutants in aquatic systems: analysis of their degradation
product effects in Danio rerio through RNA-Seq. J. Hazard. Mater. 428 (2022),
128186 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHAZMAT.2021.128186.
[20] O.O. Fadare, E.D. Okoffo, Covid-19 face masks: a potential source of microplastic
fibers in the environment, Sci. Total Environ. 737 (2020), 140279, https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2020.140279.
[21] Y. Tang, Y. Han, W. Zhang, Y. Yu, L. Huang, W. Zhou, W. Shi, D. Tian, Bisphenol
A and microplastics weaken the antimicrobial ability of blood clams by disrupting
humoral immune responses and suppressing hemocyte chemotactic activity,
Environ. Pollut. 307 (2022), 119497, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2022.119497.
[22] A.L.P. Silva, J.C. Prata, A.C. Duarte, D. Barcelò, T. Rocha-Santos, An urgent call to
think globally and act locally on landfill disposable plastics under and after covid-
19 pandemic: Pollution prevention and technological (Bio)remediation solutions,
Chem. Eng. J. 426 (2021), 131201, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.131201.
[23] J.C. Prata, A.L.P. Silva, T.R. Walker, A.C. Duarte, T. Rocha-Santos, COVID-19
pandemic repercussions on the use and management of plastics, Environ. Sci.
Technol. 54 (2020) 7760–7765, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02178.
[24] H.T. Do Thi, P. Mizsey, A.J. Toth, Applicability of membranes in protective face
masks and comparison of reusable and disposable face masks with life cycle
assessment, Sustainability 13 (2021) 12574, https://doi.org/10.3390/
su132212574.
A.M. Oliveira et al.
[25] S. Duncan, P. Bodurtha, S. Naqvi, The protective performance of reusable cloth
face masks, disposable procedure masks, KN95 masks and N95 respirators:
filtration and total inward leakage, PLoS One 16 (2021), e0258191, https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258191.
[26] A.L. Allison, E. Ambrose-Dempster, T.D. Aparsi, M. Bawn, M. Casas Arredondo,
C. Chau, K. Chandler, D. Dobrijevic, H. Hailes, P. Lettieri, C. Liu, F. Medda,
S. Michie, M. Miodownik, D. Purkiss, J. Ward, The environmental dangers of
employing single-use face masks as part of a COVID-19 exit strategy, UCL Open
Environ. (2020), https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444/000031.v1.
[27] J.J. Klemeš, Y.V. Fan, P. Jiang, The energy and environmental footprints of
COVID-19 fighting measures – PPE, disinfection, supply chains, Energy 211
(2020), 118701, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2020.118701.
[28] T.A. Aragaw, Surgical face masks as a potential source for microplastic pollution
in the COVID-19 scenario, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 159 (2020), 111517, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.MARPOLBUL.2020.111517.
[29] K.P. Lee, J. Yip, C.W. Kan, J.C. Chiou, K.F. Yung, Reusable face masks as
alternative for disposable medical masks: factors that affect their wear-comfort,
J. Environ. Res. Public Heal. 17 (2020) 6623, https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph17186623.
[30] Y. Goh, B.Y.Q. Tan, C. Bhartendu, J.J.Y. Ong, V.K. Sharma, The face mask: How a
real protection becomes a psychological symbol during Covid-19, Brain. Behav.
Immun. 88 (2020) 1–5, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BBI.2020.05.060.
[31] J. Kumar, M.S. Katto, A.A. Siddiqui, B. Sahito, M. Jamil, N. Rasheed, M. Ali,
Knowledge, attitude, and practices of healthcare workers regarding the use of
face mask to limit the spread of the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19, Cureus
12 (2020), e7737, https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7737.
[32] K.P. Chellamani, D. Veerasubramanian, R.V. Balaji, Surgical face masks:
manufacturing, Methods Classif., J. Acad. Ind. Res. 2 (2013) 320.
[33] K.C. Dutton, Overview and analysis of the meltblown process and parameters, J,
Text. Appar., Technol. Manag. 6 (2009) https://ojs.cnr.ncsu.edu/index.php/
JTATM/article/view/342 (accessed November 27, 2021).
[34] R.R. Hegde, G.S. Bhat, Nanoparticle effects on the morphology and mechanical
properties of polypropylene spunbond webs, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 118 (2010)
3141–3155, https://doi.org/10.1002/app.32304.
[35] F.G. Morais, V.K. Sakano, L.N. Lima, M.A. Franco, D.C. Reis, L.M. Zanchetta,
F. Jorge, E. Landulfo, L.H. Catalani, H.M.J. Barbosa, V.M. John, P. Artaxo,
Filtration efficiency of a large set of COVID-19 face masks commonly used in
Brazil, Aerosol Sci. Technol. 55 (2021) 1028–1041, https://doi.org/10.1080/
02786826.2021.1915466.
[36] A.S. Abbasi, A.B. Khalil, M. Arslan, Extensive use of face masks during COVID-19
pandemic: (micro-)plastic pollution and potential health concerns in the Arabian
Peninsula, Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 27 (2020) 3181–3186, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
SJBS.2020.09.054.
[37] A. Sharma, H. Omidvarborna, P. Kumar, Efficacy of facemasks in mitigating
respiratory exposure to submicron aerosols, J. Hazard. Mater. 422 (2022),
126783, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHAZMAT.2021.126783.
[38] L. Li, X. Zhao, Z. Li, K. Song, COVID-19: Performance study of microplastic
inhalation risk posed by wearing masks, J. Hazard. Mater. 411 (2021), 124955,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124955.
