Release of microfibers from surgical face masks: an undesirable contributor to aquatic pollution
Abstract
The worldwide usage of surgical face masks (SFM) has increased rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Its degradation possibly produces billions of microplastics (MPs) in the environment. To quantify the release of microfibers (MFs), unused SFM were treated with eight different aqueous solutions, each with five replications in two categories, i.e., freshwater (FW) treatments [800 mL FW, 40 mL of 95% alcohol + 800 mL FW, 40 mL of 30% H2O2 + 800 mL FW, and 4 g sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) + 800 mL FW], and saltwater (SW) treatments (800 mL SW, 40 mL of 95% alcohol + 800 mL SW,
Keywords
INTRODUCTION
Microplastics (MPs) are complex heterogeneous plastic particles ranging from < 5 mm to 100 nm, with different chemical compositions, molecular weights, sizes, colors, and shapes. MPs can either be categorized as primary or secondary based on their origin. Primary MPs are deliberately manufactured in a desired size of < 5 mm[1], while secondary MPs are produced from the degradation of larger plastic polymers. Various physical, chemical and biological processes such as abrasion, eroding, aging, weathering, photo-oxidation process, and microbial activity accelerate its degradation in the environment[2,3]. Different shapes of MPs can be identified based on their morphology. Beads, pellets, and granules are primary MPs, while fibers (lines and filaments), foam, fragments, and film are the common form of secondary MPs[4]. MP pollutants are ubiquitous contaminants due to their persistent and low biodegradation characteristics in nature. Owing to smaller particle size (< 5 mm), MPs have the potency of bio-accumulation and bio-magnification across food webs for both freshwater and marine environments. This emergent MP contaminant is responsible for environmental pollution and threatens aquatic life, which is widely recognized as a matter of global concern[5-8].
Surgical face masks (SFM) are currently perceived as the most used personal protective equipment (PPE) to curb the worldwide transmission of the COVID-19 virus[9-12]. The use of this single-use or disposable face mask has been advocated by World Health Organization (WHO) and researchers as an effective means against the spread of this virus[13]. In general, disposable surgical masks are purposed for doctors, nurses, and other healthcare practitioners. The usage of and demand for SFM have surged worldwide in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; their application has expanded from healthcare professionals to individuals, with the primary aim of limiting the transmission of this fatal contagious disease[14]. The annual face mask usage during this pandemic reported for Asian countries is 289.63 billion and 32.12 million daily in Bangladesh[15], leading to a significant increase in the demand for and the production of SFM worldwide. Surgical masks are produced from high-density polymeric materials. Synthetic non-(bio)-degradable polymers such as polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene (PE) are the main manufacturing components of disposable face masks[5]. Besides that, other polymers such as polyester (PET), polycarbonate (PC), polyacrylonitrile (PAN), and polystyrene (PS) are used as well[6,16]. Disposable face masks are available in various colors such as dark blue, green, and yellow[17] and consist of three layers: a nonwoven fabric inner layer, a melt-blown filter middle layer, and a nonwoven colored outer layer (water resistant), and feature ear bands made of fiber[18]. The nonwoven layers are produced together with short and long fibers through electrospinning. Upon degradation, they likely release these micro and nanofibers to the environment, addressed as a secondary source of MP pollutants[5,7,10,16].
Unfortunately, the mismanagement and improper disposal of surgical masks polluting public places such as streets, parks, roads, and beaches have led to the rise of environmental plastic and MP pollution in both terrestrial and aquatic environments, especially during the COVID pandemic[12]. People with limited knowledge about the proper disposal of face masks often discard them haphazardly, leading to an accumulation of these masks in terrestrial landfills. Subsequently, these masks can be transported into freshwater aquatic systems through wind and rainfall. Drains, canals, lakes, streams, and rivers ultimately lead to their accumulation in the marine environment. Consequently, the enhanced face mask usage that proved useful against the COVID-19 pandemic would have been responsible for the burgeoning microplastic waste in the environment[10,11] posing a serious threat to aquatic organisms. Since SFM degrade slowly in aquatic environments, releasing microfibers that contribute to environmental pollution and pose a significant threat to aquatic organisms[5]. Additionally, face masks take a longer time to release microfibers in natural environments due to photo-oxidation[19] and UV radiation[20]. Various studies regarding microfibers released from SFM have been carried out, such as face masks as a potential source of MP[5,6,13], estimation of microfibers (MFs) from surgical masks[15,17,18], microfiber generation and environmental repercussion of MFs[8,12,14,16], and microfibers release from the simulated environment, and probable removal approach from water[19-21]. However, previous record has not been established on whether the salinity of water itself or along with alcohol, detergent or reducing agents has any differences in terms of MPs’ disposal from SFM; therefore, this study was aimed to delineate the qualitative and quantitative release of MP from unused surgical masks in both freshwater and saltwater media accompanying with different chemicals under laboratory condition. This study has also reviewed the MFs pathway to aquatic environments, the potential adverse impact of microfibers in aquatic ecology, and the management or safe disposal of SFM.
