A Sustainable Approach towards Disposable Face Mask Production Amidst Pandemic Outbreaks

Abstract

SARS-CoV-2 has become a global pandemic, causing many disruptions in multiple sectors. The World Health Organization has urged the public to wear face masks as part of the countermeasure. As the demand for face masks increased, research on the environmental sustainability of face masks production started to emerge. However, the scope of the prior studies is limited to environmental impacts during the manufacturing process. Broadening the research scope is critical to acquire a comprehensive environmental impact analysis. Therefore, this study investigates the life cycle impact assessment of disposable face mask production, from raw material extraction to the point of sale, by adopting the life cycle assessment method. Disposable face masks are assessed for a single person, over one functional unit (FU) of 30 12-h days. The ReCiPe approach was used with a Hierarchist perspective. The results reveal that disposable face mask manufacture contributes significantly to enormous environmental impact categories. As a solution, this study proposes a reconfiguration of the manufacturing process, by altering the design and material proportion of the earloop to minimise the environmental impact. The investigation indicates that the proposed design might decrease the global warming contribution, from 1.82593 kg CO₂ eq. to 1.69948 kg CO₂ eq.

1. Introduction

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) was announced as a global pandemic on 11 March 2020 by the World Health Organization (WHO) [1,2]. COVID-19 is spread by saliva, airborne particles and direct contact, including during speaking or coughing [3,4]. The WHO believe that personal protection is necessary to reduce the spread. One of the leading public health standards used in the health care system is using Personal Protection Equipment (PPE), such as masks and gloves, as a public health intervention to curb disease spread [5]. Wearing a mask has become a standard custom in communities, increasing its importance in daily life. Its use has been widely applied in communities to respond to this pandemic, related to the respiratory problem [6,7]. More face masks were used during this new pandemic, increasing mask waste [8,9]. This leads to different causes of environmental problems and impacts on sustainability and waste management practices [10]. It is estimated that approximately 89 million surgical masks are needed each month to control COVID-19 spread in the world [11]. This increase in production, which has occurred worldwide, has generated a large-scale increase in medical mask production from Polymeric Nanofibers.

Face mask manufacturers have improved production capacities as further COVID-19 infection cases have arisen [12]. Alternative face masks, such as printed, medical, and washable varieties, are the most environmentally friendly [13,14]. Medical face masks are considered the most effective type of face mask for virus protection. The medical face masks availing protection against viruses are regulated as disposable. If every citizen of a country wears this disposable face mask every day for a year, this massive consumption will result in a tremendous amount of material consumption and a considerable environmental impact. The rapid growth of mask use has created a slew of pollution-related challenges [15]. Given that the widespread usage of disposable face masks is expected to continue beyond the present pandemic, it is critical to ascertain all possible environmental consequences [16].

Recent studies have outlined the environmental impact of the manufacturing process, which is seen as the most critical step, and waste associated with disposable face masks [14,15,16,17,18,19]. However, most of the literature focuses on the negative impact of plastic materials on the environment. Indeed, a closer examination reveals that the issue is not limited to waste but has existed since raw material extraction. The process of acquiring raw materials, which serves as a precedent, has received scant attention in environmental impact assessments. This stage is sometimes disregarded during the assessment process, despite the fact that obtaining a more sustainable solution requires a thorough assessment of the system. This step is crucial for obtaining precise results to identify the critical contributor to environmental degradation. As Lee et al. [20] stated in their study, the primary contributor to the overall emission factor of the production processes is raw material acquisition.

By considering this research gap in general life cycle assessment (LCA) applications, in the case of disposable face mask production, this study aims to investigate the life cycle assessment of disposable face mask production and propose design modifications to lessen the environmental impact. The following is a list of this paper’s sections, in chronological order. Section 2 examines the theoretical foundations for the development of research questions. Section 3 describes the research technique in detail. Section 4 then offers the case study findings and examines the research questions. Section 5 discusses the findings of the study and clarifies the responses to the research questions. Section 6 concludes this study by summarising the study’s findings, implications and future research directions.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Application of LCA

The life cycle assessment (LCA) is a systematic study method used to compile the environmental consequences of production systems, from raw material acquisition to waste management [21]. It is a tool for evaluating the environmental impact of products and associated operations [22,23,24,25,26]. Rebitzer [27] argued that LCA is the best methodology for assessing the environmental impact of products and processes holistically. Numerous researchers have asserted that the last three decades had seen significant methodological development in LCA [28]. LCAs are performed following the International Organization for Standardisation’s (ISO) LCA standards 14,040 and 14,044.

