Abstract
During the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, protective equipment, such as masks, gloves and shields, has become mandatory to prevent person-to-person transmission of coronavirus. However, the excessive use and abandoned protective equipment is aggravating the world's growing plastic problem. Moreover, above protective equipment can eventually break down into microplastics and enter the environment. Here we review the threat of protective equipment associated plastic and microplastic wastes to environments, animals and human health, and reveal the protective equipment associated microplastic cycle. The major points are the following:1) COVID-19 protective equipment is the emerging source of plastic and microplastic wastes in the environment. 2) protective equipment associated plastic and microplastic wastes are polluting aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric environments. 3) Discarded protective equipment can harm animals by entrapment, entanglement and ingestion, and derived microplastics can also cause adverse implications on animals and human health. 4) We also provide several recommendations and future research priority for the sustainable environment. Therefore, much importance should be attached to potential protective equipment associated plastic and microplastic pollution to protect the environment, animals and humans.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Since the last century, plastics have revolutionized the world and continue to change and shape the future. As an unlimited innovative potential, plastics have a pivotal status in our lives and define our lifestyle. Because of the flexibility, durability, lightness, versatility and availability, plastics are widely used in industrial sectors and hygienic healthcare (Geyer et al. 2017; Grosso 2022). In 2018, global plastic production reached 368 million metric tons, while due to the Corona virus Diseases 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the estimated growth rate sharply dropped in 2020 and will recover in 2021 (Europe 2020). COVID-19 is a highly contagious airborne disease and has caused a serious global public health emergency (Liu et al. 2020a; Valsamatzi-Panagiotou and Penchovsky 2022), which is affecting over 200 countries and territories. As up to 12 April 2022, 500,058,567 confirmed cases and 6,206,108 deaths have been reported. To minimize the chances of COVID-19 spreading, governments worldwide have taken several effective preventive measures, including lockdown of cities, the mandatory wearing masks, and the COVID-19 vaccine available (Tobias 2020; CDC 2021b).
Besides, the COVID-19 spread can change the environment and be influenced by their interactions (Huo et al. 2021). Undeniably, the lockdown measures during the COVID-19 pandemic make a temporarily lighter human footprint in nature to help the environment, which can improve air and water quality, drop carbon emissions, reduce land surface temperature, decrease noise levels, and increase wildlife sightings (WEF 2020b; Cecchi 2021; Manchanda et al. 2021; Praveena and Aris 2021; Tian et al. 2021). However, the small environmental benefits of the COVID-19 pandemic coming from the human postponed activities cannot hide the tragic costs of coronavirus to humans. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic aggravates plastic pollution, another challenging public health problem (Adyel 2020; Khoo et al. 2021).
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, over 380 million tons of plastics are estimated to be produced annually, of which 10 million tons are dumped into the oceans (Singh and Sharma 2016; plasticoceans 2021). Besides, most plastic wastes are not gotten recycled (Europe 2020; Law et al. 2020), which will lead to roughly 12,000 million metric tons entering landfills or the natural environment by 2050(Geyer et al. 2017). In view of this, many governments and organizations have actively called for attention to plastic pollution (UNEP 2017; EcoWatch 2018). However, after the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, the increased use of plastics is making plastic waste accumulation. Especially, protective equipment has become part of our daily life to prevent person-to-person transmission (Chu et al. 2020), which is adding to the global plastic problem (Gorrasi et al. 2021). Furthermore, plastic in nature can break down into microplastics (particle size < 5 mm) to be ubiquitous in the water (Bohdan 2022), soil (Kumar et al. 2020b), air (Amato-Lourenco et al. 2020), and even in our bodies (Leslie et al. 2022). Therefore, during the COVID-19 pandemic, protective equipment is an important source for microplastic pollution (Akber Abbasi et al. 2020; Aragaw 2020; Fadare and Okoffo 2020; Akhbarizadeh et al. 2021; De-la-Torre and Aragaw 2021).
To our best knowledge, this is the first review on COVID-19 protective equipment associated plastic and microplastic waste cycle. We summarize the amount of increase production, consumption, and release of protective equipment, and the magnitude of protective equipment associated microplastics during the pandemic. Then we firstly reveal the “protective equipment associated microplastic cycle” to comprehensively discuss the threatens of protective equipment to oceans, freshwater, soils and atmosphere. Importantly, we detailly answer the effects of protective equipment associated plastics and microplastics on animals and human health. Finally, the corresponding recommendations are provided and future research priorities are suggested to solve potential protective equipment pollution to protect the environment and ourselves.
Importance of protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic
Because the COVID-19 virus is transmitted between people through close contact and droplets, staying at least one miter physical distancing, washing hands often, and cleaning and disinfecting high touch surfaces frequently are necessary to protect ourselves and others (CDC 2021b). In addition, as an effective measure of administrative controls and environmental and engineering controls, protective equipment is also critical to fight and control the COVID-19 pandemic (CDC 2021a; Akter et al. 2022). The available evidence has been confirmed that rational and appropriate use of protective equipment, including masks, respirators, face shields and goggles, can prevent person-to-person transmission of the coronavirus disease to reduce the risk of infection largely (Jefferson et al. 2011; Chu et al. 2020; Lindsley et al. 2021) (Table 1). Among them, masks can control the release of virus-carrying droplets and reduce the inhalation of these droplets by wearers. In particular, protective equipment provide great benefits in reducing the potential transmission of asymptomatic people, which helps to contain the spread of this virus through droplets (WEF 2020g; Johansson et al. 2021).
Sources, occurrence and fate of protective equipment in the environment
To help control the pandemic, the production and consumption of protective equipment are increasing. Healthcare workers are the frontline soldiers. The availability of protective equipment is the key to protecting them from COVID-19. Every month, frontline health responders around the world need over 89 million masks, 30 million gowns, 1.59 million goggles, 76 million gloves and other protective equipment (WEF 2020f). A United Nations task force delivers about 500 million medical masks and gloves, as well as other protective equipment for clinical care.
Based on experimental and epidemiological data, community masking can reduce the spread of COVID-19 (Leffler et al. 2020; Mitze et al. 2020, Guy et al. 2021). In addition, On March 2020, The World Health Organization (WHO) called on the industry to increase the manufacturing of protective equipment by 40% to meet rising global demand (WHO 2020b). From June to July 2020, WHO increased deliveries of protective equipment from 5.5 million to 50.4 million pieces, and over 200 million pieces of protective equipment were in store for emergency delivery (Haque et al. 2021). Until October 20, 2020, China has provided 17.9 billion masks, and 1.73 billion protective clothing to 150 countries and 7 international organizations to meet the huge demand for protective equipment (people.cn 2020). Besides, many studies have estimated the number of facemasks and gloves for their countries and the global demand (Prata et al. 2020; Benson et al. 2021; Chowdhury et al. 2021)(Table 2). According to the population information and pandemic spread (worldometer 2021), over 6 billion masks are estimated to be used daily worldwide (Table 2), which exceeds the value reported in previous studies. Unfortunately, hundreds of tons of protective equipment are released and generate massive plastic wastes every day in a city during the pandemic, which is the main source of protective equipment pollution in the environment (Table 2).
Recent surveys demonstrate that COVID-19 protective equipment is invading various environments to be prevalent in the ocean, freshwater, and soil, which can pose great threats to ecosystems, and even human health (details are discussed in the next sections). Protective equipment is commonly manufactured from polymers and polymer fibers, including polypropylene, polyacrylonitrile, polystyrene, polyethylene terephthalate, polycarbonate, and others (Table 1), which is confirmed as a significant source of microplastic pollution in the environment (Schnurr et al. 2018; Fadare and Okoffo 2020; Prata et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2021a). Therefore, protective equipment without effective disposal is a critical source of microplastics. Protective equipment getting into the environment can be decomposed into smaller pieces of particles by the ultraviolet radiation, weathering, abrasion and biological degradation, which results in microplastic pollution (Aragaw 2020, Ob et al. 2020, Chen et al. 2021, Morgana et al. 2021).
As the most commonly used protective equipment, masks can rapidly increase the accumulation of related microparticles in the environment in a short time (Fadare and Okoffo 2020). With the gradual aging and decomposition, the masks can continuously release particles, and finally completely become billions of microplastics into the environment (Ma et al. 2021; Shen et al. 2021). The adsorption of airborne microplastics in masks also can elevate the overall hazard of the mask as a source of microplastics (Chen et al. 2021). According to the rough calculation, over one hundred billion masks produced in 2020 in China could release more than 1.2 × 1014 microplastics into the environment (Chen et al. 2021). In South Korea, more than 1381 million microplastic fibers are released from the used masks every day (Dissanayake et al. 2021). During the COVID-19 pandemic Saudi Arabia alone may contribute to 32–235 thousand tons of microplastic, accounting for almost half of the total amount of the whole peninsula (Akber Abbasi et al. 2020).
Overall, protective equipment is essential to fight and control the virus spread. Disposed protective equipment becomes the main source of plastic pollution in the environment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Besides, the fate of the mismanaged protective equipment wastes will end in countless microplastics, which causes the protective equipment associated microplastic waste cycle.
Impacts of protective equipment pollution on aquatic systems
At present, about 150 million metric tons of plastics circulate in the marine environment, and 13 million tons of plastics still flow into the ocean every year (UNEP 2018). Without any action, by 2040, the amount of plastic entering the marine environment will double, and 710 million metric tons of plastic wastes will leak into land and water systems (Lau et al. 2020). Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic makes protective equipment a new scourge to pollute the world's waters. Increasing studies have evidenced the occurrence of different types of protective equipment along the coasts and beaches of coastal cities (De-la-Torre et al. 2021; Okuku et al. 2021), underwater in remote and uninhabited islands (oceansasia 2020), and beneath the waves of the Mediterranean (EcoWatch 2020a), which are polluting the ocean (WEF 2020c) (Fig. 1A and B). As shown in Table 1, protective equipment is constituted by various plastic materials, and characteristics of these materials determine the fates and sinks of protective equipment after reaching the marine environment. Polymers with high density, including polyethylene terephthalate, polyvinyl alcohol and polyvinyl chloride, tend to sink to the seafloor, while low-density polymers, including polypropylene and polystyrene, can float in seawater for a long time (De-la-Torre and Aragaw 2021). The COVID-19 protective equipment can break up into huge amount of microplastics by sun ultraviolet radiation and breaking waves, which cause ubiquitous and almost permanent pollution to the marine environment (Henderson and Green 2020).