EXPERIMENTAL
Chemicals
The SFM samples considered in this experiment were new (unused), had three layers (inner, middle and outer) with melt-blown properties, and contained no glass fibers. Chemicals like 95% alcohol, sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS, molar mass 288.38 g/mol; density: 1.05 g/cm3), 30% hydrogen peroxide (H2O2, molar mass 34.0147 g/mol; density 1.11 g/cm3), salt (molar mass 58.44 g/mol; density: 2.16 cm3), and cellulose nitrate filter (0.45 and 0.2 µm) membrane were collected from the available chemical and scientific equipment stores.
Experimental design
New unused SFM were exposed at room temperature for a 60-day trial period with eight different treatments. Each treatment had five replications in two categories, i.e., freshwater (FW) treatments (800 mL FW, 40 mL of 95% alcohol + 800 mL FW, 40 mL of 30% H2O2+ 800 mL FW, and 4 g SDS + 800 mL FW), and saltwater (SW) treatments (800 mL SW, 40 mL of 95% alcohol + 800 mL SW,
Figure 1. The treatments, filtration and visualization process for microfiber extraction.
Microfiber extraction
For the first sampling (24-h interval), the mask was taken from the beaker and kept in a cleaned metal tray using a pre-cleaned sterile scissor. The solution remaining in the beaker was filtered through a 0.45 µm cellulose nitrate filter (Sartorius, Germany) by a glass filtration unit (Duran, Germany) attached to a vacuum pump (Rocker 300), and the filter paper was immediately covered with clean glass petri dish. Afterward, the solution and the mask were replaced carefully in the same beaker, and to prevent cross contamination, the opening of the beaker was covered with aluminum foil. In addition to that, the petri dishes were marked according to their treatment group in order to avoid counting errors. For the second and third sampling, the isolation procedure (30-day and 60-day, respectively) followed was the same as the first sampling. Hereafter, all the filter paper was stored carefully for further analysis.
Visualization
After each sampling, the filter paper was placed under a Daffodil MCX100 microscope (Micros Austria) with multiple zoom levels (40-100X) for clear visual identification and quantification of MFs[5,23]. MFs were quantified and, at the same time, categorized according to their color and size group. For size categories, randomly selected 200 MFs from each treatment group were measured and categorized as < 0.5 mm,
Contamination control
The experiment was carried out in a non-ventilated, low-traffic clean room. All solutions were filtered through 0.2 µm filter paper prior to use. The opening of the beaker was covered with aluminum foil. The filter was kept in a cleaned glass petri dish. The filtration unit, beakers, and other equipment were cleaned with distilled water before each sampling. Glassware and metal tools were used for the whole experimental period.
Statistical analysis
All the recorded data were compiled in an Excel sheet and analyzed in SPSS software (IBM SPSS statistics, version 22). The differences in the mean abundance of isolated microfibers were analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s HSD test. Image J software with calibrated slide (Japan) was used for size measurement analysis.
RESULTS
Quantitative analysis of microfibers
The amount of MFs was counted from the samples taken from 1 day, 30 days, and 60 days, respectively. The quantification of MFs in different treatment groups at various sampling days is illustrated in Table 1. After 24 h of soaking, the highest average number of microfibers discharged from SFM was recorded at
Quantity of MFs in different treatment groups at various sampling days
| Treatment | Water | MF number in sampling days | MFs/day | ||
| 1 | 30 | 60 | |||
| Normal | FW | 112.04 ± 20.23a,1 | 2,707.10 ± 71.56b,1 | 3,320.12 ± 124.01b,1 | 102 |
| SW | 586.110 ± 5.00a,2 | 4,021.00 ± 111.66b,2 | 4,779.03 ± 154.11b,2 | 156 | |
| 95% Alcohol | FW | 131.02 ± 33.21a,1 | 2,943.09 ± 119.02b,1 | 3,578.11 ± 116.31b,1 | 111 |
| SW | 377.30 ± 95.22a,2 | 4,660.06 ± 123.03b,2 | 3,792.00 ± 138.77b,2 | 147 | |
| 30% H2O2 | FW | 246.22 ± 49.06a,2 | 3,191.09 ± 139.04b,1 | 4,259.27 ± 205.10b,1 | 128 |
| SW | 119.21 ± 14.30a,1 | 4,256.07 ± 133.05b,2 | 5,122.02 ± 182.01b,2 | 158 | |
| SDS | FW | 377.10 ± 29.30a,1 | 3,940.55 ± 234.06b,1 | 7,269.70 ± 283.11c,2 | 193 |
| SW | 4,911.33 ± 247.02a,2 | 6,180.24 ± 251.71b,2 | 5,430.29 ± 213.91ab,1 | 275 | |
Qualitative analysis of microfibers
The MFs released from the face masks were identified, categorized, and estimated based on their morphology, color, and size. The morphology of isolated microfibers on different treatment groups of freshwater and saltwater is shown in Figure 2. The percentage ratio of MFs released per day from SFM based on their colors is depicted in Figure 3. Transparent and blue were the dominant colors of the microplastic fibers discharged from the SFM in this experiment. The highest percentages of transparent (colorless) microfibers were released from face masks treated with SDS (84%), whereas normal saltwater treatment produced the lowest percentage of 41%. The discharge of blue microfibers was recorded as dominant (59.0%) in normal saltwater treatment.
