Low-VOC Emission Label Proposal for Facemask Safety Based on Respiratory and Skin Health Criteria
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Facemasks’ Materials Analyzed
2.2. Quality Control
2.3. Analysis of Exposure to Inhaled VOCs
2.4. Analysis of Dermal Contact Exposure
3. Results
3.1. Exposure to VOCs by Inhalation
3.2. Exposure by Dermal Contact
3.3. Exposure by Inhalation and Dermal Contact
3.4. Low Emission Label for Facemasks with a Low Risk of VOCs Inhalation
- TVOC: 378 µg/day (calculated from the limit of emission of 60 µg/m3),
- Benzene (Carcinogenic C1): 6 µg/day (calculated from the limit of 1 µg/m3 emission).
3.5. Information about Skin-Sensitizing VOCs in Products’ Datasheet
3.6. Comparison with Other Studies
4. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gibson, P.G.; Qin, L.; Puah, S.H. COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS): Clinical features and differences from typical pre-COVID-19 ARDS. Med. J. Aust. 2020, 213, 54–56.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- WHO. Director-General’s Opening Remarks at the Media Briefing on COVID-19; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020; Available online: https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020 (accessed on 19 December 2022).
- WHO. Mask Use in the Context of COVID-19: Interim Guidance; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Wong, J.; Goh, Q.Y.; Tan, Z.; Lie, S.A.; Tay, Y.C.; Ng, S.Y.; Soh, C.R. Preparing for a COVID-19 pandemic: A review of operating room outbreak response measures in a large tertiary hospital in Singapore. Can. J. Anesth. 2020, 67, 732–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- WHO. Shortage of Personal Protective Equipment Endangering Health Workers Worldwide; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020; Available online: https://www.who.int/news/item/03-03-2020-shortage-of-personal-protective-equipment-endangering-health-workers-worldwide (accessed on 19 December 2022).
- Gunasekaran, G.H.; Gunasekaran, S.S.; Gunasekaran, S.S.; Hanim Bt Abdul Halim, F. Prevalence and acceptance of face mask practice among individuals visiting hospital during COVID-19 pandemic: Observational study. Hilos Tensados 2019, 1, 1–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, M.; Liu, H.; Wang, X.; Hu, X.; Huang, Y.; Liu, X.; Brenan, K.; Mecha, J.; Nirmalan, M.; Lu, J.R. A technical review of face mask wearing in preventing respiratory COVID-19 transmission. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 2021, 52, 101417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maceira, A.; Borrull, F.; Marcé, R.M. Occurrence of plastic additives in outdoor air particulate matters from two industrial parks of Tarragona, Spain: Human inhalation intake risk assessment. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 373, 649–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halden, R.U. Plastics and health risks. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2010, 31, 179–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mata, T.M.; Martins, A.A.; Calheiros, C.S.C.; Villanueva, F.; Cuevilla, N.P.A.; Gabriel, M.F.; Silva, G.V. Indoor Air Quality: A Review of Cleaning Technologies. Environments 2022, 9, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Even, M.; Roloff, A.; Lüttgert, N.; Beauchamp, J.; Stalter, D.; Schulte, A.; Hutzler, C.; Luch, A. Exposure Assessment of Toxicologically Relevant Volatile Organic Compounds Emitted from Polymer-Based Costume Masks. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2021, 34, 132–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snow, M.S. The Analysis of VOCs in KN95 and Surgical Masks by Headspace Trap GC/MS. In Application Note—Gas Chromatography; PerkinElmer Inc.: Woodbridge, ON, Canada, 2021; Volume 175904, pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Paluselli, A.; Fauvelle, V.; Schmidt, N.; Galgani, F.; Net, S.; Sempéré, R. Distribution of phthalates in Marseille Bay (NW Mediterranean Sea). Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 621, 578–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Okamoto, Y.; Ueda, K.; Kojima, N. Potential risks of phthalate esters: Acquisition of endocrine-disrupting activity during environmental and metabolic processing. J. Health Sci. 2011, 57, 497–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhaniram, D.; Collins, A.; Singh, K.; Voulvoulis, N. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Some Industrial Chemicals; World Health Organization and International Agency for Research on Cancer: Geneva, Switzerland, 2000; Volume 77, p. 573. [Google Scholar]