[39] S. Sankhyan, K.N. Heinselman, P.N. Ciesielski, T. Barnes, M.E. Himmel, H. Teed,
S. Patel, M.E. Vance, Filtration performance of layering masks and face coverings
and the reusability of cotton masks after repeated washing and drying, Aerosol
Air Qual. Res 21 (2021), 210117, https://doi.org/10.4209/AAQR.210117.
[40] J. Ammendolia, J. Saturno, A.L. Brooks, S. Jacobs, J.R. Jambeck, An emerging
source of plastic pollution: environmental presence of plastic personal protective
equipment (PPE) debris related to COVID-19 in a metropolitan city, Environ.
Pollut. 269 (2021), 116160, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2020.116160.
[41] Y.T. Tesfaldet, N.T. Ndeh, J. Budnard, P. Treeson, Assessing face mask littering in
urban environments and policy implications: the case of Bangkok, Sci. Total
Environ. 806 (2022), 150952, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150952.
[42] R.E. Sajorne, G.D.B. Cayabo, J.R.V. Madarcos, K.G. Madarcos, D.M. Omar, L.
B. Ardines, S.A. Sabtal, J.A. Mabuhay-Omar, V. Cheung, L.A. Creencia, H.
P. Bacosa, Occurrence of Covid-19 personal protective equipment (Ppe) Litters
Along the Eastern Coast of Palawan Island, Philippines, Elsevier BV,, 2022,
https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.4033186.
[43] A. Santarsiero, P. Ciambelli, G. Donsì, F. Quadrini, R. Briancesco,
D. D’Alessandro, G.M. Fara, Face masks. Technical, technological and functional
characteristics and hygienic-sanitary aspects related to the use of filtering mask in
the community, Ann. Di Ig. Med. Prev. e Di Comunita 32 (2020) 472–520,
https://doi.org/10.7416/ai.2020.2371.
[44] S. Bhattacharjee, P. Bahl, A.A. Chughtai, D. Heslop, C.R. MacIntyre, Face masks
and respirators: towards sustainable materials and technologies to overcome the
shortcomings and challenges, Nano Sel. (2022), https://doi.org/10.1002/
nano.202200101.
[45] T.M. Cook, Personal protective equipment during the coronavirus disease
(COVID) 2019 pandemic - a narrative review, Anaesthesia 75 (2020) 920–927,
https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.15071.
[46] S. Adanur, A. Jayswal, Filtration mechanisms and manufacturing methods of face
masks: an overview, J. Ind. Text. 51 (2022) 3683–3717, https://doi.org/
10.1177/1528083720980169.
[47] R.A. Garcia, T. Stevanovic, J. Berthier, G. Njamen, B. Tolnai, A. Achim, Cellulose,
nanocellulose, and antimicrobial materials for the manufacture of disposable face
masks: a review, BioResources 16 (2021) 4321–4353, https://doi.org/10.15376/
biores.16.2.garcia.
[48] E.S. Windfeld, M.S.L. Brooks, Medical waste management - A review, J. Environ.
Manag. 163 (2015) 98–108, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.08.013.
14
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 11 (2023) 109308
[49] C.C. Lee, G.L. Huffman, R.P. Nalesnik, Medical waste management, Environ. Sci.
Technol. 25 (1991) 360–363, https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814327701_0023.
[50] M. Shams, I. Alam, M.S. Mahbub, Plastic pollution during COVID-19: plastic
waste directives and its long-term impact on the environment, Env. Adv. 5
(2021), 100119, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVADV.2021.100119.
[51] M.D. Vaverková, Landfill impacts on the environment-Review, Geosciences 9
(2019) 431, https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9100431.
[52] F.P. Albuquerque, M. Dhadwal, W. Dastyar, S.M.M. Azizi, I. Karidio, H. Zaman, B.
R. Dhar, Fate of disposable face masks in high-solids anaerobic digestion:
Experimental observations and review of potential environmental implications,
Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 3 (2021), 100082, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
CSCEE.2021.100082.
[53] K.S. Khoo, L.Y. Ho, H.R. Lim, H.Y. Leong, K.W. Chew, Plastic waste associated
with the COVID-19 pandemic: crisis or opportunity? J. Hazard. Mater. 417
(2021), 126108 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126108.
[54] X. Hu, Z. Lin, Transforming waste polypropylene face masks into S-doped porous
carbon as the cathode electrode for supercapacitors, Ion. (Kiel. ) 27 (2021)
2169–2179, https://doi.org/10.1007/S11581-021-03949-7/FIGURES/9.
[55] M.A. Uddin, S. Afroj, T. Hasan, C. Carr, K.S. Novoselov, N. Karim, Environmental
impacts of personal protective clothing used to combat COVID- 19, Adv. Sustain.
Syst. (2021), 2100176, https://doi.org/10.1002/ADSU.202100176.
[56] M. Tan, Y. Wang, L. Luo, J. Hu, How the public used face masks in China during
the coronavirus disease pandemic: a survey study, Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 115 (2021),
103853, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJNURSTU.2020.103853.
[57] K.P. Roberts, S.C. Phang, J.B. Williams, D.J. Hutchinson, S.E. Kolstoe, J. Bie, I.
D. Williams, A.M. Stringfellow, Increased personal protective equipment litter as
a result of COVID-19 measures, Nat. Sustain. 5 (2021) 272–279, https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41893-021-00824-1.
[58] T.P. Bondaroff, S. Cooke, Masks Beach.: Impact Covid-19 Mar. Plast. Pollut.
(2020).
[59] M.J. Abedin, M.U. Khandaker, M.R. Uddin, M.R. Karim, M.S.U. Ahamad, M.
A. Islam, A.M. Arif, A. Sulieman, A.M. Idris, PPE pollution in the terrestrial and
aquatic environment of the Chittagong city area associated with the COVID-19
pandemic and concomitant health implications, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29
(2022) 27521–27533, https://doi.org/10.1007/S11356-021-17859-8/FIGURES/
5.