To be sure, as an important part of the global plastic cycle, the ocean is a sink for microplastics (Rochman and Hoellein 2020). Trillions of barely visible microplastics exist in the world’s oceans, from the Arctic Ocean to Antarctic Sea ice (Peeken et al. 2018; Fragao et al. 2021), from surface waters to the deep seas (EcoWatch 2020d; WEF 2021a) (Fig. 1). Many studies have reported the microplastics concentrations in the oceans. However, recent researches suggest that microplastics in the ocean far exceed the initial estimation, and over 125 trillion microplastic particles are teeming the oceans (Brandon et al. 2020b; Lindeque et al. 2020). Moreover, researchers estimated that the ocean floor contains at least 14 million tons of microplastics (Barrett et al. 2020). Submarine canyons and deep-ocean trenches, known as microplastic hotspots, are rich in the concentration of microplastics, about 1.9 million pieces in one square meter (Kane et al. 2020). Therefore, protective equipment associated microplastic pollution in seafloors should be attracted much attention, because less than 1% of plastic stays on the ocean surface and most of protective equipment, such as goggles, gloves, masks, will also sink to the seafloor.
Plastic pollution in the oceans can be mainly attributed to a large amount of mismanaged solid waste from the terrestrial environment, which can be transported through freshwater systems (Jambeck et al. 2015). Freshwater catchment is a crucial pathway for ocean microplastic pollution (Wagner et al. 2014), and more rivers contribute to ocean plastic pollution than previously thought (Meijer et al. 2021). According to the lasted model of riverine plastic outflows (Mai et al. 2020), about 57,000–265,000 million metric tons plastic debris delivered by rivers leak into the oceans annually.
Nowadays, microplastics can be detected in different freshwater systems worldwide, such as the Yangtze River in China (Xiong et al. 2019), the groundwater in India (Selvam et al. 2021), and the Lake Winnipeg in Canada (Anderson et al. 2017). Just like the oceans, freshwater systems also have the microplastic hotspots, such as the estuaries of densely populated, and heavily industrialized catchments (Wright et al. 2013; Lam et al. 2020), because the abundance of microplastics is closely associated with human activities (Wang et al. 2021c). However, little emphasis is given to understand the protective equipment pollution in the freshwater systems during the COVID-19 pandemics. Undoubtedly, after the excessive use of protective equipment for protection, the COVID-19 protective equipment in freshwater systems can add the plastic and microplastic load of the environment (Fig. 1). Muhammad et al. (Cordova et al. 2021) monitored the riverine debris in Jakarta Bay from March to April 2020, and observed an unprecedented presence of protective equipment, including medical masks, gloves, and face shields, nearly accounting for one-sixth of the collected riverine debris.
Like other single-use plastic wastes, COVID-19 protective equipment will provide a growing, extensive and innovative habitat for harmful microbes and microorganisms, and then create conditions causing ocean acidification (Harvey et al. 2020). As a result, the combination of plastic pollution and ocean acidification poses great threats to biodiversity. In addition, protective equipment associated microplastics can also serve as vectors for other toxic pollutants, such as heavy metal and various chemicals, to enhance the bioavailability (Li et al. 2020; Eder et al. 2021; Lee et al. 2021). In freshwater ecosystems, microplastics provide novel substrates to form as microplastic biofilm, which can participate in the nutrient cycles and serve as vectors for antibiotic resistance genes and pathogens (Wu et al. 2019; Chen et al. 2020b).
Overall, protective equipment associated plastic and microplastic wastes are polluting ocean and freshwater systems. Research is need to analyze the sources and fate of the COVID-19 protective equipment in freshwater systems and understand the dynamics the aquatic environment.
Effects on the atmosphere
The lockdown measures during the COVID-19 pandemic seem to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve outdoor air quality at first glance. However, the large production and use of protective equipment bring about a hidden crisis of global greenhouse gas emissions in a long-term scenario. The production and incineration of plastic products more than 850 million metric tons of greenhouse gases yearly, while the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions from plastics will exceed 56 billion tons in 2050, accounting for 10–13% of the total remaining carbon budget (CIEL 2019), which are not conducive to maintain the global temperature rise below 1.5 °C. Protective equipment made of plastic begin as fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are emitted at each stage of the lifecycle, including extraction and transportation of fossil fuel, production and use of protective equipment, and management and disposal of protective equipment wastes (Kumar et al. 2020a; Rodriguez et al. 2021). The greenhouse gas footprint of N95, surgical and cloth masks is, respectively, 0.05 kg CO2eq/single-use (exclude transportation), 0.059 kg CO2eq/single-use (include transportation) and 0.036 kg CO2eq/usage (including washing), suggesting that disposable mask usage could exacerbate climate change by 10 times than reusable masks (Klemes et al. 2020; Patricio Silva et al. 2021). Many countries have estimated the footprint of protective equipment during the pandemic and confirmed that protective equipment contributed large amounts of greenhouse gases (Usubharatana and Phungrassami 2018; Mejjad et al. 2021; Patricio Silva et al. 2021; Rizan et al. 2021). Besides, landfills and incineration of protective equipment waste can release harmful compounds, such as dioxins and furans, to pollute the air (Vanapalli et al. 2021).
Recently, the studies of microplastics mainly focus on the impact on rivers and oceans, but COVID-19 protective equipment also can fragment and persist as microplastics in the air (Zhang et al. 2021a). Airborne microplastics identified so far across the world include polypropylene, polystyrene, polyethylene terephthalate, polyvinyl chloride and others (Enyoh et al. 2019), which are the main materials of protective equipment. Airborne microplastics travel in the atmosphere, deposit all over the world, and accumulate in the air, ocean and land (Peeken et al. 2018; Chen et al. 2020a). However, the ocean is not the final fate of microplastics and gives microplastics back to humans as the form of the sea breeze (Allen et al. 2020). Researchers estimate that 136,000 tons of microplastics can be released from the ocean into the atmosphere every year. In addition, wastewater sludge, compost spreading, surface sediment of soil, and ash from solid waste incinerators are also identified as potential sources for airborne microplastics (Sridharan et al. 2021; Yang et al. 2021c). Therefore, the atmosphere is an important part of the protective equipment associated microplastic cycle, and participates in the progress of microplastics permeating into different environments (Fig. 5).
Interestingly, microplastics from the sea can seed clouds to form white clouds, reflect the heat of the sun and influence the climate (Huang et al. 2010). Apart from serving as sinks of harmful chemicals, microplastics can also serve as vectors for the transport of bacteria and virus in the aquatic and soil environment. So far, no studies have demonstrated that airborne microplastics could be the carrier of the viruses. However, scholars believe that that contaminated airborne microplastic surfaces might be the potential transmission route for COVID-19, especially airborne microplastics emitting from improper disposal of protective equipment could become a potential vector for COVID-19 transmission (Ebere et al. 2020; Liu and Schauer 2021). Therefore, protective equipment associated microplastics are harmful to human health, which will be further discussed below.
In brief, the large production and use of protective equipment significantly increase the energy consumption, environmental footprint and air pollution. Besides, the atmosphere participates in microplastic cycle to make protective equipment associated plastic and microplastic wastes deteriorate air quality, influence the climate and absorb harmful chemicals.
Effects on soils
Recent studies on plastic pollution, including protective equipment pollution, have heavily focused on the marine environment, while few of them have paid attention to the soil. As we known, approximately 32% of the plastic wastes are present in the soil environment (de Souza Machado et al. 2018). Importantly, the soil is also the first environment for plastic transportation. Therefore, extensive used COVID-19 protective equipment may increase the possible plastic threats to the soil, which should be received enormous attention. Though protective equipment is required to be treated as medical wastes, many masks, gloves and other protective equipment are mixed with household solid wastes and thrown out in streets, parks and roads (Akarsu et al. 2021). According to an exploratory survey in the Moroccan community, 70% of the respondents admitted that they discarded masks and gloves in household dustbins or in open dumps after their first use (Mejjad et al. 2021). Another study on the spatial distribution of protective equipment debris in Toronto, Canada estimated that 14,298 protective equipment debris items would be leaked in the surveyed areas yearly, showing that large grocery store parking lots had the highest average density of protective equipment, followed by entrances and green spaces proximity to medical facilities, long and short residential areas, and recreational trails (Ammendolia et al. 2021) (Fig. 2A-B).
Microplastics are ubiquitous in the soil of various terrestrial ecosystems, including agricultural systems (Kumar et al. 2020b), industrialized areas (Fuller and Gautam 2016), floodplain (Scheurer and Bigalke 2018), sands (Ding et al. 2021) and forests (Ng et al. 2021), which may come from various sources, such as landfills, sewage sludge, composts and wastewater-irrigation (Wang et al. 2020; Ya et al. 2021). The COVID-19 protective equipment wastes mixed in domestic wastes make landfills and water bring abundant microplastics to the soil. On the other hand, soil erosion is also an important pathway of microplastics entering aquatic systems (Rehm et al. 2021). Therefore, the soil also participates in the protective equipment associated microplastic cycle. Accurate treatment of COVID-19 protective equipment wastes is an important measure to protect the soil and the aquatic environment.