LCA is divided into four phases: (1) goal and scope definition, (2) life cycle inventory, (3) life cycle impact assessment and (4) life cycle interpretation. The original application of LCA was to assess the environmental impact of items throughout the entire life cycle, from raw material extraction to usage and final disposal (i.e., cradle-to-grave) [29]. However, LCA has been used to assess specific aspects of a product’s life cycle, such as during the manufacturing [30,31] and end-of-life (EoL) or waste management stages [32,33].

LCA has been widely applied to various product types to analyse a product’s environmental performance throughout its entire life cycle or during a specific phase of its life cycle. In medical products, Leiden [34] examined the environmental impact of disposable surgical instrument sets for spinal fusion surgeries using LCA. Leiden’s research then compared it against reusable products to determine the most negligible environmental impact and identified critical factors that drive the environmental impact. Similarly, Kumar [35] examined the environmental impact of various personal protective equipment, including hazmat and others, then utilised life cycle assessment to review and select waste management solutions for three options: centralised incineration, decentralised incineration and landfill.

2.2. Disposable Face Mask

The material properties and the engineering design determine the filtration capacity and, thus, the protection level of disposable face masks. The raw material of disposable face masks consists of different polymeric materials that vary in their properties, such as polypropylene, polyurethane, polyacrylonitrile, polystyrene, polyethylene or polycarbonate, depending on the customers’ order [8,36,37]. However, among the plastic polymers that are acceptable as material for disposable face masks, polypropylene is the most frequently utilised due to its low cost and low melt viscosity for easy processing [38]. In other production processes, these specific polymeric materials are for plastic product manufacturing. Regardless of brand, face masks are typically formed by three layers of a thin non-woven textile: an outer waterproof layer to repel fluids, a middle filtering layer to prevent particles and pathogen-containing droplets from penetrating in either direction and an inner absorbent layer to trap user droplets [16,36]. Non-woven fabrics have better filtration efficiency and air permeability than woven cloth, with non-woven being less slippery [39]. The nonwoven fabric is formed by bonding a mass of filaments together through heat, chemical or mechanical processes (spun bond and melt blown techniques) to form smooth, porous and extremely durable sheets [40]. In some manufacturing processes, silica nanoparticles may be used as a filler to improve the material’s mechanical strength and toughness [41].

Since the primary material of disposable face masks is plastic, microplastics (less than 5 mm long) and nanoparticles of plastic may lead to various environmental problems. Studies on the impact of plastic waste on the environment and humans have been widely investigated. Some of the impacts include city street litter [16], marine ecotoxicity [42,43], sediment ecotoxicity [44,45,46], risk evidence for local fauna [47], soil ecotoxicity [48,49], freshwater ecotoxicity [19,50] and atmosphere ecotoxicity [51].

Most of the LCA studies on disposable face masks are still very confined to the environmental impact of waste. Chen et al. [17] focused on the final stage of the product by assessing the environmental impact of used disposable face masks releasing microplastics into the water and concluded that used disposable masks could be a significant source of microplastics in the environment, without proper disposal. In comparison, the subsequent study of Rodríguez et al. [14] expanded the scope of environmental effect evaluation, from the manufacturing process to disposal. This study analysed the environmental impact of five distinct types of masks, and the results demonstrated washable masks are the most beneficial.

2.3. Research Gap and Question

The general question of this research is ‘What environmental impact does disposable face mask production have amidst COVID-19 outbreaks?’ This study focuses on disposable facemasks because their use significantly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to broaden the context and scope of the research and proposes preventive measures that are more pertinent. This study begins the assessment process with the acquisition of raw materials and ends at the point of sale. Additionally, this study assesses the possibility of regional disparities in environmental repercussions.