[60] G. Kutralam-Muniasamy, V.C. Shruti, The case of “public congregation vs.
COVID-19 PPE pollution”: Evidence, lessons, and recommendations from the
annual pilgrimage to the Catholic Holy Site in Mexico City, Mexico, Sci. Total
Environ. 821 (2022), 153424, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
SCITOTENV.2022.153424.
[61] T. Hatami, M.R.J. Rakib, R. Madadi, G.E. De-la-Torre, A.M. Idris, Personal
protective equipment (PPE) pollution in the Caspian Sea, the largest enclosed
inland water body in the world, Sci. Total Environ. 824 (2022), 153771, https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2022.153771.
[62] C. Akarsu, Ö. Madenli, E.Ü. Deveci, Characterization of littered face masks in the
southeastern part of Turkey, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28 (2021) 47517–47527,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14099-8.
[63] T.A. Aragaw, G.E. De-la-Torre, A.A. Teshager, Personal protective equipment
(PPE) pollution driven by the COVID-19 pandemic along the shoreline of Lake
Tana, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia, Sci. Total Environ. 820 (2022), 153261, https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2022.153261.
[64] G.E. De-la-Torre, M.R.J. Rakib, C.I. Pizarro-Ortega, D.C. Dioses-Salinas,
Occurrence of personal protective equipment (PPE) associated with the COVID-19
pandemic along the coast of Lima, Peru, Sci. Total Environ. 774 (2021), 145774,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2021.145774.
[65] M.R.J. Rakib, G.E. De-la-Torre, C.I. Pizarro-Ortega, D.C. Dioses-Salinas, S. Al-
Nahian, Personal protective equipment (PPE) pollution driven by the COVID-19
pandemic in Cox’s Bazar, the longest natural beach in the world, Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 169 (2021), 112497, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
MARPOLBUL.2021.112497.
[66] M. Thiel, D. de Veer, N.L. Espinoza-Fuenzalida, C. Espinoza, C. Gallardo, I.
A. Hinojosa, T. Kiessling, J. Rojas, A. Sanchez, F. Sotomayor, N. Vasquez,
R. Villablanca, COVID lessons from the global south – Face masks invading tourist
beaches and recommendations for the outdoor seasons, Sci. Total Environ. 786
(2021), 147486, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2021.147486.
[67] E.E.Y. Amuah, E.P. Agyemang, P. Dankwa, B. Fei-Baffoe, R.W. Kazapoe, N.
B. Douti, Are used face masks handled as infectious waste? Novel pollution driven
by the COVID-19 pandemic, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Adv. 13 (2022), 200062,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RCRADV.2021.200062.
[68] R.L. France, First landscape-scale survey of the background level of COVID-19
face mask litter: Exploring the potential for citizen science data collection during
a ‘pollution pilgrimage’ of walking a 250-km roadside transect, Sci. Total
Environ. 816 (2022), 151569, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
SCITOTENV.2021.151569.
[69] M.B. Haddad, G.E. De-la-Torre, M.R. Abelouah, S. Hajji, A.A. Alla, Personal
protective equipment (PPE) pollution associated with the COVID-19 pandemic
along the coastline of Agadir, Morocco, Sci. Total Environ. 798 (2021), 149282,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2021.149282.
[70] R. Rathinamoorthy, S.R. Balasaraswathi, Disposable tri-layer masks and
microfiber pollution – An experimental analysis on dry and wet state emission,
Sci. Total Environ. 816 (2022), 151562, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
SCITOTENV.2021.151562.
[71] A.A. Shah, F. Hasan, A. Hameed, S. Ahmed, Biological degradation of plastics: a
comprehensive review, Biotechnol. Adv. 26 (2008) 246–265, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.BIOTECHADV.2007.12.005.
A.M. Oliveira et al.
[72] B.C. Almroth, H. Eggert, Marine plastic pollution: sources, impacts, and policy
issues, Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 13 (2019) 317–326, https://doi.org/10.1093/
reep/rez012.
[73] A.M.S. Paço, Biodegrad. Micro.: Optim. Scale , Dep. De. Biol., Univ. De. Aveiro,
Masters Diss. (2018).
[74] B. Singh, N. Sharma, Mechanistic implications of plastic degradation, Polym.
Degrad. Stab. 93 (2008) 561–584, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
POLYMDEGRADSTAB.2007.11.008.
[75] K. Zhang, A.H. Hamidian, A. Tubić, Y. Zhang, H. Fang, J.K. C. Wu, P.K.S. Lam,
Understanding plastic degradation and microplastic formation in the
environment: A review, Environ. Pollut. 274 (2021), 116554, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2021.116554.
[76] N. Lucas, C. Bienaime, C. Belloy, M. Queneudec, F. Silvestre, J.E. Nava-Saucedo,
Polymer biodegradation: mechanisms and estimation techniques – A review,
Chemosphere 73 (2008) 429–442, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
CHEMOSPHERE.2008.06.064.
[77] A. Ammala, S. Bateman, K. Dean, E. Petinakis, P. Sangwan, S. Wong, Q. Yuan,
L. Yu, C. Patrick, K.H. Leong, An overview of degradable and biodegradable
polyolefins, Prog. Polym. Sci. 36 (2011) 1015–1049, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
PROGPOLYMSCI.2010.12.002.
[78] L. Canopoli, F. Coulon, S.T. Wagland, Degradation of excavated polyethylene and
polypropylene waste from landfill, Sci. Total Environ. 698 (2020), 134125,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2019.134125.