Microplastics can interact with a variety of soil properties, which may be a key factor in understanding the risks posed by microplastics to terrestrial ecosystems (Fig. 2C) (Rillig 2012; Liu et al. 2017). The microplastics exposure in soils may reduce the soil bulk density, alter the permeability and water holding capacity (de Souza Machado et al. 2018) and destruct soil structural integrity (Wan et al. 2019). There also are many chemical properties, such as the hydrogen ion concentration values and enzyme activities, that microplastics influence over and above the altered physical properties (Boots et al. 2019; Fei et al. 2020). Besides, polypropylene, polystyrene microplastics and other main materials for COVID-19 protective equipment participate in soil carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycle, playing an important role in soil fertility and nutrient (Liu et al. 2017; Huang et al. 2019). As sinks of harmful chemicals (antibiotics, pesticides, heavy metals), microplastics can change the sorption capacity of soils to affect the mobility of chemical contaminants, bioavailability and biodiversity (Huffer et al. 2019; Xu et al. 2021).
Similar to microplastic biofilm in the aquatic environment, microplastics in soils also can provide adsorption sites for soil microorganisms and form unique microbial communities (Zhang et al. 2019), inducing alteration in soil microorganism function. However, several pathogenic microorganisms are also included, which may increase the potential risks to animals and humans (Imran et al. 2019). However, the current studies on protective equipment associated microplastics in the soil environment are deficient, especially the coexistence of microplastics and the COVID-19 virus.
Overall, the main reason of soil pollution is that contaminated protective equipment are thrown as daily rubbish on the road, in household dustbins and garbage dumps, helping plastic and microplastic pollution enter the water and atmosphere. Protective equipment wastes add the microplastic load to the soil, which can alter soil physicochemical properties, decrease soil fertility and nutrient, and soil fertility and nutrient soil microorganism function. The interaction between protective equipment associated microplastics and COVID-19 virus in soils, and the potential impacts and ecological risks on the terrestrial ecosystems remain to be further explored.
Effects on animals
As shown in one of the best pictures on the environment in 2020 shown, a seagull carrying a protective face mask at the port of Dover, Britain, has aroused the profound reflection on the risks of COVID-19 protective equipment pollution to wildlife (WEF 2020a) (Fig. 3A). Lack of human activity during the COVID-19 lockdown led to wildlife sightings increasing, which seemed to herald the spring of flourishing wildlife. However, incorrect disposal of protective equipment is intensifying plastic pollution and posing a blooming threat to the animals by entrapment, entanglement and ingestion.
The entrapment of organisms in the plastic wastes is often reported, such as hermit crabs are entrapped in plastic containers (Lavers et al. 2020). The first victim of COVID-19 wastes is a fish entrapped in a latex glove in the Netherlands (Hiemstra et al. 2021) (Fig. 3B). Therefore, COVID-19 protective equipment, including gloves and gowns, thrown around in the environment could make such entrapments more frequent in future.
The entanglement, another negative interaction between protective equipment pollution and animals, can result in immediate death by suffocation. However, interactions with protective equipment litters are not always directly negative. Protective equipment also causes chronic effects, which can weaken animals’ mobility and feeding ability, exhaust the animals, and cause strangulations, infections and severe wounds. As the data available on https://www.covidlitter.com (Auke-Florian Hiemstra 2021), different wildlife species are facing the risk of entanglement in COVID-19 protective equipment, including American robins, swans, mallards, gulls, bats, hedgehogs, pufferfishes, shore crabs, octopuses. Besides, using plastic to construct nests is more common (Jagiello et al. 2019). Now, COVID-19 protective equipment also becomes nesting materials by common coots and sparrows (Fig. 3C) (Hiemstra et al. 2021). However, plastics incorporated into nests can alter the thermal and drainage properties and increase the risk of entanglement or ingestion, which may compromise nutritional requirements and reproductive success (Tavares et al. 2016; Thompson et al. 2020).
Researchers found that marine plastics smell like food to sea turtles, and in one study, all turtles surveyed had plastics in their stomachs (EcoWatch 2020c). Maybe, COVID-19 protective equipment also smells and looks like food to other animals. A penguin was found dead on Juquehy Beach. The case is the first recorded report of marine animal death caused by COVID-19 protective equipment ingestion (Gallo Neto et al. 2021) (Fig. 3D). Disturbing observations show that long-tailed macaques chew on a face mask, gulls scramble for face masks and domestic animals devour COVID-19 litter (Hiemstra et al. 2021). Similar, several animals that feed on landfills will ingest food along with protective equipment wastes, causing acute and chronic effects (Seif et al. 2018). Exposed to protective equipment wastes by ingestion, animals may experience negative consequences on fitness, such as the restriction of feeding activity and alteration of blood chemistry parameters (Lavers et al. 2019), resulting in biodiversity declining.
Apart from the potential risk of entrapment, entanglement and ingestion of protective equipment wastes, the interactions of animals with microplastics from protective equipment wastes also need much attention. Microplastics are proved to be ingested in various aquatic and terrestrial organisms (Fig. 3E), including the invertebrate, the protochordate and the vertebrate (Al-Sid-Cheikh et al. 2018; Vered et al. 2019; Parton et al. 2020), and are recorded in every corner of the world, from small organisms in Antarctica and bird eggs in the Arctic to deep-sea species (Choy et al. 2019; Bergami et al. 2020). The interaction between microplastics and microbe can alter intestinal flora to reduce mucus secretion and induce gut dysbiosis (Wang et al. 2021a). Because, the most important route for microplastics into animals is their food source, microplastics can accumulate in organisms and transfer to higher consumers through food chain amplification, finally threatening human health (Wang et al. 2021a).
In addition to accumulating in the gastrointestinal tract, microplastics can also be distributed to other organs, causing many other physiological hazards and even sublethal effects (Gandara et al. 2016; Xu et al. 2020). In one study, 67% of sharks sampled contained at least one microplastic (Parton et al. 2020). Though only the stomachs and digestive tracts in sharks were examined, microplastics might also present in other organs and tissues, which were proved in various species. After crabs ingest microplastics, the hepatopancreas has the highest accumulation, followed by guts, gills and muscles (Wang et al. 2021b). Billions of microplastics can be rapidly taken up by scallops, then spread through the intestines and distributed across kidneys, gills and muscles (Al-Sid-Cheikh et al. 2018). Exposure to microplastics derived from COVID-19 face masks, the reproduction and growth of juveniles are inhibited, the intracellular esterase activity and spermatogenesis in earthworms are suppressed, suggesting that microplastic can harm animals at the tissue and cellular levels (Kwak and An 2021). Besides, microplastics contain chemical pollutants attached to them can lead to more serious consequences by additive and synergistic effects, impacting various systems (Roda et al. 2020; Yan et al. 2020).
Overall, the COVID-19 protective equipment is harming animals around us by entrapment, entanglement and ingestion. Besides, associated microplastics can accumulate in organisms by food chain and cause adverse effects. Future researches should address the ecotoxicological effects of protective equipment wastes to protect ecosystems and biodiversity.
Effects on humans
Limited studies in adsorption characteristics and toxicological assessment of contaminated protective equipment presents great challenges of understanding the human health risk of COVID-19 protective equipment associated plastics and microplastics. Evidence confirms that respiratory droplets or airborne virus from patients can be deposited directly onto the protective equipment and remain active for over 72 h (Liu et al. 2020b; Ryan et al. 2020; van Doremalen et al. 2020). However, the knowledge gap in the interaction between microplastics and virus adsorption should be further bridged.
Certainly, the impacts of protective equipment associated microplastics on human health is of great concern. Microplastics are increasing in human lives, making the human body plasticized. In 2018, through analyzing 47 human tissue samples from lung, liver, spleen and kidney samples, researchers detected microplastics in human organs for the first time (EcoWatch 2020b). Subsequently, microplastics were found in the human placenta (Ragusa et al. 2021) and colon (Ibrahim et al. 2021). An important route of microplastic exposure is ingestion (Fig. 4), by which, the global average of 0.1–5 g microplastics may enter human bodies weekly (Senathirajah et al. 2021). Various microplastics have been detected in adult stools, where polypropylene and polyethylene terephthalate are the most abundant (Schwabl et al. 2019). A lasted study reveals that there is little difference in microplastic composition between adult and infant stool samples, but surprisingly, the microplastics on infants are much higher than adults, up to 20 times, indicating that microplastics are spreading to infants (Zhang et al. 2021b).
Besides, microparticles can pollute the food chain and transfer from producers to consumers. Microplastics are widely present in commercial marine species (Vital et al. 2021), freshwater fish (Martinez-Tavera et al. 2021), edible vegetables and fruits (Oliveri Conti et al. 2020). Because of the high demand for food energy and the possibility of microplastic transfer, consumers, especially human beings as the top consumer, are more vulnerable to risks than the lower trophic levels (Carbery et al. 2018). Ingestion of microplastics can interact with the gut microbiota to change the intestinal microenvironment, cause oxidative stress and inflammation to destruct the intestinal barrier (Huang et al. 2021). Therefore, as a potential source of microplastics in the environment, protective equipment wastes can increase the potential threat of microplastics to human health.
Airborne microplastics are widely distributed in the atmosphere, resulting in the potential risk of inhalation exposure (Fig. 4). Nowadays, protective equipment wastes become an emerging source for airborne microplastics (Chen et al. 2021). Increasing evidence is provided the pulmonary toxicity of airborne microplastics by in vivo and in vitro models, suggesting that microplastics can trigger oxidative stress and inflammation, followed by cell death and epithelial barrier destruction (Dong et al. 2020; Lim et al. 2021; Yang et al. 2021b), to potentially induce respiratory and cardiovascular system diseases, and even cancers (Prata 2018). Protective equipment can protect us from airborne particles and the COVID-19 virus, but microplastics generated from the masks can be inhaled by mask wearers during usage (Ma et al. 2021), especially poor-quality masks and reusing masks with disinfection can increase the risk of microplastic inhalation (Li et al. 2021). Besides, all masks can be detected organophosphate ester. Although the calculation indicates the safety of masks with organophosphate ester contamination (Fernandez-Arribas et al. 2021), the interaction between organophosphate ester and microplastics is not considered. Therefore, selecting the correct masks to wear can avoid microplastic inhalation during the COVID-19 pandemic.
