Environmental and economic life cycle sustainability assessment of reusable versus single-use anaesthetic face masks

In the United Kingdom, healthcare products and services contribute 62 % of the National Health Service's greenhouse gas emissions. One proposal to reduce this impact is by replacing single-use devices (SUDs) with reusable devices. This study employs life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) methodologies to assess the environmental and economic sustainability of a reusable anaesthetic mask made primarily of Polychloroprene and Polyisoprene; and two single-use masks one made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and one of thermoplastic elastomer and polypropylene (TPE + PP). The reusable mask is shown to be cheaper and have lower environmental impact compared to the PVC single-use mask for nine of the 11 impact categories, including GWP, but has lower environmental impact than the TPE + PP single-use mask for only three categories (HTP, MAETP, and FAETP). The major contributor of the reusable mask's impact is the reprocessing stage, which represents over 70 % of all impact categories. The LCC showed PVC single mask to have the greatest cost (£5.89) compared to TPE + PP mask (£4.99) and the reusable mask (£4.44). Sensitivity and scenario analyses showed that the number of reprocessing cycles greatly influences the sustainability of the reusable mask when the number of reuses was less than 14 and that the energy consumption of the reprocessing machinery had a noticeable influence on the reusable mask's overall environmental impact. In conclusion, to make reusable masks a favourable option, manufacturers and health providers need to optimise the energy and packaging used in the reprocessing stage, together with ensuring that reusing practices i.e. minimum of cycles, are identified and communicated.