Figure 2. Microscopic images of isolated microfibers from different treatment groups of freshwater [(A) 400 ml FW; (B) 40 mL 95% alcohol + 800 mL FW; (C) 40 mL 30% H2O2 + 800 mL FW; and (D) 4 g SDS + 800 mL FW] and saltwater [(a) 800 mL SW; (b) 40 mL 95% alcohol + 800 mL SW; (c) 40 mL 30% H2O2 + 800 mL SW; and (d) 4 g SDS + 800 mL SW]. Scale bar: 1 mm; and zoom: 4X.
Figure 3. The percentage ratio of isolated microfibers from the different treatments per day by colors. SDS: Sodium dodecyl sulfate.
The size distribution of released microfibers from unused SFM was categorized under three different sizes: 1-5 mm (large), 0.5-1.0 mm (medium), and less than 0.5 mm (small). The percentage of MFs size group is shown in Figure 4. The highest percentage of microfibers was small (46.25%) when treated with freshwater and medium-sized (0.5 to 1 mm) microfibers were prominent (39.25%) in saltwater treatments. SDS and 30% H2O2 mixed with freshwater produced a greater number of small microfibers, whereas seawater with 95% alcohol released the greatest percentages of medium-sized particles.
Figure 4. The percentage ratio of isolated microfibers from the different treatments per day by size. SDS: Sodium dodecyl sulfate.
DISCUSSION
The release of MP had been witnessed in the present study after unused SFM were put into different treatments. Various literatures addressed that SFM contributed to the release of MP in the forms of MFs and fragments in the environment. MFs discharged from fabrics are the most common form of MP to be found in terrestrial and aquatic environments[24,25]. Aqueous solution is a comparatively more appropriate medium to observe the release potentiality of MP from SFM[26,27]. In this experiment, SFM were submerged in eight different solutions, and the morphology and release capability of MFs were quantified. The face masks submerged in solutions were observed to degrade and a substantial amount of microfibers were released in both freshwater and saltwater media. A previous study reported a higher number of microfibers (360 items per mask) released from static water compared to the present study[18]. However, studies conducted laboratory assessments for the release kinetics of MPs from surgical face masks and gloves aligned with the present study[28,29]. The color of released microfiber from SFM is dependent on its use, the color of the mask, and the polymers and processes used to manufacture it[5,16]. Transparent microfibers could be high in number if face masks are made of PP or PET[25]. Airborne MPs are colorful and ubiquitous in the environment[30]; as a result, there is a chance of finding more colorful microfibers in used SFM. However, from this study, it was perceived that freshwater, when mixed with detergent (SDS), alcohol and hydrogen peroxide, becomes more active in degrading SFM in order to release the greatest percentages of small- to medium-sized microfibers.
However, Chen et al. (2021) observed the release ability of MPs through soaking used and unused SFM in deionized water[28]. They recorded that the release potentiality of MPs from used face masks (average
The presence of discarded SFMs is reported to be everywhere, likely streets, parks, beaches, freshwater and marine environments[6,32]. The inappropriate disposal of SFM gives rise to solid waste on the land. The general pathway of SFM, along with its degradation process from land to water, follows when the initial decaying of face mask polymer commences on the terrestrial landfills under the interaction of roughness of land surface along with the high temperature (UV radiation)[33,34]. These factors make the face mask more delicate, brittle, and prone to be fragmented to release microfibers on land and air. Friction stress on rough road surfaces exceeds the limiting strength of the outer layer fabric (nonwoven) of the face mask, subsequently leading to the disruption of the face mask[35]. Discarded face masks could persist on land for several weeks before reaching the aquatic environment. These masks can reach inland or marine water bodies through various means, such as surface runoff, precipitation, drainage pipes, or direct disposal in landfills[36,37]. Upon entering the aquatic environment, face masks undergo discoloration, weakening, tearing, and fragmentation as a result of the fabric integrity being compromised by physical and mechanical stress[38,39]. Furthermore, waves are considered a major driving force for the release of fragmented microfibers from face masks in marine environments[40]. Additionally, various mechanical forces, including water turbulence, tides, water current on the river bed, and abrasion with bottom sand and rocks, coupled with microbial activity, contribute to the enhanced release of MFs from SFM in aquatic environments[41].