[79] F. Saliu, M. Veronelli, C. Raguso, D. Barana, P. Galli, M. Lasagni, The release
process of microfibers: from surgical face masks into the marine environment,
Environ. Adv. 4 (2021), 100042, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENVADV.2021.100042.
[80] Z. Wang, C. An, X. Chen, K. Lee, B. Zhang, Q. Feng, Disposable masks release
microplastics to the aqueous environment with exacerbation by natural
weathering, J. Hazard. Mater. 417 (2021), 126036, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JHAZMAT.2021.126036.
[81] J. Dissanayake, C. Torres-Quiroz, J. Mahato, J. Park, Facemasks: a looming
microplastic crisis, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 (2021) 7068, https://
doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH18137068.
[82] X. Chen, X. Chen, Q. Liu, Q. Zhao, X. Xiong, C. Wu, Used disposable face masks
are significant sources of microplastics to environment, Environ. Pollut. J. 285
(2021), 117485, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117485.
[83] J. Sun, S. Yang, G.J. Zhou, K. Zhang, Y. Lu, Q. Jin, P.K.S. Lam, K.M.Y. Leung,
Y. He, Release of microplastics from discarded surgical masks and their adverse
impacts on the marine copepod Tigriopus japonicus, Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 8
(2021) 1065–1070, https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.ESTLETT.1C00748/SUPPL_
FILE/EZ1C00748_SI_001.PDF.
[84] P. Wu, J. Li, X. Lu, Y. Tang, Z. Cai, Release of tens of thousands of microfibers
from discarded face masks under simulated environmental conditions, Sci. Total
Environ. 806 (2022), 150458, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
SCITOTENV.2021.150458.
[85] M. Shen, Z. Zeng, B. Song, H. Yi, T. Hu, Y. Zhang, G. Zeng, R. Xiao, Neglected
microplastics pollution in global COVID-19: Disposable surgical masks, Sci. Total
Environ. 790 (2021), 148130, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
SCITOTENV.2021.148130.
[86] J. Ma, F. Chen, H. Xu, H. Jiang, J. Liu, P. Li, C.C. Chen, K. Pan, Face masks as a
source of nanoplastics and microplastics in the environment: Quantification,
characterization, and potential for bioaccumulation, Environ. Pollut. 288 (2021),
117748, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2021.117748.
[87] A.J. Kokalj, A. Dolar, D. Drobne, M. Marinšek, M. Dolenec, L. Škrlep, G. Strmljan,
B. Mušič, A.S. Škapin, Environmental hazard of polypropylene microplastics from
disposable medical masks: acute toxicity towards Daphnia magna and current
knowledge on other polypropylene microplastics, Microplastics Nanoplastics
2021 21. 2, 1–15 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1186/S43591-021-00020-0.
[88] S. Morgana, B. Casentini, S. Amalfitano, Uncovering the release of micro/
nanoplastics from disposable face masks at times of COVID-19, J. Hazard. Mater.
419 (2021), 126507, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHAZMAT.2021.126507.
[89] T.M. Adyel, Accumulation of plastic waste during COVID-19, Sci. (80-. ). 369
(2020) 1314–1315, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd9925.
[90] J.P. Costa, P.S.M. Santos, A.C. Duarte, T. Rocha-Santos, Nano)plastics in the
environment – Sources, fates and effects, Sci. Total Environ. 566– 567 (2016)
15–26, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2016.05.041.
[91] J.I. Kwak, Y.J. An, Post COVID-19 pandemic: Biofragmentation and soil
ecotoxicological effects of microplastics derived from face masks, J. Hazard.
Mater. 416 (2021), 126169, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHAZMAT.2021.126169.
[92] H. Knicker, M. Velasco-Molina, Biodegradability of disposable surgical face masks
littered into soil systems during the covid 19 pandemic - A first approach using
microcosms, Soil Syst. 6 (2022) 39, https://doi.org/10.3390/
SOILSYSTEMS6020039.
[93] H. Liang, Y. Ji, W. Ge, J. Wu, N. Song, Z. Yin, C. Chai, Release kinetics of
microplastics from disposable face masks into the aqueous environment, Sci.
Total Environ. 816 (2022), 151650, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
SCITOTENV.2021.151650.
[94] G.L. Sullivan, J. Delgado-Gallardo, T.M. Watson, S. Sarp, An investigation into the
leaching of micro and nano particles and chemical pollutants from disposable face
masks - linked to the COVID-19 pandemic, Water Res 196 (2021), 117033,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.117033.
[95] X. Wang, E.D. Okoffo, A.P.W. Banks, Y. Li, K.V. Thomas, C. Rauert, L.L. Aylward,
J.F. Mueller, Phthalate esters in face masks and associated inhalation exposure
risk, J. Hazard. Mater. 423 (2022), 127001, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JHAZMAT.2021.127001.
15
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 11 (2023) 109308
[96] Z. Liu, J. Wang, X. Yang, Q. Huang, K. Zhu, Y. Sun, S. Van Hulle, H. Jia,
Generation of environmental persistent free radicals (EPFRs) enhances
ecotoxicological effects of the disposable face mask waste with the COVID-19
pandemic, Environ. Pollut. 301 (2022), 119019, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENVPOL.2022.119019.
[97] R. Liu, S.A. Mabury, Single-use face masks as a potential source of synthetic
antioxidants to the environment, Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 8 (2021) 651–655,
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00422.
[98] E.L. Teuten, J.M. Saquing, D.R.U. Knappe, M.A. Barlaz, S. Jonsson, A. Björn, S.
J. Rowland, R.C. Thompson, T.S. Galloway, R. Yamashita, D. Ochi, Y. Watanuki,
C. Moore, P.H. Viet, T.S. Tana, M. Prudente, R. Boonyatumanond, M.P. Zakaria,
K. Akkhavong, Y. Ogata, H. Hirai, S. Iwasa, K. Mizukawa, Y. Hagino, A. Imamura,
M. Saha, H. Takada, Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the
environment and to wildlife, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 364 (2009)
2027–2045, https://doi.org/10.1098/RSTB.2008.0284.