To conclude, ingestion and inhalation are important routes for human microplastic exposure, which helps to understand the potential risk of protective equipment wastes to human health. Humans are affected by toxic effects of microplastics via mechanisms including interaction with the gut microbiota, oxidative stress and intestinal barrier destruction. Incorrect use of mask can increase the risk of microplastic generation and inhalation. Further studies are needed to confirm the ability of protective equipment associated microplastics to adsorb viruses.
Recommendations
Certainly, the ocean is the sink for plastics and microplastics (Rochman and Hoellein 2020). However, the ocean is not the ultimate fate. Instead, microplastics can also cycle through freshwater, terrestrial systems and the atmosphere. In addition, disposed protective equipment is massively accumulating microplastics in different environments, resulting in protective equipment associated microplastic cycle (Fig. 5). Raising public awareness, improving plastics production, identifying and removing protective equipment associated plastic and microplastic pollution are critical recommendations to provide for a sustainable environment and future research priority.
Raising public awareness
Raising the public awareness is necessary to decrease protective equipment pollution. Relevant publicity should be strengthened, especially on the rational use of protective equipment, and the potential environmental and health dangers. The public can follow the guidelines for selecting and wearing appropriate protective equipment from the centers for disease control and prevention (WHO 2020a; CDC 2021a). After use, protective equipment should be considered infectious and collected separately in special medical waste bags or bins for further centralized disposal.
Improving plastic production
We do need to raise awareness of protective equipment pollution dangers on the environment and health. Importantly, the only way that really makes a difference is to stop protective equipment related plastic pollution from the source, suggesting that the production should be decoupled from fossil fuel-based resources. Biobased plastics as potential alternative sustainable materials are emerging, which can shift the dependency from fossil fuels to bioproducts (Nanda et al. 2022). Biobased plastics are made from polymers derived from biological sources, including higher plants, microalgae, and cyanobacteria (Karan et al. 2019). The diversity of bio-based raw materials provides opportunities for the production of renewable plastics with an expanding range. Now, biobased plastics are being made into COVID-19 protective equipment, such as the facemasks made by banana trees (WEF 2020e) and biodegradable gloves made of natural rubber (WEF 2020d). Therefore, the government should fast-track and optimize the plastic industry transition to develop and produce biobased plastics with easier biodegradation, better renewability and lower global warming impact, which can promote bioplastic-based protective equipment innovation and circular economic development.
Identifying plastic pollution
More research should be performed to assess the life cycle of COVID-19 protective equipment, especially microplastics derived from protective equipment. As mentioned above, protective equipment associated microplastics are widely distributed in aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric environments, which cycle around the world. More comprehensively and deeply researches should be performed to observe and understand the sinks, sources and spatial and temporal distribution of COVID-19 protective equipment wastes and their interaction with the environment and ecosystems. Therefore, we can build a global protective equipment wastes cycle model to evaluate and deal with plastic and microplastic pollution.
Because of the diversity and complexity of microplastics (materials, size, shapes and modification), there are difficulties in obtaining reproducible and uniform results, including the recent studies on the microplastics from masks (Li et al. 2021; Ma et al. 2021). Besides, limited observation methods underestimate the number of protective equipment associated microplastics in the environment and the potential influence on humans (Chen et al. 2020a). Therefore, precision analytical tools and standardized methods are urgent for separating, sampling, classification, quantification, quality control and characterization of microplastics, especially smaller-sized microplastics.
Remediation
Incineration as a safe, simple and effective method is widely employed for plastic management. Recent incineration methods have a few limits, such as particle and hazardous gas emission (Parashar and Hait 2021), which should be improved. Therefore, future novel technology should have the enough incineration capacity and high purification capacity to completely kill the COVID-19 virus and other microorganisms, and reduce dust and toxic pollutant production. Decontamination of protective equipment can enhance the recyclability to meet the scarcity challenges and promote the circular economy. Neil (Rowan and Laffey 2021) has reviewed different technologies and approaches of protective equipment disinfection and decontamination for safe reuse. Besides, decontaminated protective equipment can be mixed in concrete to improve the mechanical properties (Kilmartin-Lynch et al. 2021; Saberian et al. 2021), braided into lightweight, cheap and hygienic mattresses (WEF 2021b), and turned into new materials by chemical recycling (Ragaert et al. 2017). New findings suggest that mealworms can eat plastic without any adverse side-effects and bioaccumulation (Brandon et al. 2020a), which provides solutions to protective equipment pollution.
Microplastic separating procedure is also the important stage for next microplastic removal (Razeghi et al. 2022). Nowadays, scientists have confirmed sorption and filtration methodologies can treat microplastic-containing wastewater with good efficiencies. In addition, biological degradation and chemical treatments are also potential removal strategies (Padervand et al. 2020). However, the majority of these methods focused on water. Therefore, continuous research is needed to develop specific methods and strategies for separating and removing protective equipment associated microplastics from different environmental samples.
Limitations and perspectives
Although there are some studies on protective equipment associated plastics and microplastics, these are far from enough. More perfect ecotoxicological studies should be built to access the potential hazards of microplastics on the various ecosystems. Several species can serve as biological indicators to conduct biological monitoring by evaluating the toxicity in organisms, such as sea squirts that are evolutionarily related to humans (Vered et al. 2019). Nevertheless, the measurement of internal exposure of microplastics in the human body is still in the infancy (Vethaak and Legler 2021), suggesting that the ability of microplastics to cross the blood-air, intestinal and skin barriers is needed deep insights. Importantly, the research conditions that reflect real environments should be considered to assess the exact hazards on humans. Moreover, the possibility of microplastics as a vector of COVID-19 viruses needs clearer understandings. Fortunately, emerging in vitro models, including organ-on-a-chip and organoids, provide opportunities to accurately simulate and reproduce the exposure and fate of microplastics in the human body with feasibility, adjustability and reliability (Yang et al. 2021a).
Conclusion
During the COVID-19 pandemic, protective equipment can reduce the risk of virus infection, but extensive use and improper disposal are exacerbating the plastic problems. We must recognize that COVID-19 protective equipment associated plastic and microplastic wastes, as the byproducts of pandemic control, have been a global environmental challenge of our time. The review is the first to reveal the protective equipment associated plastic and microplastic cycle, as the review provides a thorough assessment of the impacts in aquatic, terrestrial and atmospheric environments. Besides, we cannot ignore the irreparable harm to animals and should spark scientific interest in protecting biodiversity. Importantly, the risks of protective equipment associated microplastics to human health are inadequately understood, which should be fueled people’s concern. Moving forward, raising public awareness, improving plastics production, identifying and removing protective equipment associated plastic and microplastic pollution are important strategies to solve related pollution in the environment. On the research priority side, we should focus on the biological monitoring and in vitro models for the toxicology assessment of protective equipment associated plastics and microplastics, and the possibility of serving as the COVID-19 virus vectors.