In detail, this research consists of the following sub-research questions:

• What significant environmental impacts emerge from the stages of a disposable face mask’s life cycle?
• What is the potential strategy for reducing environmental impacts?

3. Materials and Methods

The present study used a simplified method to calculate the LCA using openLCA. OpenLCA is open-source software for LCA and sustainability assessment developed by GreenDelta, ongoing since 2006. The software is flexible, as the source code may be accessed and modified by anybody. Additionally, the software’s open-source nature makes it ideal for use with sensitive data [52].

3.1. Goal and Scope

The main goal of this study is to evaluate the life cycle impact of disposable face masks to identify opportunities for environmental improvement in Indonesia. The system boundary covers stages from raw material acquisition and manufacturing production to the point of sale (Figure 1). This LCA study includes all direct and indirect resource use (elementary flows) and emissions. In the LCA, the term ‘functional unit’ (FU) refers to the primary function that the investigational items fulfil and the extent to which this function is considered. We adopted a pragmatic definition of the number of disposable face masks consumed by an individual in a month in this study (30 days). Daily usage of disposable face masks was assumed to be less than 12 h. This is a less restrictive scenario based on people in Indonesia who wear disposable facemasks while working, travelling, and shopping for an average of less than 12 h each day. As such, 1 FU corresponds to the use of 30 single-use disposable face masks.

3.2. Life Cycle Inventory

The inventory data is extracted from both ecoinvent database version 3.7 and European reference Life Cycle Database (ELCD) version 3.2. The ecoinvent database was developed to standardise and update life cycle inventory (LCI) data in life cycle assessment [53].

Table 1. Source for emissions factors.

Emission Source	Emission Factor References
Production of polyamide 6.6	Fibre: ELCD [56]
Production of polyester	Fibre: ecoinvent [57]
Production of polypropylene non-woven	Spun bond: ecoinvent [58]
Production of polyethylene	Polyethylene, LDPE: ecoinvent [59]
Production of polyurethane	Polyurethane, flexible foam: ecoinvent [60]
Production of grid electricity	Hardcoal, rest of world: ecoinvent [61]

lists the references for each emission source used in the study. The disposable face mask’s material flows are listed in

Table 2. Reference flows of disposable face mask production.

Reference Flow	Amount	Unit
Electricity	6	Wh
Polyester	0.35	g
Polyamide 6.6 fibre	0.75	g
Polyethylene	1.1	g
Polyurethane	0.4	g
Polypropylene non-woven	1.25	g

. The data in Table 2 were acquired from the company. The calculation model links all the unit processes of materials to create the aggregate system. To maintain the data quality of the study, a pedigree matrix is utilised as a simplified approach which includes a qualitative assessment of data quality indicators [54]. Since each dataset exchange has a base level of uncertainty that is log-normally distributed throughout the dataset, and each case study has an unusual amount of uncertainty, the geometric standard deviation (95% interval) of the pedigree matrix is utilised to quantify the uncertainty factor as follows [55] (see Equation (1))

$$S{D}_{g95}={\sigma }_g^2=ex{p}^{\sqrt{{\left[\ln \left(U_1\right)\right]}^2+{\left[\ln \left(U_2\right)\right]}^2+{\left[\ln \left(U_3\right)\right]}^2+{\left[\ln \left(U_4\right)\right]}^2+{\left[\ln \left(U_5\right)\right]}^2+{\left[\ln \left(U_b\right)\right]}^2}}$$

(1)

where U₁ refers to the uncertainty factor of reliability and U₂ to U₅ respectively represent completeness, temporal correlation, geographical correlation and further technological correlation. At the same time, U_b refers to the basic uncertainty factor.