[99] M. Sendra, A. Rodriguez-Romero, P. Yeste, J. Blasco, A. Tovar-Sánchez, Products
released from surgical face masks can provoke cytotoxicity in the marine diatom
Phaeodactylum tricornutum, Sci. Total Environ. (2022), 156611, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156611.
[100] J.H. Bridson, E.C. Gaugler, D.A. Smith, G.L. Northcott, S. Gaw, Leaching and
extraction of additives from plastic pollution to inform environmental risk: A
multidisciplinary review of analytical approaches, J. Hazard. Mater. 414 (2021),
125571, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125571.
[101] V.M. León, I. García, E. González, R. Samper, V. Fernández-González,
S. Muniategui-Lorenzo, Potential transfer of organic pollutants from littoral
plastics debris to the marine environment, Environ. Pollut. 236 (2018) 442–453,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2018.01.114.
[102] D.D. Bussan, L. Snaychuk, G. Bartzas, C. Douvris, Quantification of trace elements
in surgical and KN95 face masks widely used during the SARS-COVID-19
pandemic, Sci. Total Environ. 814 (2022), 151924, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
SCITOTENV.2021.151924.
[103] A.J. Kokalj, A. Dolar, D. Drobne, L. Škrlep, A.S. Škapin, G. Marolt, A. Nagode, C.A.
M. van Gestel, Effects of microplastics from disposable medical masks on
terrestrial invertebrates, J. Hazard. Mater. (2022), 129440, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.129440.
[104] M. Ardusso, A.D. Forero-López, N.S. Buzzi, C.V. Spetter, M.D. Fernández-Severini,
COVID-19 pandemic repercussions on plastic and antiviral polymeric textile
causing pollution on beaches and coasts of South America, Sci. Total Environ. 763
(2021), 144365, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2020.144365.
[105] A.D. Forero-López, M. Fabiani, V.L. Lassalle, C.V. Spetter, M.D.F. Severini, Critical
review of the characteristics, interactions, and toxicity of micro/nanomaterials
pollutants in aquatic environments, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 174 (2022), 113276,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOLBUL.2021.113276.
[106] J. Fernández-Arribas, T. Moreno, R. Bartrolí, E. Eljarrat, COVID-19 face masks: a
new source of human and environmental exposure to organophosphate esters,
Environ. Int. 154 (2021), 106654, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENVINT.2021.106654.
[107] J. Arutchelvi, M. Sudhakar, A. Arkatkar, M. Doble, S. Bhaduri, P.V. Uppara,
Biodegradation of polyethylene and polypropylene, Indian J. Biotechnol. 7 (2008)
9–22.
[108] A. Khoironi, H. Hadiyanto, S. Anggoro, S. Sudarno, Evaluation of polypropylene
plastic degradation and microplastic identification in sediments at Tambak Lorok
coastal area, Semarang, Indonesia, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 151 (2020), 110868, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110868.
[109] E.M. Schleiffenbaum, Petition fordert priorisierung der stoffmasken-produktion,
Greenpeace Switz. (2020). 〈https://www.greenpeace.ch/de/medienmitteilung
/59915/petition-fordert-priorisierung-der-stoffmasken-produktion/〉. accessed
July 6, 2022.
[110] H. Du, S. Huang, J. Wang, Environmental risks of polymer materials from
disposable face masks linked to the COVID-19 pandemic, Sci. Total Environ. 815
(2022), 152980, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2022.152980.
[111] N.A. Hasan, R.D. Heal, A. Bashar, M.M. Haque, Face masks: protecting the wearer
but neglecting the aquatic environment? - A perspective from Bangladesh,
Environ. Chall. 4 (2021), 100126, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENVC.2021.100126.
[112] E. Mészáros, A. Bodor, Á. Szierer, E. Kovács, K. Perei, C. Tölgyesi, Z. Bátori,
G. Feigl, Indirect effects of COVID-19 on the environment: how plastic
contamination from disposable surgical masks affect early development of plants,
J. Hazard. Mater. 436 (2022), 129255, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2022.129255.
[113] S. Dharmaraj, V. Ashokkumar, S. Hariharan, A. Manibharathi, P.L. Show, C.
T. Chong, C. Ngamcharussrivichai, The COVID-19 pandemic face mask waste: A
blooming threat to the marine environment, Chemosphere 272 (2021), 129601,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2021.129601.
[114] K. Selvaranjan, S. Navaratnam, P. Rajeev, N. Ravintherakumaran, Environmental
challenges induced by extensive use of face masks during COVID-19: A review
and potential solutions, Environ. Chall. 3 (2021), 100039, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ENVC.2021.100039.
[115] M. Mohsen, L. Zhang, L. Sun, C. Lin, Q. Wang, S. Liu, J. Sun, H. Yang, Effect of
chronic exposure to microplastic fibre ingestion in the sea cucumber Apostichopus
japonicus, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 209 (2021), 111794, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ECOENV.2020.111794.
[116] T. Wakkaf, R. El Zrelli, M. Kedzierski, R. Balti, M. Shaiek, L. Mansour, S. Tlig-
Zouari, S. Bruzaud, L. Rabaoui, Microplastics in edible mussels from a southern
Mediterranean lagoon: preliminary results on seawater-mussel transfer and
A.M. Oliveira et al.
implications for environmental protection and seafood safety, Mar. Pollut. Bull.
158 (2020), 111355, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOLBUL.2020.111355.