- Mata, T.M.; Felgueiras, F.; Martins, A.A.; Monteiro, H.; Ferraz, M.P.; Oliveira, G.M.; Gabriel, M.F.; Silva, G.V. Indoor Air Quality in Elderly Centers: Pollutants Emission and Health Effects. Environments 2022, 9, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hahladakis, J.N.; Velis, C.A.; Weber, R.; Iacovidou, E.; Purnell, P. An overview of chemical additives present in plastics: Migration, release, fate and environmental impact during their use, disposal and recycling. J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 344, 179–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rizan, C.; Reed, M.; Bhutta, M.F. 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. 2021, 114, 250–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, L.; Griffith, S.M.; Sun, Z.; Yu, J.Z.; Chan, W. On the Flip Side of Mask Wearing: Increased Exposure to Volatile Organic Compounds and a Risk-Reducing Solution. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55, 14095–14104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Min, K.; Weng, X.; Long, P.; Ma, M.; Chen, B.; Yao, S. Rapid in-situ analysis of phthalates in face masks by desorption corona beam ionization tandem mass spectrometry. Talanta 2021, 231, 122359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, H.; Han, W.; Xie, Q.; Xu, T.; Zhu, M.; Chen, J. Face mask—A potential source of phthalate exposure for human. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 422, 126848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, H.; Du, J.; Han, W.; Tang, J.; Li, X.; Chen, J. Occurrence and health risks of semi-volatile organic compounds in face masks. Sci. Bull. 2021, 66, 1601–1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vimalkumar, K.; Zhu, H.; Kannan, K. Widespread occurrence of phthalate and non-phthalate plasticizers in single-use facemasks collected in the United States. Environ. Int. 2022, 158, 106967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández-Arribas, J.; Moreno, T.; Bartrolí, R.; Eljarrat, E. COVID-19 face masks: A new source of human and environmental exposure to organophosphate esters. Environ. Int. 2021, 154, 106654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huo, S.; Zhang, T. Ventilation of ordinary face masks. Build. Environ. 2021, 205, 108261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosner, E. Adverse Effects of Prolonged Mask Use among Healthcare Professionals during COVID-19. J. Infect. Dis. Epidemiol. 2020, 6, 6–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ong, J.J.Y.; Chan, A.C.Y.; Bharatendu, C.; Teoh, H.L.; Chan, Y.C.; Sharma, V.K. Headache Related to PPE Use during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Curr. Pain Headache Rep. 2021, 25, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lakhouit, A. Effect of face mask inks and dyes on human health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Authorea Prepr. 2020, 11, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sinkule, E.J.; Powell, J.B.; Goss, F.L. Evaluation of N95 respirator use with a surgical mask cover: Effects on breathing resistance and inhaled carbon dioxide. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2013, 57, 384–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Özdemir, L.; Azizoğlu, M.; Yapıcı, D. Respirators used by healthcare workers due to the COVID-19 outbreak increase end-tidal carbon dioxide and fractional inspired carbon dioxide pressure. J. Clin. Anesth. 2020, 66, 109901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peko, L.; Ovadia-Blechman, Z.; Hoffer, O.; Gefen, A. Physiological measurements of facial skin response under personal protective equipment. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2021, 120, 104566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, C.; Wang, X.; Thai, P.; Baduel, C.; Gallen, C.; Banks, A.; Bainton, P.; English, K.; Mueller, J.F. Organophosphate and brominated flame retardants in Australian indoor environments: Levels, sources, and preliminary assessment of human exposure. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 235, 670–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, U.J.; Wang, Y.; Li, W.; Kannan, K. Occurrence of and human exposure to organophosphate flame retardants/plasticizers in indoor air and dust from various microenvironments in the United States. Environ. Int. 2019, 125, 342–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olivero-Verbel, R.; Moreno, T.; Fernández-Arribas, J.; Reche, C.; Minguillón, M.C.; Martins, V.; Querol, X.; Johnson-Restrepo, B.; Eljarrat, E. Organophosphate esters in airborne particles from subway stations. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 769, 145105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mata, T.M.; Oliveira, G.M.; Monteiro, H.; Silva, G.V.; Caetano, N.S.; Martins, A.A. Indoor Air Quality Improvement Using Nature-Based Solutions: Design Proposals to Greener Cities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meeker, J.D.; Stapleton, H.M. House dust concentrations of organophosphate flame retardants in relation to hormone levels and semen quality parameters. Environ. Health Perspect. 2010, 118, 318–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lellis, B.; Fávaro-Polonio, C.Z.; Pamphile, J.A.; Polonio, J.C. Effects of textile dyes on health and the environment and bioremediation potential of living organisms. Biotechnol. Res. Innov. 2019, 3, 275–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sühring, R.; Scheringer, M.; Rodgers, T.F.M.; Jantunen, L.M.; Diamond, M.L. Evaluation of the OECD P OV and LRTP screening tool for estimating the long-range transport of organophosphate esters. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2020, 22, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassaan, M.; El Nemr, A. Health and Environmental Impacts of Dyes: Mini Review. Am. J. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2017, 1, 64–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, Z.; Mo, J.; Zhang, Y. Risk assessment of population inhalation exposure to volatile organic compounds and carbonyls in urban China. Environ. Int. 2014, 73, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NP EN ISO/IEC 17025; Requisitos Gerais de Competência Para Laboratórios de Ensaio e Calibração (ISO/IEC 17025:2005). IPQ—Instituto Português da Qualidade: Caparica, Portugal, 2005; p. 40.
- ISO 18562-3; Biocompatibility Evaluation of Breathing Gas Pathways in Healthcare Applications—Part 3: Tests for Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). ISO—International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
- ISO 16000-6:2011; Indoor Air—Part 6: Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Indoor and Test Chamber Air by Active Sampling on Tenax TA Sorbent, Thermal Desorption and Gas Chromatography Using MS or MS-FID. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011; Volume ISO/TC 146, p. 29.
- VDA 278; Thermal Desorption Analysis of Organic Emissions for the Characterization of Non-Metallic Materials for Automobiles. VDA—Verband der Automobilindustrie: Eisenach, Germany, 2016.
- ECHA. Classification and Labelling Inventory. European Chemicals Agency. Available online: https://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-database (accessed on 2 September 2021).
- UNECE. Globally Harmonized System for the Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). Part 3. Health Hazards; UNECE—United Nations Economic Commission for Europe: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013; pp. 107–216. [Google Scholar]
- ECHA. Skin Sensitising Chemicals. European Chemicals Agency. Available online: https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/skin-sensitising-chemicals (accessed on 2 September 2021).
- EMICODE®. Clean Indoor Air—For the Health of Your Family! 1997. Available online: https://www.emicode.com/en/home/ (accessed on 22 August 2021).