3.3. Impact Analysis

The study evaluates the environmental impact caused by the disposable face mask throughout the entire raw material acquisition process up to the point of sale. The impact assessment method used in this case is ReCiPe 2016 midpoint (H), which covers Eco-indicator 99 and CML, such that the impact analysis’ results are more comprehensive [62]. The midpoint results are more comprehensive in accounting for any environmental intervention [63] and more scientific analysis [64]. The purpose is to obtain a clear impact assessment. As uncertainty is prevalent [65], it is crucial to rely on non-predictable variables, such as a lack of precise information and natural environmental systems [66]. Therefore, Monte Carlo simulations need to be performed [50] to minimise the scenario’s uncertainty. The Monte Carlo simulation is used to establish the 95 percent confidence interval for the results of the cumulative LCI analysis. It would be misleading to report the LCIA results’ minimum and maximum values without considering LCIA uncertainty [55].

4. Results

This section is arranged according to the steps of analysis used to address the study’s research question. The section on impact analysis of a disposable face mask’s life cycle (Section 4.1) details the findings of an environmental impact assessment, conducted at certain stages of the cycle (the first research question). The assessment results are provided to identify the comprehensive environmental impact evaluation. The proposed solution, Section 4.2, demonstrates the optimal solution scenario by evaluating the proposed alternative’s environmental implications, which would address the second research question. Section 4.3 presents the Monte Carlo simulation, to ensure a level of reliability in the assessment of environmental impact emissions.

4.1. Impact Analysis of Disposable Face Mask’s Life Cycle

The disposable mask production process comprises pieces of input material, aggregated into the disposable mask production process. This method will offer concrete results that will be calculated depending on the production process. Figure 2 presents a model graph of the manufacturing process of disposable masks. The life cycle impact assessment’s calculation is carried out from the raw material acquisition up to the point of sale (POS). The impact assessment method uses the ReCiPe 2016 midpoint (H). The results of the calculation generally assess several impact categories, including global warming, water consumption, terrestrial toxicity, human non-carcinogenic toxicity, fossil resource scarcity, ionising radiation, human carcinogenic toxicity, marine ecotoxicity, freshwater ecotoxicity and terrestrial acidification.

In this study, using ReCiPE midpoints as an impact assessment enables the determination of each flow’s intervention on the impact category, because the midpoints are located somewhere along the impact pathway, typically at the point at which the environmental mechanism for all environmental flows assigned to that impact category is identical [67].

Table 3. Impact assessment for the midpoint category of disposable face masks.

Impact Category	Abbreviation	Unit	Value
Global warming	GW	kg CO2 eq	1.82593
Water consumption	WC	m3	1.36244
Terrestrial ecotoxicity	TET	kg 1.4-DCB	0.92135
Human non-carcinogenic toxicity	HNCT	kg 1.4-DCB	0.62649
Fossil resource scarcity	FRS	kg oil eq	0.49215
Marine ecotoxicity	MET	kg 1.4-DCB	0.05641
Ionising radiation	IR	kBq Co-60 eq	0.04178
Human carcinogenic toxicity	HCT	kBq Co-60 eq	1.82593

summarises the emission factor for each impact category, namely, waste generated by disposable face masks. According to the LCA study’s emission factor calculation, the disposable face mask has several emission factors, described in 18 environmental impact categories. However, this study focuses exclusively on eight impact categories, since they account for 99 per cent of emission factors, allowing for the omission of other impact categories with a limited number of emission factors. As a result, global warming, water consumption, terrestrial toxicity, human non-carcinogenic toxicity, fossil resource scarcity, marine ecotoxicity, ionising radiation, human carcinogenic toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity are all examined in this study. Appendix A includes all emission factors of the impact category and upstream process impacts and process impact contributions.

4.2. Proposed Solution

All stakeholders, particularly producers, are responsible for resolving environmental issues produced by the growing demand for disposable face masks. In this study, researchers collaborate with producers to develop alternate optimal solutions. Indeed, a sustainable solution, cognisant of all stages of the product’s life cycle, including the use phase, is optimal. However, selecting the best viable option is necessary due to numerous constraints, such as machine and material availability and high demand.