[117] A.D. Gray, J.E. Weinstein, Size- and shape-dependent effects of microplastic
particles on adult daggerblade grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio), Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 36 (2017) 3074–3080, https://doi.org/10.1002/ETC.3881.
[118] E. Carreras-Colom, M. Constenla, A. Soler-Membrives, J.E. Cartes, M. Baeza,
F. Padrós, M. Carrassón, Spatial occurrence and effects of microplastic ingestion
on the deep-water shrimp Aristeus antennatus, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 133 (2018)
44–52, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOLBUL.2018.05.012.
[119] M.F. Severini, N.S. Buzzi, A.F. López, C.V. Colombo, G.C. Sartor, G.N. Rimondino,
D.M. Truchet, Chemical composition and abundance of microplastics in the
muscle of commercial shrimp Pleoticus muelleri at an impacted coastal
environment (Southwestern Atlantic, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 161 (2020), 111700,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOLBUL.2020.111700.
[120] A.J.R. Watts, C. Lewis, R.M. Goodhead, S.J. Beckett, J. Moger, C.R. Tyler, T.
S. Galloway, Uptake and retention of microplastics by the shore crab Carcinus
maenas, Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 (2014) 8823–8830, https://doi.org/10.1021/
ES501090E/SUPPL_FILE/ES501090E_SI_001.ZIP.
[121] S. Abidli, Y. Lahbib, N.T.El Menif, Microplastics in commercial molluscs from the
lagoon of Bizerte (Northern Tunisia), Mar. Pollut. Bull. 142 (2019) 243–252,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOLBUL.2019.03.048.
[122] B. Jovanović, Ingestion of microplastics by fish and its potential consequences
from a physical perspective, Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 13 (2017) 510–515,
https://doi.org/10.1002/IEAM.1913.
[123] C.M. Rochman, A. Tahir, S.L. Williams, D.V. Baxa, R. Lam, J.T. Miller, F.C. Teh,
S. Werorilangi, S.J. Teh, Anthropogenic debris in seafood: plastic debris and fibers
from textiles in fish and bivalves sold for human consumption.Sci, Rep 51 (5)
(2015) 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14340.
[124] K.D. Cox, G.A. Covernton, H.L. Davies, J.F. Dower, F. Juanes, S.E. Dudas, Human
consumption of microplastics, Environ. Sci. Technol. 53 (2019) 7068–7074,
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b01517.
[125] R. Dris, J. Gasperi, C. Mirande, C. Mandin, M. Guerrouache, V. Langlois, B. Tassin,
A first overview of textile fibers, including microplastics, in indoor and outdoor
environments, Environ. Pollut. 221 (2017) 453–458, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2016.12.013.
[126] S.N. Athey, L.M. Erdle, Are we underestimating anthropogenic microfiber
pollution? A critical review of occurrence, methods, and reporting, Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 00 (2021) 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5173.
[127] A. Torres-Agullo, A. Karanasiou, T. Moreno, S. Lacorte, Overview on the
occurrence of microplastics in air and implications from the use of face masks
during the COVID-19 pandemic, Sci. Total Environ. 800 (2021), 149555, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149555.
[128] A.F. Hiemstra, L. Rambonnet, B. Gravendeel, M. Schilthuizen, Effects of COVID-
19 litter on animal life, (2022). https://www.covidlitter.com/ (accessed June 3,
2022).
[129] I. Anastopoulos, I. Pashalidis, Single-use surgical face masks, as a potential source
of microplastics: do they act as pollutant carriers? J. Mol. Liq. 326 (2021), 115247
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MOLLIQ.2020.115247.
[130] M.P.G. Mol, S. Caldas, Can the human coronavirus epidemic also spread through
solid waste, Waste Manag. Res. 38 (2020) 485–486, https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734242X20918312.
[131] L. Lin, B. Yuan, H. Hong, H. Li, L. He, H. Lu, J. Liu, C. Yan, Post COVID-19
pandemic: disposable face masks as a potential vector of antibiotics in freshwater
and seawater, Sci. Total Environ. 820 (2022), 153049, https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.SCITOTENV.2022.153049.
[132] L.M. Rios, C. Moore, P.R. Jones, Persistent organic pollutants carried by synthetic
polymers in the ocean environment, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 54 (2007) 1230–1237,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOLBUL.2007.03.022.
[133] T.M. Ansari, I.L. Marr, N. Tariq, Heavy metals in marine pollution perspective–A
mini review, J. Appl. Sci. 4 (2003) 1–20, https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2004.1.20.
[134] I. Priyadarshani, D. Sahu, B. Rath, Microalgal bioremediation: current practices
and perspectives, J. Biochem. Technol. 3 (2012) 299–304.
[135] T. Hüffer, T. Hofmann, Sorption of non-polar organic compounds by micro-sized
plastic particles in aqueous solution, Environ. Pollut. 214 (2016) 194–201,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.04.018.
[136] W. Mei, G. Chen, J. Bao, M. Song, Y. Li, C. Luo, Interactions between microplastics
and organic compounds in aquatic environments: a mini review, Sci. Total
Environ. 736 (2020), 139472, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
SCITOTENV.2020.139472.
[137] A. Siciliano, B. Clifford, D. Cahn, B. Hude-velasco, The recovery of waste
polypropylene & synthesis of a sustainable extrudable paste for additive
manufacturing, (2020).
[138] L.M. Rios, P.R. Jones, C.J. Moore, Quantitation of persistent organic pollutants
adsorbed on plastic debris from the Northern Pacific Gyre’s “eastern garbage
patch, J. Environ. Monit. 12 (2010) 2189–2312, https://doi.org/10.1039/
c0em00239a.