References
Adyel TM (2020) Accumulation of plastic waste during COVID-19. Science 369(6509):1314–1315. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd9925
Akarsu C, Madenli O, Deveci EU (2021) Characterization of littered face masks in the southeastern part of Turkey. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 28(34):47517–47527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14099-8
Akber Abbasi S, Khalil AB, Arslan M (2020) 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(12):3181–3186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.09.054
Akhbarizadeh R, Dobaradaran S, Nabipour I, Tangestani M, Abedi D, Javanfekr F, Jeddi F, Zendehboodi A (2021) Abandoned covid-19 personal protective equipment along the Bushehr shores, the Persian Gulf: An emerging source of secondary microplastics in coastlines. Mar Pollut Bull 168:112386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112386
Akter S, Zakia MA, Mofijur M, Ahmed SF, Vo D-VN, Khandaker G, Mahlia TMI (2022) SARS-CoV-2 variants and environmental effects of lockdowns, masks and vaccination: a review. Environ Chem Lett 20(1):141–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-021-01323-7
Allen S, Allen D, Moss K, Le Roux G, Phoenix VR, Sonke JE (2020) Examination of the ocean as a source for atmospheric microplastics. PLoS ONE 15(5):e0232746. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232746
Al-Sid-Cheikh M, Rowland SJ, Stevenson K, Rouleau C, Henry TB, Thompson RC (2018) Uptake, whole-body distribution, and depuration of nanoplastics by the scallop pecten maximus at environmentally realistic concentrations. Environ Sci Technol 52(24):14480–14486. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b05266
Amato-Lourenco LF, Dos Santos GL, de Weger LA, Hiemstra PS, Vijver MG, Mauad T (2020) An emerging class of air pollutants: Potential effects of microplastics to respiratory human health? Sci Total Environ 749:141676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141676
Ammendolia J, Saturno J, Brooks AL, Jacobs S, Jambeck JR (2021) 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 269:116160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.116160
Anderson PJ, Warrack S, Langen V, Challis JK, Hanson ML, Rennie MD (2017) Microplastic contamination in lake winnipeg, Canada. Environ Pollut 225:223–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.02.072
Aragaw TA (2020) Surgical face masks as a potential source for microplastic pollution in the COVID-19 scenario. Mar Pollut Bull 159:111517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111517
Ardusso M, Forero-Lopez AD, Buzzi NS, Spetter CV, Fernandez-Severini MD (2021) COVID-19 pandemic repercussions on plastic and antiviral polymeric textile causing pollution on beaches and coasts of South America. Sci Total Environ 763:144365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144365
Auke-Florian Hiemstra LR, Barbara Gravendeel, Menno Schilthuizen (2021) The effects of COVID-19 litter on animal life. https://www.covidlitter.com/. Accessed 01 May 2022
Bahl P, Bhattacharjee S, de Silva C, Chughtai AA, Doolan C, MacIntyre CR (2020) Face coverings and mask to minimise droplet dispersion and aerosolisation: a video case study. Thorax 75(11):1024–1025. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-215748
Barrett J, Chase Z, Zhang J, Holl M, Wilcox C (2020) Microplastic pollution in deep-sea sediments from the great Australian bight. Front Mar Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.576170
Benson NU, Fred-Ahmadu OH, Bassey DE, Atayero AA (2021) COVID-19 pandemic and emerging plastic-based personal protective equipment waste pollution and management in Africa. J Environ Chem Eng 9(3):105222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.105222
Bergami E, Rota E, Caruso T, Birarda G, Vaccari L, Corsi I (2020) Plastics everywhere: first evidence of polystyrene fragments inside the common Antarctic collembolan Cryptopygus antarcticus. Biol Lett 16(6):20200093. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2020.0093
Bohdan K (2022) Estimating global marine surface microplastic abundance: systematic literature review. Sci Total Environ 832:155064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155064
Boots B, Russell CW, Green DS (2019) Effects of microplastics in soil ecosystems: above and below ground. Environ Sci Technol 53(19):11496–11506. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b03304
Brandon AM, El Abbadi SH, Ibekwe UA, Cho YM, Wu WM, Criddle CS (2020a) Fate of Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), a common flame retardant, in polystyrene-degrading mealworms: elevated HBCD levels in egested polymer but no bioaccumulation. Environ Sci Technol 54(1):364–371. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06501
Brandon JA, Freibott A, Sala LM (2020b) Patterns of suspended and salp-ingested microplastic debris in the North Pacific investigated with epifluorescence microscopy. Limnology and Oceanography Letters. https://doi.org/10.1002/lol2.10127
Carbery M, O’Connor W, Palanisami T (2018) Trophic transfer of microplastics and mixed contaminants in the marine food web and implications for human health. Environ Int 115:400–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.03.007
CDC (2020) Strategies for Optimizing the Supply of Disposable Medical Gloves. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ppe-strategy/gloves.html. Accessed 01 May 2022
CDC (2021a) Guidance for Wearing Masks. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html. Accessed 01 May 2022
CDC (2021b) How to Protect Yourself & Others. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html. Accessed 01 May 2022
CDC (2021c) Strategies for Optimizing the Supply of Eye Protection. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ppe-strategy/eye-protection.html. Accessed 01 May 2022
CDC (2021d) Strategies for Optimizing the Supply of Isolation Gowns. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ppe-strategy/isolation-gowns.html. Accessed 01 May 2022
Cecchi T (2021) Analysis of volatiles organic compounds in Venice lagoon water reveals COVID 19 lockdown impact on microplastics and mass tourism related pollutants. Sci Total Environ 783:146951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146951
Chen G, Feng Q, Wang J (2020a) Mini-review of microplastics in the atmosphere and their risks to humans. Sci Total Environ 703:135504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135504
Chen X, Chen X, Zhao Y, Zhou H, Xiong X, Wu C (2020b) Effects of microplastic biofilms on nutrient cycling in simulated freshwater systems. Sci Total Environ 719:137276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137276
Chen X, Chen X, Liu Q, Zhao Q, Xiong X, Wu C (2021) Used disposable face masks are significant sources of microplastics to environment. Environ Pollut 285:117485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117485
Chowdhury H, Chowdhury T, Sait SM (2021) Estimating marine plastic pollution from COVID-19 face masks in coastal regions. Mar Pollut Bull 168:112419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112419
Choy CA, Robison BH, Gagne TO, Erwin B, Firl E, Halden RU, Hamilton JA, Katija K, Lisin SE, Rolsky C, K SVH, (2019) The vertical distribution and biological transport of marine microplastics across the epipelagic and mesopelagic water column. Sci Rep 9(1):7843. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44117-2
Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, Solo K, Yaacoub S, Schunemann HJ, authors C-SURGEs, (2020) Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 395(10242):1973–1987. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9
CIEL (2019) Plastic & Climate: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet. https://www.ciel.org/plasticandclimate/. Accessed 01 May 2022
Cordova MR, Nurhati IS, Riani E, Nurhasanah IMY (2021) Unprecedented plastic-made personal protective equipment (PPE) debris in river outlets into Jakarta Bay during COVID-19 pandemic. Chemosphere 268:129360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.129360
De-la-Torre GE, Aragaw TA (2021) What we need to know about PPE associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in the marine environment. Mar Pollut Bull 163:111879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111879
De-la-Torre GE, Rakib MRJ, Pizarro-Ortega CI, Dioses-Salinas DC (2021) Occurrence of personal protective equipment (PPE) associated with the COVID-19 pandemic along the coast of Lima. Peru Sci Total Environ 774:145774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145774
Ding L, Wang X, Ouyang Z, Chen Y, Wang X, Liu D, Liu S, Yang X, Jia H, Guo X (2021) The occurrence of microplastic in Mu Us sand land soils in northwest China: different soil types, vegetation cover and restoration years. J Hazard Mater 403:123982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123982
Dissanayake J, Torres-Quiroz C, Mahato J, Park J (2021) Facemasks: A looming microplastic crisis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18137068
Dong CD, Chen CW, Chen YC, Chen HH, Lee JS, Lin CH (2020) Polystyrene microplastic particles: In vitro pulmonary toxicity assessment. J Hazard Mater 385:121575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121575
Ebere EC, Verla AW, Evelyn V, Ngozi VE (2020) Novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and airborne microplastics. Journal of Materials and Environmental Science. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3738451
EcoWatch (2018) Plastics: The History of an Ecological Crisis. https://www.ecowatch.com/plastics-history-ecological-crisis-2560978473.html. Accessed 01 May 2022
EcoWatch (2020a) COVID-19 Masks Are Polluting Beaches and Oceans. https://www.ecowatch.com/covid-19-masks-beaches-oceans-2646165717.html. Accessed 01 May 2022
EcoWatch (2020b) Microplastics Found in Human Organs for First Time. https://www.ecowatch.com/microplastics-found-human-organs-2647014349.html. Accessed 01 May 2022
EcoWatch (2020c) Ocean Plastic Smells Like Food to Sea Turtles, Study Finds. https://www.ecowatch.com/ocean-plastic-smell-sea-turtles-2645447334.html. Accessed 01 May 2022
EcoWatch (2020d) Scientists Discover Highest Concentration of Deep-Sea Microplastics to Date. https://www.ecowatch.com/microplastics-in-ocean-2645891531.html. Accessed 01 May 2022
Eder ML, Oliva-Teles L, Pinto R, Carvalho AP, Almeida CMR, Hornek-Gausterer R, Guimaraes L (2021) Microplastics as a vehicle of exposure to chemical contamination in freshwater systems: Current research status and way forward. J Hazard Mater 417:125980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125980
Enyoh CE, Verla AW, Verla EN, Ibe FC, Amaobi CE (2019) Airborne microplastics: a review study on method for analysis, occurrence, movement and risks. Environ Monit Assess 191(11):668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7842-0
Europe P (2020) Plastics–the Facts 2020 An analysis of European plastics production, demand and waste data. https://www.plasticseurope.org/en/resources/publications/4312-plastics-facts-2020. Accessed 01 May 2022
Fadare OO, Okoffo ED (2020) Covid-19 face masks: A potential source of microplastic fibers in the environment. Sci Total Environ 737:140279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140279
Fei Y, Huang S, Zhang H, Tong Y, Wen D, Xia X, Wang H, Luo Y, Barcelo D (2020) Response of soil enzyme activities and bacterial communities to the accumulation of microplastics in an acid cropped soil. Sci Total Environ 707:135634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135634
Fernandez-Arribas J, Moreno T, Bartroli R, Eljarrat E (2021) COVID-19 face masks: A new source of human and environmental exposure to organophosphate esters. Environ Int 154:106654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106654