According to the emission factor simulation results in the preceding section, eight impact categories were identified as significant and must be minimised, as a high priority. Based on these findings, this research suggests alternate ways for reducing the environmental impact of disposable face masks in general. The researcher attempts to engage in further discussions with producers to identify numerous options that can be implemented promptly, in light of rising market demand and increasingly tough competition, which necessitate a short time to market. Finally, the discussion and re-observation provide a summary of the possible outcomes. Two alternative solutions are pursued. The first is to apply for a layer material replacement, using an activated carbon filter, such as PM_2.5, which is frequently used in cotton masks. The particulate matter (PM_2.5) filter was suggested as an inner layer on the cotton mask. Using a cotton mask with PM_2.5 as a layer increases re-consumption throughout the usage stage, specifically using washing machines and detergents to clean used cotton masks, whereas PM_2.5 can be disposed of and replaced. However, this alternative will place a greater emphasis on the usage phase, which is more dependent on customer behaviour and, hence, will be irrelevant to attempts to reduce high energy consumption, from material acquisition to the point of sale, which is a vital point for high environmental emissions. Regrettably, therefore, this material modification had no discernible effect. There is no substantial reduction in the impact value indicator. The reason for this is that no stage of the manufacturing process can be simplified.

Another proposed solution is to modify the earloop type. Several concerns include that no in-depth analysis is required for the material arrangement. It is not directly related to the mask’s ability to ward off bacteria or viruses compared to replacing layers, which must be thoroughly investigated through proper investigations. The next consideration is also the most critical. In the existing manufacturing process, the earloop bonding procedure is still performed independently, extending the takt time and increasing the machine’s energy consumption. The earloop is composed of a polyester and polyurethane blend, in a flexible foam, at a concentration of up to 80%, resulting in a dense and very flexible earloop. As a result, earloop bonding is still performed separately.

The primary reason for separating the present earloop bonding process is that the material requires particular treatment to bind the spot loop to the layer, necessitating the utilisation of a separate machine, such as an ultrasonic spot-welding machine. According to the statistical thermogravimetric/differential thermal analysis (TGA/DTA) of several polymeric materials, polyurethane had the highest heating rate of all examined materials, reaching 291 °C, whereas polyester had a peak temperature of 253–261 °C [36,68]. High concentrations of polyurethane cannot be combined with a bonding layer because the bonding layer has been optimised for bonding to materials with a high polyester concentration. The bonding process involves converting electrical energy to a high-frequency mechanical vibration, which is then transmitted into thermoplastic material through tooling. As a result of the frictional heat generated by the vibration, the plastic melts, and the machine’s ability to bond is highly determined by the type of material used. Earloops made of polyurethane material, with a peak temperature of 291 °C, are incompatible with the bonding method used on other parts due to their extremely high heating rate. Naturally, the high polyurethane content has several benefits, including increased strength and flexibility. However, this provides an opportunity to optimise the earloop design, in terms of production efficiency.

Upon observing the situation, this study identified some phrases indicative of an effort to improve and mitigate environmental impacts during the manufacturing process. Several of them are thick earloop designs, with a high polyurethane content, separating earloop bonding work from other techniques. This study aims to modify the concentrations of polyurethane and polyester, the two primary chemicals used to manufacture earloops, to 20% and 80%, respectively. By varying the proportions of components and polymer types, it is possible to create a variety of composite fibre structures that are distinct from each other. As a result, combining the earloop bonding process with layer bonding is possible, as this modifies the material’s physical properties. The polyurethane element is retained in this design, since it is necessary to keep the earloops’ elasticity working properly. Additionally, the vast, flat shape allows for more straightforward integration, with various processes, than solid rounds. Figure 3 illustrates the distinction between the existing and proposed designs.

According to the observations, the new design is effective for simplifying the manufacturing process, as it is possible to combine it with a layer bonding procedure, following nose clip loading. The process is one-way, requiring no additional work, nor the addition of new machinery. This is because the material utilised has a more polyester-like structure, which allows the machine for layer bonding to perform effectively, while also bonding the earloop. Additionally, polyesters exhibit a range of properties, including high strength and low extensibility (85 cN/tex and 7%, respectively) or low strength (26 cN/tex and 40%, respectively) [69]. Polyester’s mechanical flexibility lets it lower the amount of polyurethane (flexible foam) in the earloop, allowing the new design to function correctly. Figure 4 illustrates the change in the manufacturing process that occurred due to the modification in earloop design.