The aging or natural weathering process has a huge impact on the degradation of fabric, depending on the characteristics of the fabric and the media in which the aging occurs. The nonwoven part of the face mask (inner and outer layer) used in this experiment also became fragile due to natural weathering and tended to release microfibers. The release capacity of microfibers is augmented with the retention time of face masks in different aqueous media. Saliu et al. (2021) assumed that if the mass loss of a disposable face mask is 0.2% in the artificial weathering process, it will take about 2 years for complete degradation[26]. Here, it is observed that saltwater has the ability to degrade SFM more quickly than freshwater, but when water is mixed with detergent, alcohol or oxidizing agent, the decaying time can be less [Table 1]. According to Kenney et al., (1985) seawater has the potential to decrease the strength of synthetic fabric by approximately 10%[42]. The degradation of face masks is also accelerated when other physical, chemical and mechanical forces are applied. The effect of high temperature (UV radiation), friction with the surface (abrasion), turbulence, wave action, storm, and microorganisms can easily degrade plastics into macroplastics (> 5 mm) and then to MPs. Since the environment is exceptionally variable, it is almost impossible to perform a laboratory simulation that encompasses all the factors or their interactions responsible for the decomposition of surgical masks in the environment. The abrasion-induced degradation of plastic is a common phenomenon in marine environments that leads to the formation of MPs[43].
Environmental microplastic pollution is a serious concern of the scientific community[44-47]. MPs appear to be an emergent class of contaminants with long-term adverse consequences for aquatic ecosystems[12,48]. Owing to its smaller size, MPs are reported to be ingested by aquatic organisms of many different species[49]. This consumption process might be active, i.e., uptake as food material, or passive (ingested accidentally while grazing food). Larger aquatic organisms could easily ingest entire SFM or fragments released from them. A disposable face mask had been found in the stomach of a dead juvenile penguin (Spheniscus magellanicus) from Brazil, and it was suspected that the cause of its death was starvation through gut obstruction[50]. Additionally, entanglement with face masks is a common phenomenon that has been reported for several species of birds (Larus sp., Falco peregrinus, and Turdus migratorius), crabs (Carcinus minus and Coenobita perlatus), and fishes (Sphoeroides testudineus)[51]. This entanglement can alter its survivability through immobilization, strangulation, and starvation, making animals prone to predation, infection, or temporary irritation[11]. Moreover, microfibers released from SFM are also reported to be ingested and accumulated by marine zooplankton, directly affecting its reproductive potentiality by reducing fecundity[31]. Microfibers are believed to enter into the higher food chain level through bioaccumulation and biomagnification, imparting various adverse effects on the physiology of aquatic organisms[10,51]. Polyethylene, polypropylene, and polyester (as a form of microfibers) were traced from filter feeders such as bivalves, small crustaceans, crabs, and small fishes[52,53]. The adverse ecotoxicological effects include cessation of feeding, reduced body mass, hampered growth, reduced embryonic development, and mortality; in addition, disruption in metabolic activity, inflammation, and oxidative stress at the cellular level were reported[54,55]. The presence of MPs in aquatic environments is a threat to human existence because their major food supply is dependent on freshwater and marine food chains. Due to their smaller size, microfibers can easily affect the marine environment physically or biologically by entering into food webs[56]. Additionally, MPs can either leach toxic substances and/or absorb harmful chemicals, such as heavy metals[57]. Furthermore, MPs can serve as biofilm and are suspected of harboring disease-carrying pathogens[40].
