Comparative Study of LCA between Disposable Single Use Mask and Reusable Cloth Mask
Duration
Place of Work
Project Type
Project Overlook
This report presents a comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of two types of masks—Disposable 3-Layer Masks and Reusable 3-Layer Cotton Masks—using OpenLCA with the ReCiPe Midpoint (H) characterization model.
This report presents a comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of two types of masks—Disposable 3-Layer Masks and Reusable 3-Layer Cotton Masks—using OpenLCA with the ReCiPe Midpoint (H) characterization model. The goal is to assess the environmental impacts of mask production, use, and disposal, especially given the rise in mask usage due to COVID-19. The study helps consumers make informed choices by highlighting the environmental benefits of reusable masks.
Objective and Scope
Objective:
To compare the environmental impact of disposable and reusable masks during their full life cycle: manufacturing, usage, and disposal.
Scope:
- Disposable masks: 7 masks per week (1/day for 7 days).
- Reusable mask: A single mask used for 50 washes (equivalent to 50 days).
- The analysis focuses on gate-to-grave processes, excluding transportation and distribution.
Functional Unit:
The study uses mask usage by one person for a week as the reference unit, enabling direct comparison between the two mask types.
Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)
- Disposable Masks
- Materials: Polypropylene (PP), Aluminum (nose wire), and Polyurethane (ear loop)
- Electricity consumption is recorded for processes like melt-blown PP production, ultrasonic welding, and packaging.
- Waste disposal includes PP, aluminum, and polyurethane.
- Reusable Masks
- Materials: Cotton (water-repellent layer), Rayon, Polypropylene (PP for inner layer)
- Additional impact from washing and drying (electricity and water use).
- Lower waste generation compared to disposable masks.
Results and Impact Assessment
The study identifies two key impact categories:
- Human Toxicity Potential (HTP)
- Terrestrial Ecotoxicity
Results and Impact Assessment
The study identifies two key impact categories:
- Human Toxicity Potential (HTP)
- Terrestrial Ecotoxicity
Key Findings:
- Disposable Masks:
- Major contributor to human toxicity and terrestrial ecotoxicity, especially during the disposal phase due to non-biodegradable components.
- Electricity consumption in mask body making and polypropylene production has a significant environmental impact.
- Reusable Masks:
- Higher initial impact during manufacturing due to energy-intensive cotton and rayon production.
- Over time, the cumulative impact is much lower than disposable masks, particularly due to reduced waste generation.
Conclusion
- Reusable masks have a significantly lower overall environmental impact compared to disposable masks, particularly in terms of waste generation and long-term toxicity reduction.
- While reusable masks have higher energy and water requirements during the manufacturing phase, their extended lifespan offsets these impacts.
- The study recommends promoting reusable masks as a sustainable alternative, especially when used for the full 50-wash cycle.
Limitations and Future Scope
- The degradation of reusable masks after repeated washing is not fully considered due to a lack of data.
- Future studies could include transportation impacts and longer life cycles for more accurate results.
- Exploring additional mask materials and their biodegradability could provide deeper insights.
DISCLAIMER
All projects showcased on this website are academic projects completed as part of coursework, research, or personal learning. These are not commercial projects affiliated with any company or organization.
Softwares Used
MS Office Suite
Excel (Advanced)