Simulations are used to examine and evaluate changes in the value of environmental impacts caused by the proposed design. As presented in

Table 4. Impact assessment for the midpoint category of the existing and proposed design.

Impact Category	Abbreviation	Unit	Existing Design	Proposed Design
Global warming	GW	kg CO2 eq	1.82593	1.69948
Water consumption	WC	m3	1.36244	1.58798
Terrestrial ecotoxicity	TET	kg 1.4-DCB	0.92135	0.85779
Human non-carcinogenic toxicity	HNCT	kg 1.4-DCB	0.62649	0.41288
Fossil resource scarcity	FRS	kg oil eq	0.49215	0.43544
Marine ecotoxicity	MET	kg 1.4-DCB	0.05641	0.04431
Ionising radiation	IR	kBq Co-60 eq	0.04178	0.04431
Human carcinogenic toxicity	HCT	kBq Co-60 eq	0.04177	0.04322

, the simulation results indicate that these efforts can significantly reduce the environmental impact, as evidenced by the global warming indicator decreasing from 1.82593 to 1.69948 kg CO₂ eq. According to Table 4, other indicators similarly decreased impact value, including terrestrial ecotoxicity, human non-carcinogenic toxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity, fossil resource scarcity, ionising radiation, human carcinogenic toxicity, marine ecotoxicity, freshwater ecotoxicity and terrestrial acidification. Based on the observations, this reduction was driven mainly by streamlining the production process, by combining the layer and earloop bonding processes, previously performed separately. The inclusion of this bonding technique reduces the takt time per unit from 0.02 to 0.0033 min per unit.

4.3. Monte Carlo Analysis

This section performs Monte Carlo simulations to determine the reliability of the emission levels given in Table 2. The Monte Carlo analysis distributions for the disposable face mask with the old design and the proposed design are presented in Figure 5 and Figure 6.

Additionally, critical values from the Monte Carlo simulations, including the minimum, lower quartile, median, upper quartile and maximum values, can be found in Appendix B. The Monte Carlo distribution for each impact category is calculated and compared to a predetermined significance level of 0.05, using the p-value for the two-tail test. A p-value less than 0.05 indicates rejection of the null hypothesis that the means of the two distributions are equal. In the context of this research, rejecting the null hypothesis strengthens the reliability of the observation made for each impact category, since it refutes the concept that the means of the distributions are comparable, despite their values being close. For all ten impact categories, while some numbers are in the critical region after 1000 iterations, most of the p-values for the two-tailed t-test are less than the predetermined significance level of 0.05. The Monte Carlo analysis’ distribution revealed that the calculated emissions (Table 4) fall below the analysis’ lower quartile. One possible explanation for the observation is the Ecoinvent database’s lognormal uncertainty distribution.

5. Discussion

As presented above, this study demonstrates that broadening the scope of assessing the manufacturing process for disposable face masks results in a more comprehensive view of environmental impacts. However, research on the environmental impact of the disposable mask manufacturing process has been limited to the manufacturing stage [14] and waste of used face masks [17], with less consideration given to activities preceding the manufacturing process. Integrating all stages of the process, from raw material acquisition to the point of sale, will provide more precise inquiry results, allowing for more particular efforts to improve sustainability.