The overall results of this experiment indicated that seawater mixed with chemicals released a larger amount of MFs in a shorter time period than that of freshwater treatments [Table 1], i.e., if water is contaminated with undesirable chemicals, it leads to a shorter release time for microfibers; consequently, the organisms inhabiting in water bodies near chemical discharge points are at a higher risk of exposure to microfibers. However, the present study was carried out in a photic place of the laboratory and stir was done daily at 1,500 rpm (except normal FW and SW). It could be deduced that the exposure of a beaker containing SFM to photic zone, along with daily stirring and its chemical characteristics, enhanced the release of microfibers. In addition, the overall aging process used in this study revealed that transparent MFs released by normal freshwater treatments generated comparatively more microfibers (72.25%) than saltwater treatments (66.25%). The release of transparent fibers was around 2.5 times and 2 times higher than blue microfibers in freshwater (FW) and saltwater (SW) treatments, respectively [Figure 3]. On the other hand, it has been observed that the degradation of face masks results in the release of a considerable amount of microfibers ranging between < 0.5 mm to 1 mm; particularly, when exposed to normal saltwater, noteworthy percentages of small microfiber (46%) are generated compared to exposure to regular freshwater treatments (33%). In contrast, freshwater itself, along with 95% alcohol, 30% H2O2, and SDS, had the capacity to release 82.0% of MFs with a size range of 1 mm - < 0.5 mm [Figure 4]. Therefore, it could be speculated that if the degradation of SFM occurred in freshwater, it could produce more microfibers of relatively transparent and larger size. Due to its size and transparency, there could be huge chances that visual and/or filter feeder organisms such as fishes, crustaceans, mollusks, etc. in freshwater might mistakenly identify these plastic particles as food[58]. These indigestible particles have the capacity to obstruct the gut and negatively interfere with the digestion of daily food uptakes. In contrast, saltwater produces more micro-sized fibers; as a result, aquatic organisms in saltwater are exposed to smaller particles that can bio-accumulate, produce toxicity and alter the physiology of aquatic organisms when penetrating to the cellular level[59-61].
SFM are addressed as the leading COVID-related waste found in terrestrial and aquatic environments. SFM has been anticipated as a potential MP pollutant in freshwater, coastal and marine environments, allowing aquatic organisms to be exposed to relatively higher concentrations of MPs[62]. The release of microfiber and its pollution inducing schematic diagram is illustrated in Figure 5. Management of plastic waste is still challenging for many South Asian countries such as Bangladesh and this situation is worsening because SFM usage has significantly increased during the COVID and post-COVID period, imposing additional pressure on existing waste management practices. Improperly discarded face masks in the environment are causing pollution. To address this issue, proper management strategies should be implemented, which include raising public awareness, labeling masks with recycling marks, and ensuring that used or discarded masks are sealed in containers and subsequently incinerated. In addition, SFM could be manufactured using biodegradable materials, such as wood fibers or 3D filaments, instead of synthetic polymers. Furthermore, in addressing the chemical nature of MPs for removal from aquatic environments, a recent breakthrough has been achieved by a group of scientists who proposed the use of a froth flotation method to remove MPs from water, leveraging the hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity properties of MPs[63,64].
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of microfiber released from SFM to increase aquatic pollution. SFM: Surgical face masks.
CONCLUSIONS
This study successfully addressed the ability of SFM to release microfibers in different aquatic environments, although the limitation of this study was yet to use micro-FTIR (Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy) for the confirmation of microfiber composition. In addition, the probable threat to aquatic life has been assumed in this experiment, since detailed work of microfiber release and its adverse effect on fish physiology could be another scope of further research. In conclusion, it could be stated that SFM can produce MPs of different shapes and sizes in aquatic environments. The release potentiality varies between freshwater and seawater. The potency of discharge is also influenced by chemicals such as alcohol, reducing agents, detergent, and/or other various environmental factors. However, the usage of SFM has been enhanced during COVID-19 worldwide, of which 1%-10% has finally landed in aquatic environments. The total mass that reached aquatic environments could produce billions of MPs, which could have adverse consequences for aquatic organisms. The authors believe that due to improper management of SFM, it has become an undesirable contributor to the preexisting plastic waste in the aquatic environment. The proper management, including both collection and disposal, of SFM is crucial in terrestrial environment, because once SFM enter aquatic environments, their persistence and harmful effects will be impossible to address.
DECLARATIONS
AcknowledgmentsThe Laboratory of Fish Ecophysiology, Department of Fisheries Management, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh-2202, gratefully acknowledges the financial support of Ministry of Education, People’s Republic of Bangladesh and Bangladesh Agricultural University Research System.
Authors’ contributionsPerformed the experiment, finalization of extraction protocol, extraction and analysis of microfibers, table and graph preparation, data analysis, and writing the first draft: Hasan J
Preparation of the graph and first draft of the manuscript: Shahriar SIM
Conceptualization, fund acquisition, visualization, supervision, editing the manuscript, and final approval: Shahjahan M
Availability of data and materialsNot applicable.
Financial support and sponsorshipThis study was supported by grants from Ministry of Education, People’s Republic of Bangladesh (Project No. 2021/10/MoE/LS20211662) and Bangladesh Agricultural University Research System (Project No. 2021/1482/BAU) to the corresponding author.