[139] H. Lee, W.J. Shim, J.H. Kwon, Sorption capacity of plastic debris for hydrophobic
organic chemicals, Sci. Total Environ. 470– 471 (2014) 1545–1552, https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2013.08.023.
[140] F. Ribeiro, A.R. Garcia, B.P. Pereira, M. Fonseca, N.C. Mestre, T.G. Fonseca, L.
M. Ilharco, M.J. Bebianno, Microplastics effects in Scrobicularia plana, Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 122 (2017) 379–391, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
MARPOLBUL.2017.06.078.
[141] F.G. Torres, G.E. De-la-Torre, Historical microplastic records in marine sediments:
current progress and methodological evaluation, Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 46 (2021),
101868, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSMA.2021.101868.
16
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 11 (2023) 109308
[142] W.H. Tolleson, Mechanistic ecotoxicology and environmental toxicology,
J. Environ. Sci. Heal. Part C. 36 (2018) 164–166, https://doi.org/10.1080/
10590501.2018.1492201.
[143] P.A. Stapleton, Toxicological considerations of nano-sized plastics, AIMS,
Environ. Sci. 6 (2019) 367–378, https://doi.org/10.3934/
ENVIRONSCI.2019.5.367/FULLTEXT.HTML.
[144] F. Moriarty, Ecotoxicology, Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 7 (1988) 437–441, https://doi.
org/10.1177/096032718800700510.
[145] J.L. Xu, X. Lin, J.J. Wang, A.A. Gowen, A review of potential human health
impacts of micro- and nanoplastics exposure, Sci. Total Environ. 851 (2022),
158111, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2022.158111.
[146] H.C. Fründ, U. Graefe, S. Tischer, Earthworms as bioindicators of soil quality, in:
Biol. Earthworms, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011, pp. 261–278, https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-642-14636-7_16.
[147] M. Vijver, T. Jager, L. Posthuma, W. Peijnenburg, Metal uptake from soils and
soil–sediment mixtures by larvae of Tenebrio molitor (L.) (Coleoptera), Ecotoxicol.
Environ. Saf. 54 (2003) 277–289, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-6513(02)
00027-1.
[148] M.P. Castro-Ferreira, D. Roelofs, C.A.M. van Gestel, R.A. Verweij, A.M.V.
M. Soares, M.J.B. Amorim, Enchytraeus crypticus as model species in soil
ecotoxicology, Chemosphere 87 (2012) 1222–1227, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
CHEMOSPHERE.2012.01.021.
[149] C. Menta, A. Maggiani, Z. Vattuone, Effects of Cd and Pb on the survival and
juvenile production of Sinella coeca and Folsomia candida, Eur. J. Soil Biol. 42
(2006) 181–189, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJSOBI.2006.01.001.
[150] A. Bringer, J. Cachot, E. Dubillot, G. Prunier, V. Huet, C. Clérandeau, L. Evin,
H. Thomas, Intergenerational effects of environmentally-aged microplastics on
the Crassostrea gigas, Environ. Pollut. 294 (2022), 118600, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2021.118600.
[151] R. Sussarellu, M. Suquet, Y. Thomas, C. Lambert, C. Fabioux, M.E.J. Pernet, N.
L. Goïc, V. Quillien, C. Mingant, Y. Epelboin, C. Corporeau, J. Guyomarch,
J. Robbens, I. Paul-Pont, P. Soudant, A. Huvet, Oyster reproduction is affected by
exposure to polystyrene microplastics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 113 (2016)
2430–2435, https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.1519019113/-/DCSUPPLEMENTAL.
[152] T. Gardon, A. Huvet, I. Paul-Pont, A.L. Cassone, M.S. Koua, C. Soyez, R. Jezequel,
J. Receveur, G. Le Moullac, Toxic effects of leachates from plastic pearl-farming
gear on embryo-larval development in the pearl oyster Pinctada margaritifera,
Water Res 179 (2020), 115890, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
WATRES.2020.115890.
[153] R.L. Vasanthi, C. Arulvasu, P. Kumar, P. Srinivasan, Ingestion of microplastics and
its potential for causing structural alterations and oxidative stress in Indian green
mussel Perna viridis– A multiple biomarker approach, Chemosphere 283 (2021),
130979, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2021.130979.
[154] C.G. Avio, S. Gorbi, M. Milan, M. Benedetti, D. Fattorini, G. D’Errico, M. Pauletto,
L. Bargelloni, F. Regoli, Pollutants bioavailability and toxicological risk from
microplastics to marine mussels, Environ. Pollut. 198 (2015) 211–222, https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2014.12.021.
[155] A.J.R. Watts, M.A. Urbina, S. Corr, C. Lewis, T.S. Galloway, Ingestion of plastic
microfibers by the crab Carcinus maenas and its effect on food consumption and
energy balance, Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (2015) 14597–14604, https://doi.org/
10.1021/ACS.EST.5B04026.
[156] D. Montero, S. Rimoldi, S. Torrecillas, J. Rapp, F. Moroni, A. Herrera, M. Gómez,
A. Fernández-Montero, G. Terova, Impact of polypropylene microplastics and
chemical pollutants on European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) gut microbiota
and health, Sci. Total Environ. 805 (2022), 150402, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
SCITOTENV.2021.150402.
[157] T. Chenet, A. Mancia, G. Bono, F. Falsone, D. Scannella, C. Vaccaro, A. Baldi,
M. Catani, A. Cavazzini, L. Pasti, Plastic ingestion by Atlantic horse mackerel
(Trachurus trachurus) from central Mediterranean Sea: a potential cause for
endocrine disruption, Environ. Pollut. 284 (2021), 117449, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2021.117449.
[158] C.M. Rochman, T. Kurobe, I. Flores, S.J. Teh, Early warning signs of endocrine
disruption in adult fish from the ingestion of polyethylene with and without
sorbed chemical pollutants from the marine environment, Sci. Total Environ. 493
(2014) 656–661, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2014.06.051.