This study provided alternative designs that would have a lower impact on the environment. The new earloop design, reported in this work, may provide a viable alternative. The proposed improvement is to lower the polyurethane percentage in the earloop to 20%, such that it has a structure comparable to polyester but retains adequate flexibility to perform its function. Previously, the earloop bonding process was performed independently; however, this design improvement enables the earloop bonding process to be combined with the nose clip loading process, decreasing the takt time value. A further justification for this solution is that it was observed that the emission factor generated by the production line exceeded the emission factor generated by the material acquisition process, as presented in Appendix A. For example, in the global warming process, raw material acquisition contributed 47.2%, while the production line contributed 52.8%, and in the human non-carcinogenic toxicity impact category, raw material acquisition contributed 41.2%, while the production line contributed 58.8%. The results indicate that design modifications that adjust the manufacturing process significantly impact emission factor reduction. According to the simulation results, while disposable face masks are critical for maintaining safety and preventing the spread of COVID-19, the manufacturing process of disposable face masks can also result in serious problems. As mentioned previously, the emissions of the two types of masks are highly reliant on the materials used in the manufacturing process. Material modifications to the earloop considerably affect takt time and environmental impact reduction. Seven of the eight impact categories, indicated in the simulation, decreased in magnitude. Water consumption is the only factor that has increased environmental impact. Although it appears harmless, extracting water for consumption in a dry environment can substantially affect ecosystems and human health. Unfortunately, no models are available to quantify the damage at the endpoint level.

A similar study, comparing the environmental implications of disposable and reusable face masks, found that climate change (global warming potential) accounts for the most significant percentage of environmental impacts caused throughout the life cycle stages [20]. The study’s findings are compatible with this study. Furthermore, this study enables an in-depth analysis of the processes that lead to environmental consequences. The results of this study are also consistent with the findings of Schmutz et al. [13], who revealed that the most significant emission was caused by carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming. Schmutz also evaluated the environmental impact of disposable face masks compared to reusable cotton masks, concluding that disposable face masks have a higher carbon footprint and rely on non-renewable energy usage more than cotton masks. However, the cotton mask is not currently suggested for health purposes to prevent the spread of the virus. From a different perspective, Klemeś et al. [70] examined the impact implied by the manufacturing process, demonstrating a high energy consumption rate that results in a more significant environmental impact, particularly in regions that continue to use fossil-based fuels. As a result of the study’s findings, the article suggests using reusable masks. Indeed, the article indicates that a reusable face mask has a filter efficiency of roughly 50%, whereas a disposable face mask has a filter efficiency of up to 80%. There is a significant difference here, in that this study tries to deliver a solution without endangering health. This study distinguishes itself from prior studies by recommending modifications to the mask design. It should be highlighted that while the primary role of masks is to prevent virus spread, emission reduction measures cannot overlook the health implications by substituting for masks that are more environmentally friendly but provide less protection.

6. Conclusions

The disposable face mask is essential to prevent or minimise the transmission of a virus, particularly during this pandemic. However, along with the growing public awareness of disposable face masks, some problems emerged, such as an increased environmental impact. This study investigated an extensive representation of the environmental impact caused by disposable face mask production. Disposable face mask production contributed to a substantial environmental impact, such as global warming, water consumption, terrestrial toxicity, human non-carcinogenic toxicity, fossil resource scarcity, marine ecotoxicity, ionising radiation, human carcinogenic toxicity.

While environmental consequences related to face masks are inescapable, there are ways to mitigate the impact. This research contributes to offering a new, critically relevant perspective on a product’s life cycle impact and highlights the nature of efforts to improve the ecodesign of future face mask designs, by analysing the disposable face mask production process. Indeed, the proposed solution from this study is to optimise the efficiency of the manufacturing process by lowering the takt time value. This endeavour can be accomplished by redesigning the earloop to combine the bonding and nose clip loading processes. As a result, modifications to the earloop’s design and manufacturing process resulted in a significantly reduced environmental impact compared to present conditions. However, certain aspects of this research require additional attention and development. Since the demand for disposable face masks is increasing daily, it is critical to improve the layer design. However, material selection must be adequate to guarantee that the mask performs effectively, while having the most negligible impact on the environment. These factors must be considered to understand the relationship between environmental and human health concerns, to produce safe and sustainable face masks. The emerging economic factors were not considered in this study. From the economic perspective, further research can be conducted by examining the option of excluding polyurethane from the combination material to manufacture earloops, as the price is very high. However, an extensive investigation on the elasticity and strength of polyester, as the sole material for earloops, must be conducted to ensure that function and comfort are not compromised.