Conflicts of interestAll authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval and consent to participateNot applicable.
Consent for publicationNot applicable.
Copyright© The Author(s) 2023.
REFERENCES
1. Eriksen M, Liboiron M, Kiessling T, et al. Microplastic sampling with the AVANI trawl compared to two neuston trawls in the Bay of Bengal and South Pacific. Environ Pollut 2018;232:430-9.
2. Horton AA, Dixon SJ. Microplastics: an introduction to environmental transport processes. WIREs Water 2018;5:e1268.
3. Paul-pont I, Tallec K, Gonzalez-fernandez C, et al. Constraints and priorities for conducting experimental exposures of marine organisms to microplastics. Front Mar Sci 2018;5:252.
4. Karami A, Golieskardi A, Choo CK, Larat V, Karbalaei S, Salamatinia B. Microplastic and mesoplastic contamination in canned sardines and sprats. Sci Total Environ 2018;612:1380-6.
5. Fadare OO, Okoffo ED. COVID-19 face masks: a potential source of microplastic fibers in the environment. Sci Total Environ 2020;737:140279.
6. Anastopoulos I, Pashalidis I. Single-use surgical face masks, as a potential source of microplastics: do they act as pollutant carriers? J Mol Liq 2021;326:115247.
7. Kumar M, Chen H, Sarsaiya S, et al. Current research trends on micro- and nano-plastics as an emerging threat to global environment: a review. J Hazard Mater 2021;409:124967.
8. Hasan NA, Heal RD, Bashar A, Haque MM. Face masks: protecting the wearer but neglecting the aquatic environment? - A perspective from Bangladesh. Environ Chall 2021;4:100126.
9. Prata JC, Silva ALP, Walker TR, Duarte AC, Rocha-Santos T. COVID-19 pandemic repercussions on the use and management of plastics. Environ Sci Technol 2020;54:7760-5.
10. De-la-Torre GE, Aragaw TA. What we need to know about PPE associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in the marine environment. Mar Pollut Bull 2021;163:111879.
11. Silva AL, Prata JC, Mouneyrac C, Barcelò D, Duarte AC, Rocha-Santos T. Risks of COVID-19 face masks to wildlife: present and future research needs. Sci Total Environ 2021;792:148505.
12. Torres FG, De-la-torre GE. Face mask waste generation and management during the COVID-19 pandemic: an overview and the Peruvian case. Sci Total Environ 2021;786:147628.
13. Worby CJ, Chang HH. Face mask use in the general population and optimal resource allocation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat Commun 2020;11:4049.
14. Prata JC, Silva ALP, Duarte AC, Rocha-santos T. Disposable over reusable face masks: public safety or environmental disaster? Environments 2021;8:31.
15. Chowdhury H, Chowdhury T, Sait SM. Estimating marine plastic pollution from COVID-19 face masks in coastal regions. Mar Pollut Bull 2021;168:112419.
16. Aragaw TA. Surgical face masks as a potential source for microplastic pollution in the COVID-19 scenario. Mar Pollut Bull 2020;159:111517.
17. Chua MH, Cheng W, Goh SS, et al. Face masks in the new COVID-19 normal: materials, testing, and perspectives. Research 2020;2020:7286735.
18. Shen M, Zeng Z, Song B, et al. Neglected microplastics pollution in global COVID-19: disposable surgical masks. Sci Total Environ 2021;790:148130.
19. Liu Y, Yang X, Luo L, et al. Long-term release kinetic characteristics of microplastic from commonly used masks into water under simulated natural environments. Sci Total Environ 2023;876:162526.
20. Liang H, Guo R, Liu D, et al. The behavior of microplastics and nanoplastics release from UV-aged masks in the water. Sci Total Environ 2023;891:164361.
21. Jiang H, Su J, Zhang Y, et al. Insight into the microplastics release from disposable face mask: simulated environment and removal strategy. Chemosphere 2022;309:136748.
22. Sunday MO, Jadoon WA, Ayeni TT, et al. Heterogeneity and potential aquatic toxicity of hydrogen peroxide concentrations in selected rivers across Japan. Sci Total Environ 2020;733:139349.
23. Asio JRG, Garcia JS, Antonatos C, Sevilla-nastor JB, Trinidad LC. Sodium lauryl sulfate and its potential impacts on organisms and the environment: a thematic analysis. Emerg Contam 2023;9:100205.
24. Hernandez E, Nowack B, Mitrano DM. Polyester textiles as a source of microplastics from households: a mechanistic study to understand microfiber release during washing. Environ Sci Technol 2017;51:7036-46.