Fischer EP, Fischer MC, Grass D, Henrion I, Warren WS, Westman E (2020) Low-cost measurement of face mask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd3083
Fragao J, Bessa F, Otero V, Barbosa A, Sobral P, Waluda CM, Guimaro HR, Xavier JC (2021) Microplastics and other anthropogenic particles in Antarctica: using penguins as biological samplers. Sci Total Environ 788:147698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147698
Fuller S, Gautam A (2016) A procedure for measuring microplastics using pressurized fluid extraction. Environ Sci Technol 50(11):5774–5780. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b00816
Gallo Neto H, Gomes Bantel C, Browning J, Della Fina N, Albuquerque Ballabio T, Teles de Santana F, de Karam EBM, Beatriz Barbosa C (2021) 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 166:112232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112232
Gandara ESPP, Nobre CR, Resaffe P, Pereira CDS, Gusmao F (2016) Leachate from microplastics impairs larval development in brown mussels. Water Res 106:364–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.10.016
Geyer R, Jambeck JR, Law KL (2017) Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci Adv 3(7):e1700782. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782
Gorrasi G, Sorrentino A, Lichtfouse E (2021) Back to plastic pollution in COVID times. Environ Chem Lett 19(1):1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-01129-z
Grosso M (2022) It’s all about plastics. Waste Manag Res 40(6):607–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X221093821
Guy GP Jr, Lee FC, Sunshine G, McCord R, Howard-Williams M, Kompaniyets L, Dunphy C, Gakh M, Weber R, Sauber-Schatz E, Omura JD, Massetti GM (2020) Cdc Covid-19 response team MPAU, program CDCPHL (2021) association of state-issued mask mandates and allowing on-premises restaurant dining with county-level COVID-19 case and death growth rates - united states, March 1-December 31. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 70(10):350–354
Hantoko D, Li X, Pariatamby A, Yoshikawa K, Horttanainen M, Yan M (2021) Challenges and practices on waste management and disposal during COVID-19 pandemic. J Environ Manage 286:112140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112140
Haque MS, Sharif S, Masnoon A, Rashid E (2021) SARS-CoV-2 pandemic-induced PPE and single-use plastic waste generation scenario. Waste Manag Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X20980828
Harvey BP, Kerfahi D, Jung Y, Shin JH, Adams JM, Hall-Spencer JM (2020) Ocean acidification alters bacterial communities on marine plastic debris. Mar Pollut Bull 161(Pt B):111749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111749
Henderson L, Green C (2020) Making sense of microplastics? Public understandings of plastic pollution. Mar Pollut Bull 152:110908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.110908
Hiemstra AF, Rambonnet L, Gravendeel B, Schilthuizen M (2021) The effects of COVID-19 litter on animal life. Anim Biol. https://doi.org/10.1163/15707563-bja10052
Huang SM, Zhao H, Lee JI, Reynolds K, Zhang L, Temple R, Lesko LJ (2010) Therapeutic protein-drug interactions and implications for drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther 87(4):497–503. https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2009.308
Huang Y, Zhao Y, Wang J, Zhang M, Jia W, Qin X (2019) LDPE microplastic films alter microbial community composition and enzymatic activities in soil. Environ Pollut 254(Pt A):112983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.112983
Huang Z, Weng Y, Shen Q, Zhao Y, Jin Y (2021) Microplastic: A potential threat to human and animal health by interfering with the intestinal barrier function and changing the intestinal microenvironment. Sci Total Environ 785:147365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147365
Huffer T, Metzelder F, Sigmund G, Slawek S, Schmidt TC, Hofmann T (2019) Polyethylene microplastics influence the transport of organic contaminants in soil. Sci Total Environ 657:242–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.047
Huo C, Ahmed Dar A, Nawaz A, Hameed J, albashar , Pan , Wang , GBC (2021) Groundwater contamination with the threat of COVID-19: Insights into CSR theory of Carroll’s pyramid. J King Saud Univer - Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2020.101295
Ibrahim YS, Tuan Anuar S, Azmi AA, Wan Mohd Khalik WMA, Lehata S, Hamzah SR, Ismail D, Ma ZF, Dzulkarnaen A, Zakaria Z, Mustaffa N, Tuan Sharif SE, Lee YY (2021) Detection of microplastics in human colectomy specimens. JGH Open 5(1):116–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgh3.12457
Imran M, Das KR, Naik MM (2019) Co-selection of multi-antibiotic resistance in bacterial pathogens in metal and microplastic contaminated environments: An emerging health threat. Chemosphere 215:846–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.10.114
Jagiello Z, Dylewski L, Tobolka M, Aguirre JI (2019) Life in a polluted world: A global review of anthropogenic materials in bird nests. Environ Pollut 251:717–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.05.028
Jain S, Lamba BY, Kumar S, Singh D (2020) Strategy for repurposing of disposed PPE kits by production of biofuel: pressing priority amidst COVID-19 pandemic. Biofuels 1:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2020.1797350
Jambeck JR, Geyer R, Wilcox C, Siegler TR, Perryman M, Andrady A, Narayan R, Law KL (2015) Marine pollution plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347(6223):768–71. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352
Jefferson T, Del Mar CB, Dooley L, Ferroni E, Al-Ansary LA, Bawazeer GA, van Driel ML, Nair S, Jones MA, Thorning S, Conly JM (2011) Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub4
Johansson MA, Quandelacy TM, Kada S, Prasad PV, Steele M, Brooks JT, Slayton RB, Biggerstaff M, Butler JC (2021) SARS-CoV-2 transmission from people without COVID-19 symptoms. JAMA Netw Open 4(1):e2035057. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.35057
Kane IA, Clare MA, Miramontes E, Wogelius R, Rothwell JJ, Garreau P, Pohl F (2020) Seafloor microplastic hotspots controlled by deep-sea circulation. Science 368(6495):1140–1145. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba5899
Karan H, Funk C, Grabert M, Oey M, Hankamer B (2019) Green bioplastics as part of a circular bioeconomy. Trends Plant Sci 24(3):237–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2018.11.010
Khoo KS, Ho LY, Lim HR, Leong HY, Chew KW (2021) Plastic waste associated with the COVID-19 pandemic: Crisis or opportunity? J Hazard Mater 417:126108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126108
Kilmartin-Lynch S, Saberian M, Li J, Roychand R, Zhang G (2021) Preliminary evaluation of the feasibility of using polypropylene fibres from COVID-19 single-use face masks to improve the mechanical properties of concrete. J Clean Prod 296:126460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126460
Klemes JJ, Fan YV, Jiang P (2020) The energy and environmental footprints of COVID-19 fighting measures - PPE, disinfection, supply chains. Energy (oxf) 211:118701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118701
Kumar H, Azad A, Gupta A, Sharma J, Bherwani H, Labhsetwar NK, Kumar R (2020a) COVID-19 Creating another problem? Sustainable solution for PPE disposal through LCA approach. Environ Dev Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01033-0
Kumar M, Xiong X, He M, Tsang DCW, Gupta J, Khan E, Harrad S, Hou D, Ok YS, Bolan NS (2020b) Microplastics as pollutants in agricultural soils. Environ Pollut 265(Pt A):114980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114980
Kwak JI, An YJ (2021) Post COVID-19 pandemic: biofragmentation and soil ecotoxicological effects of microplastics derived from face masks. J Hazard Mater 416:126169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126169
Lam TWL, Fok L, Lin L, Xie Q, Li HX, Xu XR, Yeung LC (2020) Spatial variation of floatable plastic debris and microplastics in the pearl river estuary. South China Mar Pollut Bull 158:111383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111383
Lau WWY, Shiran Y, Bailey RM, Cook E, Stuchtey MR, Koskella J, Velis CA, Godfrey L, Boucher J, Murphy MB, Thompson RC, Jankowska E, Castillo Castillo A, Pilditch TD, Dixon B, Koerselman L, Kosior E, Favoino E, Gutberlet J, Baulch S, Atreya ME, Fischer D, He KK, Petit MM, Sumaila UR, Neil E, Bernhofen MV, Lawrence K, Palardy JE (2020) Evaluating scenarios toward zero plastic pollution. Science 369(6510):1455–1461. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba9475
Lavers JL, Hutton I, Bond AL (2019) Clinical pathology of plastic ingestion in marine birds and relationships with blood chemistry. Environ Sci Technol 53(15):9224–9231. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b02098
Lavers JL, Sharp PB, Stuckenbrock S, Bond AL (2020) Entrapment in plastic debris endangers hermit crabs. J Hazard Mater 387:121703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121703
Law KL, Starr N, Siegler TR, Jambeck JR, Mallos NJ, Leonard GH (2020) The United States’ contribution of plastic waste to land and ocean. Sci Adv. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd0288
Lee Y, Yoon DS, Lee YH, Kwak JI, An YJ, Lee JS, Park JC (2021) Combined exposure to microplastics and zinc produces sex-specific responses in the water flea daphnia magna. J Hazard Mater 420:126652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126652
Leffler CT, Ing E, Lykins JD, Hogan MC, McKeown CA, Grzybowski A (2020) Association of Country-wide coronavirus mortality with demographics, testing, lockdowns, and public wearing of masks. Am J Trop Med Hyg 103(6):2400–2411. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.20-1015
Leslie HA, van Velzen MJM, Brandsma SH, Vethaak AD, Garcia-Vallejo JJ, Lamoree MH (2022) Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. Environ Int 163:107199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107199
Leung NHL, Chu DKW, Shiu EYC, Chan KH, McDevitt JJ, Hau BJP, Yen HL, Li Y, Ip DKM, Peiris JSM, Seto WH, Leung GM, Milton DK, Cowling BJ (2020) Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks. Nat Med 26(5):676–680. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0843-2
Li P, Zou X, Wang X, Su M, Chen C, Sun X, Zhang H (2020) A preliminary study of the interactions between microplastics and citrate-coated silver nanoparticles in aquatic environments. J Hazard Mater 385:121601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121601
Li L, Zhao X, Li Z, Song K (2021) COVID-19: Performance study of microplastic inhalation risk posed by wearing masks. J Hazard Mater 411:124955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124955
Lim D, Jeong J, Song KS, Sung JH, Oh SM, Choi J (2021) Inhalation toxicity of polystyrene micro(nano)plastics using modified OECD TG 412. Chemosphere 262:128330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128330
Lindeque PK, Cole M, Coppock RL, Lewis CN, Miller RZ, Watts AJR, Wilson-McNeal A, Wright SL, Galloway TS (2020) Are we underestimating microplastic abundance in the marine environment? A comparison of microplastic capture with nets of different mesh-size. Environ Pollut 265(Pt A):114721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114721
Lindsley WG, Blachere FM, Law BF, Beezhold DH, Noti JD (2021) Efficacy of face masks, neck gaiters and face shields for reducing the expulsion of simulated cough-generated aerosols. Aerosol Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.05.20207241
