Abstract
Objectives Use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) has been central to controlling spread of SARS-CoV2. This study aims to quantify the environmental impact of this, and to model strategies for its reduction. Methods Life cycle assessment was used to determine environmental impacts of PPE supplied to health and social care in England during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The base scenario assumed all products were single-use, air freighted, and disposed via clinical waste. Scenario modelling was used to determine the effect of 1) switching mode of, or eliminating, international travel during supply, 2) reducing glove use 3) using reusable alternatives, 4) maximal recycling. Results The carbon footprint of PPE supplied during the study period totalled 158,838 tonnes CO2e, with greatest contributions from gloves, aprons, face shields, and Type IIR surgical masks. The estimated damage to human health was 314 DALYs (disability adjusted life years), impact on ecosystems was 0.67 species.year (loss of local species per year), and impact on resource depletion costing US $ 20.4 million. Scenario modelling indicated one-third of the carbon footprint could be avoided through switching to shipping, and by 41% through manufacturing PPE in the UK. The carbon footprint was reduced by 83% compared with the base scenario through a combination of UK manufacturing, reducing glove use, using reusable gowns and reuse of face shields, and maximal recycling, estimated to save 259 DALYS, 0.54 species.year, and US $ 15 million due to resource depletion. Conclusions The environmental impact of PPE could be reduced through shipping supplies or domestic manufacture, rationalising glove use, using reusables where possible, and optimising waste management.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
None to declare
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Not required- this study did not involve any patients or healthcare staff.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Supporting data is available in supplementary files