25. Wang T, Li B, Zou X, et al. Emission of primary microplastics in mainland China: invisible but not negligible. Water Res 2019;162:214-24.
26. Saliu F, Veronelli M, Raguso C, Barana D, Galli P, Lasagni M. The release process of microfibers: from surgical face masks into the marine environment. Environ Adv 2021;4:100042.
27. Napper IE, Thompson RC. Release of synthetic microplastic plastic fibres from domestic washing machines: effects of fabric type and washing conditions. Mar Pollut Bull 2016;112:39-45.
28. Chen X, Chen X, Liu Q, Zhao Q, Xiong X, Wu C. Used disposable face masks are significant sources of microplastics to environment. Environ Pollut 2021;285:117485.
29. Akhbarizadeh R, Dobaradaran S, Nabipour I, et al. Abandoned COVID-19 personal protective equipment along the Bushehr shores, the Persian Gulf: an emerging source of secondary microplastics in coastlines. Mar Pollut Bull 2021;168:112386.
30. Enyoh CE, Verla AW, Verla EN, Ibe FC, Amaobi CE. Airborne microplastics: a review study on method for analysis, occurrence, movement and risks. Environ Monit Assess 2019;191:668.
31. Sun J, Yang S, Zhou GJ, et al. Release of microplastics from discarded surgical masks and their adverse impacts on the marine copepod Tigriopus japonicus. Environ Sci Technol Lett 2021;8:1065-70.
32. Jiang H, Luo D, Wang L, Zhang Y, Wang H, Wang C. A review of disposable facemasks during the COVID-19 pandemic: a focus on microplastics release. Chemosphere 2023;312:137178.
33. Ardusso M, Forero-López AD, Buzzi NS, Spetter CV, Fernández-Severini MD. COVID-19 pandemic repercussions on plastic and antiviral polymeric textile causing pollution on beaches and coasts of South America. Sci Total Environ 2021;763:144365.
34. Song YK, Hong SH, Jang M, Han GM, Jung SW, Shim WJ. Combined effects of UV exposure duration and mechanical abrasion on microplastic fragmentation by polymer type. Environ Sci Technol 2017;51:4368-76.
35. Zhang K, Hamidian AH, Tubić A, et al. Understanding plastic degradation and microplastic formation in the environment: a review. Environ Pollut 2021;274:116554.
36. Castro-Jiménez J, González-Fernández D, Fornier M, Schmidt N, Sempéré R. Macro-litter in surface waters from the Rhone River: plastic pollution and loading to the NW Mediterranean Sea. Mar Pollut Bull 2019;146:60-6.
37. Kane IA, Clare MA, Miramontes E, et al. Seafloor microplastic hotspots controlled by deep-sea circulation. Science 2020;368:1140-5.
38. Torres-Agullo A, Karanasiou A, Moreno T, Lacorte S. Overview on the occurrence of microplastics in air and implications from the use of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sci Total Environ 2021;800:149555.
39. Cooper DA, Corcoran PL. Effects of mechanical and chemical processes on the degradation of plastic beach debris on the island of Kauai, Hawaii. Mar Pollut Bull 2010;60:650-4.
40. Dharmaraj S, Ashokkumar V, Hariharan S, et al. The COVID-19 pandemic face mask waste: a blooming threat to the marine environment. Chemosphere 2021;272:129601.
41. Morgana S, Casentini B, Amalfitano S. Uncovering the release of micro/nanoplastics from disposable face masks at times of
42. Kenney MC, Mandell JF, Mcgarry FJ. The effects of sea water and concentrated salt solutions on the fatigue of nylon 6,6 fibres. J Mater Sci 1985;20:2060-70.
43. Efimova I, Bagaeva M, Bagaev A, Kileso A, Chubarenko IP. Secondary microplastics generation in the sea swash zone with coarse bottom sediments: laboratory experiments. Front Mar Sci 2018;5:313.
44. Thompson RC, Olsen Y, Mitchell RP, et al. Lost at sea: where is all the plastic? Science 2004;304:838.
46. Murphy F, Ewins C, Carbonnier F, Quinn B. Wastewater treatment works (WwTW) as a source of microplastics in the aquatic environment. Environ Sci Technol 2016;50:5800-8.
47. Reid AJ, Carlson AK, Creed IF, et al. Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2019;94:849-73.
48. Aragaw TA, Mekonnen BA. Distribution and impact of microplastics in the aquatic systems: a review of ecotoxicological effects on biota. In: Muthu SS, editor. Microplastic Pollution. Singapore: Springer; 2021. p. 65-104.