- Nishijo, T.; Api, A.M.; Gerberick, G.F.; Miyazawa, M.; Roberts, D.W.; Safford, R.J.; Sakaguchi, H. Application of the dermal sensitization threshold concept to chemicals classified as high potency category for skin sensitization assessment of ingredients for consumer products. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2020, 117, 104732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Safford, R.J. The Dermal Sensitisation Threshold-A TTC approach for allergic contact dermatitis. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2008, 51, 195–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Safford, R.J.; Api, A.M.; Roberts, D.W.; Lalko, J.F. Extension of the Dermal Sensitisation Threshold (DST) approach to incorporate chemicals classified as reactive. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2015, 72, 694–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nishijo, T.; Miyazawa, M.; Saito, K.; Otsubo, Y.; Mizumachi, H.; Sakaguchi, H. The dermal sensitization threshold (DST) approach for mixtures evaluated as negative in in vitro test methods; mixture DST. J. Toxicol. Sci. 2019, 44, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cabanas-Garrido, E.C.; Ledesma-Escobar, C.A.; Priego-Capote, F. Use of surgical masks for sampling in the determination of volatile organic compounds. Talanta 2023, 253, 124105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Type of Facemasks | Compounds | Values Obtained/Main Findings | References |
---|---|---|---|
Surgical facemasks. | Total VOCs, reactive carbonyls, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and phthalate esters. | Detected a wide spectrum of these chemical compounds in the analyzed facemasks. TVOC between 0.12–36.8 μg/mask. | Jin et al. [19] |
Surgical, N95 and activated charcoal facemasks. | Phthalates (e.g., di-hexyl phthalate). | Some facemasks presented concentrations above 10 μg/g or 200 μg/m2. | Min et al. [20] |
KN95 and other disposable facemasks for adults and children. | Phthalates. | Total levels ranged from 115 ng/g to 37,700 ng/g, with estimated daily intakes from the facemasks ranging from 3.71 to 639 ng/kg-bw/day. | Xie et al. [21] |
KN95 and disposable facemasks | SVOCs, polycyclic aromatic hydro- carbons (PAHs), organophosphorus flame retardants (OPFRs) and UV-filter. | 26 SVOCs detected, including 10 PAHs, 12 UV-filters and 4 OPFRs. Total concentrations of SVOCs ranged from 8.83 to 9200 ng/g, with a median value of 263 ng/g. PAHs, UV-filters and OPFRs were detected in 90.6%, 96.2% and 92.5% of the mask samples, respectively. The detection frequencies of individual compound for the OPFRs were found to be generally higher than those for the PAHs and UV-filter. | Xie et al. [22] |
Disposable facemasks. | Phthalate and non-phthalate plasticizers. | Inhalation exposure in the range of 0.1 to 3.1 and 3.5 to 151 ng/kg-bw/day, respectively, for phthalate and non-phthalate plasticizers. | Vimalkumar et al. [23] |
Surgical, self-filtering (KN95, FFP2, and FFP3) and reusable facemasks. | OPEs and other analytes, including TEP, TPHP, TPPO, TNBP, TEHP and TClPP. | OPEs were detected in all facemasks with amounts ranging from 0.02 to 27.7 μg/mask, being the KN95 the one with the highest mean concentration (11.6 μg/mask). and surgical facemasks, the ones with the smallest mean concentration (0.24 μg/mask). | Fernández-Arribas et al. [24] |
Facemask Code | Type/User | Facemask Image | Recommended Use (h) | Number Utilizations | Country of Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
M1 | Disposable surgical type/infantile use | 4 | 1 | China/ brand 1 | |
M2 | Disposable surgical type/adult use | 4 | 1 | China/ brand 2 | |
M3 | Disposable surgical type/adult use | 4 | 1 | China/ brand 3 | |
M4 | Disposable FFP2 type/adult use | n.a. | 1 | China/ brand 1 | |
M5 | Disposable FFP2 type/adult use | 8 | 1 | Portugal/ brand 2 | |
M6 | Disposable FFP2 type/adult use | n.a. | 1 | China/ brand 3 | |