Liu Q, Schauer J (2021) Airborne microplastics from waste as a transmission vector for COVID-19. Aerosol Air Quality Res 21(1):200439. https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2020.07.0439
Liu H, Yang X, Liu G, Liang C, Xue S, Chen H, Ritsema CJ, Geissen V (2017) Response of soil dissolved organic matter to microplastic addition in Chinese loess soil. Chemosphere 185:907–917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.07.064
Liu X, Liu C, Liu G, Luo W, Xia N (2020a) COVID-19: Progress in diagnostics, therapy and vaccination. Theranostics 10(17):7821–7835. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.47987
Liu Y, Ning Z, Chen Y, Guo M, Liu Y, Gali NK, Sun L, Duan Y, Cai J, Westerdahl D, Liu X, Xu K, Ho KF, Kan H, Fu Q, Lan K (2020b) Aerodynamic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 in two wuhan hospitals. Nature 582(7813):557–560. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2271-3
Ma J, Chen F, Xu H, Jiang H, Liu J, Li P, Chen CC, Pan K (2021) Face masks as a source of nanoplastics and microplastics in the environment: quantification, characterization, and potential for bioaccumulation. Environ Pollut 288:117748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117748
Mai L, Sun XF, Xia LL, Bao LJ, Liu LY, Zeng EY (2020) Global Riverine plastic outflows. Environ Sci Technol 54(16):10049–10056. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02273
Manchanda C, Kumar M, Singh V, Faisal M, Hazarika N, Shukla A, Lalchandani V, Goel V, Thamban N, Ganguly D, Tripathi SN (2021) Variation in chemical composition and sources of PM2.5 during the COVID-19 lockdown in Delhi. Environ Int. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106541
Martinez-Tavera E, Duarte-Moro AM, Sujitha SB, Rodriguez-Espinosa PF, Rosano-Ortega G, Exposito N (2021) Microplastics and metal burdens in freshwater Tilapia (oreochromis niloticus) of a metropolitan reservoir in Central Mexico: Potential threats for human health. Chemosphere 266:128968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128968
Meijer LJJ, van Emmerik T, van der Ent R, Schmidt C, Lebreton L (2021) More than 1000 rivers account for 80% of global riverine plastic emissions into the ocean. Sci Adv. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz5803
Mejjad N, Cherif EK, Rodero A, Krawczyk DA, El Kharraz J, Moumen A, Laqbaqbi M, Fekri A (2021) Disposal behavior of used masks during the covid-19 pandemic in the moroccan community: potential environmental impact. Int J Environ Res Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084382
Mitze T, Kosfeld R, Rode J, Walde K (2020) Face masks considerably reduce COVID-19 cases in Germany. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 117(51):32293–32301. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2015954117
Morgana S, Casentini B, Amalfitano S (2021) Uncovering the release of micro/nanoplastics from disposable face masks at times of COVID-19. J Hazard Mater 419:126507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126507
Nanda S, Patra BR, Patel R, Bakos J, Dalai AK (2022) Innovations in applications and prospects of bioplastics and biopolymers: a review. Environ Chem Lett 20(1):379–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-021-01334-4
Ng EL, Lin SY, Dungan AM, Colwell JM, Ede S, Huerta Lwanga E, Meng K, Geissen V, Blackall LL, Chen D (2021) Microplastic pollution alters forest soil microbiome. J Hazard Mater 409:124606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124606
Nzediegwu C, Chang SX (2020) Improper solid waste management increases potential for COVID-19 spread in developing Countries. Resour Conserv Recycl 161:104947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104947
Ob O, Marques Mendes AR, McCarron S, Healy MG, Morrison L (2020) The role of wet wipes and sanitary towels as a source of white microplastic fibres in the marine environment. Water Res 182:116021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116021
oceansasia (2020) NO SHORTAGE OF SURGICAL MASKS AT THE BEACH. https://oceansasia.org/beach-mask-coronavirus/. Accessed 01 May 2022
Okuku E, Kiteresi L, Owato G, Otieno K, Mwalugha C, Mbuche M, Gwada B, Nelson A, Chepkemboi P, Achieng Q, Wanjeri V, Ndwiga J, Mulupi L, Omire J (2021) The impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on marine litter pollution along the Kenyan Coast: A synthesis after 100 days following the first reported case in Kenya. Mar Pollut Bull 162:111840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111840
Oliveri Conti G, Ferrante M, Banni M, Favara C, Nicolosi I, Cristaldi A, Fiore M, Zuccarello P (2020) Micro- and nano-plastics in edible fruit and vegetables. The first diet risks assessment for the general population. Environ Res 187:109677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109677
Padervand M, Lichtfouse E, Robert D, Wang C (2020) Removal of microplastics from the environment. A Rev Environ Chem Lett 18(3):807–828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-00983-1
Parashar N, Hait S (2021) Plastics in the time of COVID-19 pandemic: protector or polluter? Sci Total Environ 759:144274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144274
Parton KJ, Godley BJ, Santillo D, Tausif M, Omeyer LCM, Galloway TS (2020) Investigating the presence of microplastics in demersal sharks of the North-East Atlantic. Sci Rep 10(1):12204. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68680-1
Patricio Silva AL, Prata JC, Walker TR, Duarte AC, Ouyang W, Barcelo D, Rocha-Santos T (2021) Increased plastic pollution due to COVID-19 pandemic: Challenges and recommendations. Chem Eng J 405:126683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.126683
Peeken I, Primpke S, Beyer B, Gutermann J, Katlein C, Krumpen T, Bergmann M, Hehemann L, Gerdts G (2018) Arctic sea ice is an important temporal sink and means of transport for microplastic. Nat Commun 9(1):1505. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03825-5
people.cn (2020) Keynote speech at the opening ceremony of the third China International Import Expo. http://politics.people.com.cn/n1/2020/1105/c1024-31919233.html. Accessed 01 May 2022
plasticoceans (2021) Plastic pollution facts. https://plasticoceans.org/the-facts/. Accessed 01 May 2022
Prata JC (2018) Airborne microplastics: Consequences to human health? Environ Pollut 234:115–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.043
Prata JC, Silva ALP, Walker TR, Duarte AC, Rocha-Santos T (2020) COVID-19 Pandemic repercussions on the use and management of plastics. Environ Sci Technol 54(13):7760–7765. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02178
Praveena SM, Aris AZ (2021) The impacts of COVID-19 on the environmental sustainability: a perspective from the Southeast Asian region. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11774-0
Ragaert K, Delva L, Van Geem K (2017) Mechanical and chemical recycling of solid plastic waste. Waste Manag 69:24–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.044
Ragusa A, Svelato A, Santacroce C, Catalano P, Notarstefano V, Carnevali O, Papa F, Rongioletti MCA, Baiocco F, Draghi S, D’Amore E, Rinaldo D, Matta M, Giorgini E (2021) Plasticenta: first evidence of microplastics in human placenta. Environ Int 146:106274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106274
Razeghi N, Hamidian AH, Mirzajani A, Abbasi S, Wu C, Zhang Y, Yang M (2022) Sample preparation methods for the analysis of microplastics in freshwater ecosystems: a review. Environ Chem Lett 20(1):417–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-021-01341-5
Rehm R, Zeyer T, Schmidt A, Fiener P (2021) Soil erosion as transport pathway of microplastic from agriculture soils to aquatic ecosystems. Sci Total Environ 795:148774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148774
Rillig MC (2012) Microplastic in terrestrial ecosystems and the soil? Environ Sci Technol 46(12):6453–6454. https://doi.org/10.1021/es302011r
Rizan C, Reed M, Bhutta MF (2021) Environmental impact of personal protective equipment distributed for use by health and social care services in England in the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic. J R Soc Med 114(5):250–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/01410768211001583
Rochman CM, Hoellein T (2020) The global odyssey of plastic pollution. Science 368(6496):1184–1185. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc4428
Roda JFB, Lauer MM, Risso WE, Dos Reis B, Martinez C (2020) Microplastics and copper effects on the neotropical teleost Prochilodus lineatus: Is there any interaction? Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 242:110659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2020.110659
Rodriguez NB, Formentini G, Favi C, Marconi M (2021) Environmental implication of personal protection equipment in the pandemic era: LCA comparison of face masks typologies. Procedia CIRP 98:306–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.01.108
Rowan NJ, Laffey JG (2021) Unlocking the surge in demand for personal and protective equipment (PPE) and improvised face coverings arising from coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic - Implications for efficacy, re-use and sustainable waste management. Sci Total Environ 752:142259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142259
Ryan PG, Maclean K, Weideman EA (2020) The Impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on Urban Street Litter in South Africa. Environ Process. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-020-00472-1
Saberian M, Li J, Kilmartin-Lynch S, Boroujeni M (2021) Repurposing of COVID-19 single-use face masks for pavements base/subbase. Sci Total Environ 769:145527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145527
Scheurer M, Bigalke M (2018) Microplastics in swiss floodplain soils. Environ Sci Technol 52(6):3591–3598. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b06003
Schnurr REJ, Alboiu V, Chaudhary M, Corbett RA, Quanz ME, Sankar K, Srain HS, Thavarajah V, Xanthos D, Walker TR (2018) Reducing marine pollution from single-use plastics (SUPs): A review. Mar Pollut Bull 137:157–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.10.001
de Souza Machado AA, Lau CW, Till J, Kloas W, Lehmann A, Becker R, Rillig MC (2018) Impacts of microplastics on the soil biophysical environment. Environ Sci Technol 52(17):9656–9665. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02212
Schwabl P, Koppel S, Konigshofer P, Bucsics T, Trauner M, Reiberger T, Liebmann B (2019) Detection of various microplastics in human stool: a prospective case series. Ann Intern Med 171(7):453–457. https://doi.org/10.7326/M19-0618
Seif S, Provencher JF, Avery-Gomm S, Daoust PY, Mallory ML, Smith PA (2018) Plastic and non-plastic debris ingestion in three gull species feeding in an urban landfill environment. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 74(3):349–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-017-0492-8
Selvam S, Jesuraja K, Venkatramanan S, Roy PD, Jeyanthi Kumari V (2021) Hazardous microplastic characteristics and its role as a vector of heavy metal in groundwater and surface water of coastal south India. J Hazard Mater 402:123786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123786
Senathirajah K, Attwood S, Bhagwat G, Carbery M, Wilson S, Palanisami T (2021) Estimation of the mass of microplastics ingested - A pivotal first step towards human health risk assessment. J Hazard Mater 404(Pt B):124004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124004
Shen M, Zeng Z, Song B, Yi H, Hu T, Zhang Y, Zeng G, Xiao R (2021) Neglected microplastics pollution in global COVID-19: Disposable surgical masks. Sci Total Environ 790:148130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148130