49. Singh RP, Mishra S, Das AP. Synthetic microfibers: pollution toxicity and remediation. Chemosphere 2020;257:127199.
50. Gallo Neto H, Gomes Bantel C, Browning J, et al. Mortality of a juvenile Magellanic penguin (Spheniscus magellanicus, Spheniscidae) associated with the ingestion of a PFF-2 protective mask during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mar Pollut Bull 2021;166:112232.
51. Hiemstra AF, Rambonnet L, Gravendeel B, Schilthuizen M. The effects of COVID-19 litter on animal life. Animal Biol 2021;71:215-31. Available from: https://www.remed-zero-plastique.org/upload/resource/619cd4bd87c84_[15707563%20-%20Animal%20Biology]%20The%20effects%20of%20COVID-19%20litter%20on%20animal%20life.pdf. [Last accessed on 5 Sep 2023]
52. Miller ME, Hamann M, Kroon FJ. Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of microplastics in marine organisms: a review and meta-analysis of current data. PLoS One 2020;15:e0240792.
53. Kutralam-Muniasamy G, Pérez-Guevara F, Elizalde-Martínez I, Shruti VC. An overview of recent advances in micro/nano beads and microfibers research: critical assessment and promoting the less known. Sci Total Environ 2020;740:139991.
54. Santos D, Félix L, Luzio A, et al. Toxicological effects induced on early life stages of zebrafish (Danio rerio) after an acute exposure to microplastics alone or co-exposed with copper. Chemosphere 2020;261:127748.
55. Zheng X, Zhang W, Yuan Y, et al. Growth inhibition, toxin production and oxidative stress caused by three microplastics in Microcystis aeruginosa. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2021;208:111575.
56. Klemeš JJ, Fan YV, Tan RR, Jiang P. Minimising the present and future plastic waste, energy and environmental footprints related to COVID-19. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020;127:109883.
57. Wang Y, Wang X, Li Y, et al. Effects of exposure of polyethylene microplastics to air, water and soil on their adsorption behaviors for copper and tetracycline. Chem Eng J 2021;404:126412.
58. Alnajar N, Jha AN, Turner A. Impacts of microplastic fibres on the marine mussel, Mytilus galloprovinciallis. Chemosphere 2021;262:128290.
59. Hamed M, Soliman HAM, Osman AGM, Sayed AEH. Assessment the effect of exposure to microplastics in Nile Tilapia
60. Espinosa C, Cuesta A, Esteban MÁ. Effects of dietary polyvinylchloride microparticles on general health, immune status and expression of several genes related to stress in gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata L.). Fish Shellfish Immunol 2017;68:251-9.
61. Meier P, Zabara M, Hirsch C, et al. Evaluation of fiber and debris release from protective COVID-19 mask textiles and in vitro acute cytotoxicity effects. Environ Int 2022;167:107364.
62. Soo XYD, Wang S, Yeo CCJ, et al. Polylactic acid face masks: are these the sustainable solutions in times of COVID-19 pandemic? Sci Total Environ 2022;807:151084.
63. Jiang H, Bu J, Bian K, et al. Surface change of microplastics in aquatic environment and the removal by froth flotation assisted with cationic and anionic surfactants. Water Res 2023;233:119794.
Cite This Article
Export citation file: BibTeX | RIS
OAE Style
Hasan J, Shahriar SIM, Shahjahan M. Release of microfibers from surgical face masks: an undesirable contributor to aquatic pollution. Water Emerg Contam Nanoplastics 2023;2:18. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/wecn.2023.31
AMA Style
Hasan J, Shahriar SIM, Shahjahan M. Release of microfibers from surgical face masks: an undesirable contributor to aquatic pollution. Water Emerging Contaminants & Nanoplastics. 2023; 2(4): 18. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/wecn.2023.31
Chicago/Turabian Style
Hasan, Jabed, Sheik Istiak Md Shahriar, Md Shahjahan. 2023. "Release of microfibers from surgical face masks: an undesirable contributor to aquatic pollution" Water Emerging Contaminants & Nanoplastics. 2, no.4: 18. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/wecn.2023.31
ACS Style
Hasan, J.; Shahriar SIM.; Shahjahan M. Release of microfibers from surgical face masks: an undesirable contributor to aquatic pollution. Water. Emerg. Contam. Nanoplastics. 2023, 2, 18. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/wecn.2023.31
About This Article
Special Issue
Copyright
Data & Comments
Data
Cite This Article 5 clicks
Like This Article 7
likes
Comments
Comments must be written in English. Spam, offensive content, impersonation, and private information will not be permitted. If any comment is reported and identified as inappropriate content by OAE staff, the comment will be removed without notice. If you have any queries or need any help, please contact us at support@oaepublish.com.