M7 | Reusable type/ adult use | 4 | 15 | Portugal/ brand 1 | |
M8 | Reusable cloth type/adult use | 4 | 50 | Portugal/ brand 2 | |
M9 | Reusable cloth type/adult use | 4 | 100 | Portugal/ brand 3 |
Compound | CAS | M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | M5 | M6 | M7 | M8 | M9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | S | S | FFP2 | FFP2 | FFP2 | R | R | R | ||
hexane | 110-54-3 | + | + | + | ||||||
acetic acid | 64-19-7 | + | ||||||||
propanoic acid | 79-09-4 | + | ||||||||
toluene | 108-88-3 | + | ||||||||
hexanal | 66-25-1 | |||||||||
m/p-xylene | 108-38-3/106-42-3 | + | + | + | ||||||
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene | 95-63-6 | + | ||||||||
2-ethyl-1-hexanol | 104-76-7 | + | + | + | + | + | ||||
2,2′-azobis(2-methylpropionitrile) | 78-67-1 | + | ||||||||
nonanal | 124-19-6 | + | + | + | + | |||||
caprolactam | 105-60-2 | + | + | + | ||||||
tetradecamethylhexasiloxane | 107-52-8 | + | + | |||||||
1,3-diacetylbenzene | 6781-42-6 | + | + | |||||||
hexadecamethylheptasiloxane | 541-01-5 | + | ||||||||
2-ethylhexyl acetate | 103-09-3 | + | ||||||||
2,4-di-tert-butylphenol | 96-76-4 | + | ||||||||
2-isopropyl-5-methyl-1-heptanol | 91337-07-4 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
alkanes C9-C16 | --- | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||
TVOC (µg/day) | 37.1 | 548 | 858 | 1103 | 2264 | 2374 | n.d. | 630 | 712 |
Compound (ng/cm2) | CAS | M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | M5 | M6 | M7 | M8 | M9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | S | S | FFP2 | FFP2 | FFP2 | R | R | R | ||
hexanal | 66-25-1 | 6.73 | 1.42 | |||||||
α-pinene | 80-56-8 | 0.06 | 2.83 | 0.57 | 0.95 | 6.12 | ||||
benzaldehyde | 100-52-7 | 2.82 | ||||||||
β-pinene | 127-91-3 | 0.30 | 0.08 | 0.41 | ||||||
5-Hepten-2-one, 6-methyl | 110-93-0 | 0.28 | 0.39 | |||||||
β-myrcene | 123-35-3 | 0.03 | ||||||||
octanal | 124-13-0 | 0.15 | 2.22 | 0.90 | ||||||
3-carene | 13466-78-9 | 2.07 | 0.23 | 3.72 | ||||||
2-ethyl-1-hexanol | 104-76-7 | 0.24 | 0.92 | 0.91 | 1.45 | 89.81 | 5.68 | |||
limonene | 138-86-3 | 2.92 | 0.17 | 1.99 | 0.36 | 0.44 | 4.26 | |||
γ-terpinene | 99-85-4 | 0.16 | ||||||||
linalool | 78-70-6 | 0.10 | ||||||||
nonanal | 124-19-6 | 1.55 | 1.01 | 1.09 | 11.85 | |||||
octanoic acid, methyl ester | 111-11-5 | 1.84 | ||||||||
4-piperidinone, 2,2,6,6-tetramethyl- | 826-36-8 | 0.42 | ||||||||
decanal | 112-31-2 | 1.24 | 0.86 | 0.48 | 0.78 | 0.87 | ||||
2-ethylhexyl acrylate | 103-11-7 | 4.47 | ||||||||
2-Propenoic acid, (1-methyl-1,2-ethanediyl) bis[oxy(methyl-2,1-ethanediyl)] ester | 42978-66-5 | 17.76 | ||||||||
Σ SS VOC | 6.73 | 1.87 | 0.65 | 7.81 | 3.34 | 3.15 | 19.72 | 115.66 | 26.98 |
Facemask Code | M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | M5 | M6 | M7 | M8 | M9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | S | S | FFP2 | FFP2 | FFP2 | R | R | R | |
TVOC (µg/day) | 37.1 | 494 | 858 | 1103 | 2323 | 2374 | n.d. | 630 | 712 |
Benzene (µg/day) | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
Low-VOC emission label | ✓ | × | × | × | × | × | ✓ | × | × |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Silva, G.V.; Martins, A.O.; Martins, S.D.S.; Mata, T.M. Low-VOC Emission Label Proposal for Facemask Safety Based on Respiratory and Skin Health Criteria. Environments 2023, 10, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments10010010
Silva GV, Martins AO, Martins SDS, Mata TM. Low-VOC Emission Label Proposal for Facemask Safety Based on Respiratory and Skin Health Criteria. Environments. 2023; 10(1):10. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments10010010
Chicago/Turabian StyleSilva, Gabriela Ventura, Anabela O. Martins, Susana D. S. Martins, and Teresa M. Mata. 2023. "Low-VOC Emission Label Proposal for Facemask Safety Based on Respiratory and Skin Health Criteria" Environments 10, no. 1: 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments10010010