Singh P, Sharma VP (2016) Integrated plastic waste management: environmental and improved health approaches. Procedia Environ Ences 35:692–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.068
Sridharan S, Kumar M, Singh L, Bolan NS, Saha M (2021) Microplastics as an emerging source of particulate air pollution: A critical review. J Hazard Mater 418:126245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126245
Tavares DC, Costa L, Rangel DF, Moura JD, Zalmon IR, Siciliano S (2016) Nests of the brown booby (Sula leucogaster) as a potential indicator of tropical ocean pollution by marine debris. Ecol Indicat. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.06.005
Thompson DL, Ovenden TS, Pennycott T, Nager RG (2020) The prevalence and source of plastic incorporated into nests of five seabird species on a small offshore island. Mar Pollut Bull 154:111076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111076
Tian J, Wang Q, Zhang Y, Yan M, Liu H, Zhang N, Ran W, Cao J (2021) Impacts of primary emissions and secondary aerosol formation on air pollution in an urban area of China during the COVID-19 lockdown. Environ Int 150:106426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106426
Tobias A (2020) Evaluation of the lockdowns for the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Italy and Spain after one month follow up. Sci Total Environ 725:138539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138539
UNEP (2017) UN declares war on ocean plastic. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/un-declares-war-ocean-plastic-0. Accessed 01 May 2022
UNEP (2018) The state of plastics: World environment day Outlook 2018. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/state-plastics-world-environment-day-outlook-2018. Accessed 01 May 2022
Urban RC, Nakada LYK (2021) COVID-19 pandemic: Solid waste and environmental impacts in Brazil. Sci Total Environ 755(Pt 1):142471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142471
Usubharatana P, Phungrassami H (2018) Carbon footprints of rubber products supply chains (Fresh latex to rubber glove). Appl Ecol Environ Res 16(2):1639–1657
Valsamatzi-Panagiotou A, Penchovsky R (2022) Environmental factors influencing the transmission of the coronavirus 2019: a review. Environ Chem Lett. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-022-01418-9
van Doremalen N, Bushmaker T, Morris DH, Holbrook MG, Gamble A, Williamson BN, Tamin A, Harcourt JL, Thornburg NJ, Gerber SI, Lloyd-Smith JO, de Wit E, Munster VJ (2020) Aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 as compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med 382(16):1564–1567. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2004973
Vanapalli KR, Sharma HB, Ranjan VP, Samal B, Bhattacharya J, Dubey BK, Goel S (2021) Challenges and strategies for effective plastic waste management during and post COVID-19 pandemic. Sci Total Environ 750:141514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141514
Vered G, Kaplan A, Avisar D, Shenkar N (2019) Using solitary ascidians to assess microplastic and phthalate plasticizers pollution among marine biota: A case study of the Eastern Mediterranean and Red Sea. Mar Pollut Bull 138:618–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.12.013
Vethaak AD, Legler J (2021) Microplastics and human health. Science 371(6530):672–674. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe5041
Vital SA, Cardoso C, Avio C, Pittura L, Regoli F, Bebianno MJ (2021) Do microplastic contaminated seafood consumption pose a potential risk to human health? Mar Pollut Bull 171:112769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112769
Wagner M, Scherer C, Alvarez-Munoz D, Brennholt N, Bourrain X, Buchinger S, Fries E, Grosbois C, Klasmeier J, Marti T, Rodriguez-Mozaz S, Urbatzka R, Vethaak AD, Winther-Nielsen M, Reifferscheid G (2014) Microplastics in freshwater ecosystems: what we know and what we need to know. Environ Sci Eur 26(1):12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0012-7
Wan Y, Wu C, Xue Q, Hui X (2019) Effects of plastic contamination on water evaporation and desiccation cracking in soil. Sci Total Environ 654:576–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.123
Wang W, Ge J, Yu X, Li H (2020) Environmental fate and impacts of microplastics in soil ecosystems: Progress and perspective. Sci Total Environ 708:134841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134841
Wang J, Peng C, Li H, Zhang P, Liu X (2021a) The impact of microplastic-microbe interactions on animal health and biogeochemical cycles: A mini-review. Sci Total Environ 773:145697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145697
Wang T, Hu M, Xu G, Shi H, Leung JYS, Wang Y (2021b) Microplastic accumulation via trophic transfer: Can a predatory crab counter the adverse effects of microplastics by body defence? Sci Total Environ 754:142099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142099
Wang Z, Zhang Y, Kang S, Yang L, Shi H, Tripathee L, Gao T (2021c) Research progresses of microplastic pollution in freshwater systems. Sci Total Environ 795:148888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148888
WEF (2020a) 10 of this year’s best pictures on the environment. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020a/12/environment-pictures-2020a-best-photographs/. Accessed 01 May 2022
WEF (2020b) COVID-19 has helped the environment, but it can’t save us from climate change. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020b/06/covid19-coronavirus-lockdown-nature-environment/. Accessed 01 May 2022
WEF (2020c) How face masks, gloves and other coronavirus waste is polluting our ocean. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020c/06/ppe-masks-gloves-coronavirus-ocean-pollution/. Accessed 01 May 2022
WEF (2020d) These biodegradable gloves provide a green alternative to synthetic rubber. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020d/11/covid-19-prompts-pivot-to-green-alternative-to-rubber-gloves/. Accessed 01 May 2022
WEF (2020e) This member of the banana tree family could help us cut COVID-19 plastic waste. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020e/08/face-masks-abaca-tree-banana-fibres-covid-plastic-waste. Accessed 01 May 2022
WEF (2020f) What's needed now to protect health workers: WHO COVID-19 briefing. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020f/04/10-april-who-briefing-health-workers-covid-19-ppe-training. Accessed 01 May 2022
WEF (2020g) What is the evidence on wearing masks to stop COVID-19? https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020g/04/should-we-be-promoting-the-widespread-use-of-masks. Accessed 01 May 2022
WEF (2021a) Hundreds of fish species, including many that humans eat, are consuming plastic. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021a/02/plastic-pollution-ocean-fish-human-health/. Accessed 01 May 2022
WEF (2021b) This project in India is turning PPE scrap into mattresses. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021b/01/ppe-recycling-mattresses-india-plastic-waste/. Accessed 01 May 2022
WHO (2020a) Rational use of personal protective equipment for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and considerations during severe shortages. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331695/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_PPE_use-2020a.3-eng.pdf. Accessed 01 May 2022
WHO (2020b) Shortage of personal protective equipment endangering health workers worldwide. https://www.who.int/news/item/03-03-2020b-shortage-of-personal-protective-equipment-endangering-health-workers-worldwide. Accessed 01 May 2022
worldometer (2021) COVID-19 Coronavirus pandemic. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/. Accessed 01 May 2022
Wright SL, Thompson RC, Galloway TS (2013) The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: a review. Environ Pollut 178:483–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.02.031
Wu X, Pan J, Li M, Li Y, Bartlam M, Wang Y (2019) Selective enrichment of bacterial pathogens by microplastic biofilm. Water Res 165:114979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.114979
Xiong X, Wu C, Elser JJ, Mei Z, Hao Y (2019) Occurrence and fate of microplastic debris in middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River - From inland to the sea. Sci Total Environ 659:66–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.313
Xu S, Ma J, Ji R, Pan K, Miao AJ (2020) Microplastics in aquatic environments: Occurrence, accumulation, and biological effects. Sci Total Environ 703:134699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134699
Xu B, Huang D, Liu F, Alfaro D, Lu Z, Tang C, Gan J, Xu J (2021) Contrasting effects of microplastics on sorption of diazepam and phenanthrene in soil. J Hazard Mater 406:124312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124312
Ya H, Jiang B, Xing Y, Zhang T, Lv M, Wang X (2021) Recent advances on ecological effects of microplastics on soil environment. Sci Total Environ 798:149338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149338
Yan W, Hamid N, Deng S, Jia PP, Pei DS (2020) Individual and combined toxicogenetic effects of microplastics and heavy metals (Cd, Pb, and Zn) perturb gut microbiota homeostasis and gonadal development in marine medaka (Oryzias melastigma). J Hazard Mater 397:122795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122795
Yang S, Chen Z, Cheng Y, Liu T, Lihong Y, Pu Y, Liang G (2021a) Environmental toxicology wars: Organ-on-a-chip for assessing the toxicity of environmental pollutants. Environ Pollut 268(Pt B):115861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115861
Yang S, Cheng Y, Chen Z, Liu T, Yin L, Pu Y, Liang G (2021b) In vitro evaluation of nanoplastics using human lung epithelial cells, microarray analysis and co-culture model. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 226:112837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112837
Yang Z, Lu F, Zhang H, Wang W, Shao L, Ye J, He P (2021c) Is incineration the terminator of plastics and microplastics? J Hazard Mater 401:123429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123429
Zand AD, Heir AV (2021) Emanating challenges in urban and healthcare waste management in Isfahan, Iran after the outbreak of COVID-19. Environ Technol 42(2):329–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2020.1866082
Zhang M, Zhao Y, Qin X, Jia W, Chai L, Huang M, Huang Y (2019) Microplastics from mulching film is a distinct habitat for bacteria in farmland soil. Sci Total Environ 688:470–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.108
Zhang EJ, Aitchison LP, Phillips N, Shaban RZ, Kam AW (2021a) Protecting the environment from plastic PPE. BMJ 372:n109. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n109
Zhang J, Wang L, Trasande L, Kannan K (2021b) Occurrence of polyethylene terephthalate and polycarbonate microplastics in infant and adult feces. Environ Sci Technol Lett. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00559
Funding
The present study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81972998, 82173478), and the Scientific Research Foundation of the Graduate School of Southeast University (YBPY2171).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by S Y, Y C, T L. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Sheng Yang and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yang, S., Cheng, Y., Liu, T. et al. Impact of waste of COVID-19 protective equipment on the environment, animals and human health: a review. Environ Chem Lett 20, 2951–2970 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-022-01462-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-022-01462-5