[159] C.M. Rochman, E. Hoh, T. Kurobe, S.J. Teh, Ingested plastic transfers hazardous
chemicals to fish and induces hepatic stress, Sci. Rep. 3 (2013), https://doi.org/
10.1038/SREP03263.
[160] M.A. Browne, S.J. Niven, T.S. Galloway, S.J. Rowland, R.C. Thompson,
Microplastic moves pollutants and additives to worms, reducing functions linked
to health and biodiversity, Curr. Biol. 23 (2013) 2388–2392, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.CUB.2013.10.012.
[161] C.J.M. Silva, A.L.P. Silva, D. Campos, A.M.V.M. Soares, J.L.T. Pestana, C. Gravato,
Lumbriculus variegatus (oligochaeta) exposed to polyethylene microplastics:
biochemical, physiological and reproductive responses, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.
207 (2021), 111375, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOENV.2020.111375.
[162] G.E. De-la-Torre, C.I. Pizarro-Ortega, D.C. Dioses-Salinas, J. Ammendolia, E.
D. Okoffo, Investigating the current status of COVID-19 related plastics and their
potential impact on human health, Curr. Opin. Toxicol. 27 (2021) 47–53, https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.COTOX.2021.08.002.
[163] M. Li, Z. Hou, R. Meng, S. Hao, B. Wang, Unraveling the potential human health
risks from used disposable face mask-derived micro/nanoplastics during the
COVID-19 pandemic scenario: A critical review, Environ. Int. 170 (2022),
107644, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107644.
[164] E. Verleysen, M. Ledecq, L. Siciliani, K. Cheyns, C. Vleminckx, M.N. Blaude, S. De
Vos, F. Brassinne, F. Van Steen, R. Nkenda, R. Machiels, N. Waegeneers, J. Van
A.M. Oliveira et al.
Loco, J. Mast, Titanium dioxide particles frequently present in face masks
intended for general use require regulatory control, Sci. Rep. 12 (2022) 1–9,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-06605-w.
[165] Z. Fu, S. Xi, The effects of heavy metals on human metabolism, Toxicol. Mech.
Methods 30 (2020) 167–176, https://doi.org/10.1080/15376516.2019.1701594.
[166] A.S. Vijayaraj, C. Mohandass, D. Joshi, Microremediation of tannery wastewater
by siderophore producing marine bacteria, Environ. Technol. 41 (2020)
3619–3632, https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2019.1615995.
[167] S. Giacoppo, M. Galuppo, R.S. Calabrò, G. D’Aleo, A. Marra, E. Sessa, D.G. Bua, A.
G. Potortì, G. Dugo, P. Bramanti, E. Mazzon, Heavy metals and neurodegenerative
diseases: an observational study, Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 161 (2014) 151–160,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-014-0094-5.
[168] H. Xie, W. Han, Q. Xie, T. Xu, M. Zhu, J. Chen, Face mask—A potential source of
phthalate exposure for human, J. Hazard. Mater. 422 (2022), 126848, https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.JHAZMAT.2021.126848.
[169] L. Jin, S.M. Griffith, Z. Sun, J.Z. Yu, W. Chan, On the flip side of mask wearing:
increased exposure to volatile organic compounds and a risk-reducing solution,
Environ. Sci. Technol. 55 (2021) 14095–14104, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
est.1c04591.
[170] J. Gasperi, S.L. Wright, R. Dris, F. Collard, C. Mandin, M. Guerrouache,
V. Langlois, F.J. Kelly, B. Tassin, Microplastics in air: Are we breathing it in? Curr.
Opin. Environ. Sci. Heal. 1 (2018) 1–5, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
coesh.2017.10.002.
[171] S.Y.D. Zhou, C. Lin, K. Yang, L.Y. Yang, X.R. Yang, F.Y. Huang, R. Neilson, J.
Q. Su, Y.G. Zhu, Discarded masks as hotspots of antibiotic resistance genes during
17
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 11 (2023) 109308
COVID-19 pandemic, J. Hazard. Mater. 425 (2022), 127774, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.JHAZMAT.2021.127774.
[172] A. Tripathi, V.K. Tyagi, V. Vivekanand, P. Bose, S. Suthar, Challenges,
opportunities and progress in solid waste management during COVID-19
pandemic, Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 2 (2020), 100060, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.CSCEE.2020.100060.
[173] A.L.P. Silva, J.C. Prata, T.R. Walker, D. Campos, A.C. Duarte, A.M.V.M. Soares,
D. Barcelò, T. Rocha-Santos, 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, Sci. Total
Environ. 742 (2020), 140565, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
SCITOTENV.2020.140565.
[174] L.D. Nghiem, H.M.N. Iqbal, J. Zdarta, The shadow pandemic of single use
personal protective equipment plastic waste: A blue print for suppression and
eradication, Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 4 (2021), 100125, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.CSCEE.2021.100125.
[175] N.U. Benson, D.E. Bassey, T. Palanisami, COVID pollution: impact of COVID-19
pandemic on global plastic waste footprint, Heliyon 7 (2021), e06343, https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.HELIYON.2021.E06343.
[176] T.A. Aragaw, B.A. Mekonnen, Current plastic pollution threat due to COVID-19
and its possible mitigation techniques: a waste-to-energy conversion by pyrolysis,
Environ. Syst. Res. 10 (2021) 8, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-020-00217-x.
[177] Z. Zhenfang, J. Dongxiao, H. He, S. Ramakrishna, Electro Ultra Fibres Adv. face
masks. Mat. Sci. Eng. 143 (2021), 100594, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
mser.2020.100594.