COVID-19 and Single-Use Plastic in Europe

This briefing gives a snapshot of how single-use face masks, gloves used for COVID-19 protection, and plastic packaging for e-commerce and take-out food deliveries impacted the environment and climate from April to September 2020. It highlights the urgent need to understand these effects better and take action to reduce them, both now and in any future situations.

The briefing is based on a report by the EEA’s European Topic Centre on Waste and Materials in a Green Economy (ETC/WMGE), titled “Impact of COVID-19 on single-use plastics and the environment in Europe.”

Face masks and gloves

One impact of Europe’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been a significant rise in the use of personal protective equipment, like face masks and gloves, both in medical settings and by the general public.

We can measure this increase by looking at the amount of COVID-19-related medical supplies imported into Europe. Since there wasn’t much data on the actual use of these items and Europe’s production capacity was limited, imports serve as a useful indicator.

Production and Imports

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO), the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), and governments across Europe recommended or required the use of face masks. Before the pandemic, only France and Germany were major producers and exporters of face masks within the EU, accounting for 7% and 2% of global exports, respectively, in 2017.

As shown in Figure 1, imports of face masks into the EU more than doubled compared to pre-pandemic levels, even though EU production was also on the rise. With an average face mask weighing 2.7 grams, this means that, on average, each person in the EU had an additional 0.75 face masks imported per day.

Figure 1: Imports of Face Masks to the 27 EU Member States from January 2019 to September 2020

International health organizations haven’t recommended that the general public use gloves as a COVID-19 prevention measure (WHO, 2020; ECDC, 2020). Still, during the first wave of the pandemic in Europe, from April to September 2020, the 27 EU Member States (EU-27) saw an extra 105,000 tonnes of glove imports. This was an 80% increase compared to normal levels.

Environmental impacts

The rise in single-use face masks and gloves during the COVID-19 pandemic has had notable environmental and climate impacts. These issues arise from various stages, including resource extraction, production, transport, waste handling, and littering. Most of the environmental effects from production occur in countries outside Europe, while waste and littering issues are more apparent within Europe.

European countries have taken different approaches to manage the disposal of these items. Generally, people are advised to throw away used face masks and gloves in mixed municipal waste, which is usually incinerated, though some regions still landfill waste.

The increase in single-use face masks and gloves has led to more littering. While some masks are lost accidentally, a survey in July 2020 found that about 5% of people in France (over 2 million) admitted to tossing their masks on public roads. Littered masks and gloves can be seen on streets, in rivers, on beaches, along coasts, and in the sea. This litter poses risks to wildlife, as fish and birds can ingest these plastics or become entangled.

Face masks and gloves are now monitored as part of marine litter tracking efforts. Discarded masks and gloves can break down into microplastics due to weathering, UV radiation, and wear and tear. These microplastics come from both the outer layer (polypropylene) and inner layer (polyethylene) of the masks.

Measuring the exact environmental impact of single-use face masks is challenging due to their various designs and materials. To estimate greenhouse gas emissions, we used data from a typical three-layer polypropylene mask. The emissions from manufacturing, transporting, and treating these masks range from 14 to 33.5 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per tonne of masks, with production and transport contributing the most. As these masks are primarily made in China, much of the emissions occur outside Europe.

Due to the increased use of face masks in Europe, an extra 2.4 to 5.7 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent were emitted from April to September 2020, marking a 118% increase. This rise in emissions is likely to continue in the future. Other environmental impacts from single-use masks, such as human toxicity and acidification, follow a similar trend.

Impacts of single-use versus reusable face masks

Studies have looked into the environmental and climate impacts of single-use versus reusable face masks. However, these studies didn’t assess how well reusable masks work in preventing viruses or if they meet WHO guidelines. It’s worth noting that reusable masks might not offer the same level of protection as single-use ones, so effectiveness is always a key factor.

Researchers Allison et al. (2020) and Schmutz et al. (2020) conducted simplified life cycle assessments to compare these masks. Schmutz et al. compared a single-use surgical mask (made from polypropylene) with a two-layer cotton mask. They found that the environmental impact of both types of masks mainly comes from the materials used and their production process, with waste incineration having a minor role. The study didn’t account for transportation. Reusing a cotton mask more often can improve its environmental performance. However, if you hand-wash reusable masks, the impact of washing can become significant, potentially making single-use masks more environmentally friendly (Allison et al., 2020).

Figure 2 shows the greenhouse gas emissions for a reusable cotton mask (including production, washing at 60°C, and waste incineration) compared to single-use surgical masks (which are replaced after each use and include production and waste incineration) over 30 uses. A cotton mask needs to be used at least 13 times to have a lower environmental impact than using 13 single-use masks. After 30 uses, about 90% of the impact of the cotton mask comes from its production, 10% from washing, and just 0.2% from incineration. For single-use masks, 63% of the impact comes from production and 37% from incineration. Transport was not included in these calculations.

COVID-19 and single-use plastic packaging

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed how we use single-use plastic packaging in Europe. While the closure of physical stores and financial concerns might have lowered overall consumption and packaging use, there’s been a noticeable rise in online shopping. This increase in e-commerce has led to more plastic and single-use packaging for shipping parcels.

Food packaging has also seen changes during the lockdowns. Many restaurants switched to take-out services, which meant using more packaging. On the flip side, with fewer people commuting, traveling, or engaging in leisure activities, the demand for on-the-go food and drinks dropped.

Production and impacts

Since 2017, the EU plastic packaging industry has been slowly cutting back on production. However, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the decline was even steeper than before (check out Figure 3). From April to October 2020, production dropped by about 227,000 tonnes compared to the usual levels (highlighted in the shaded area of Figure 3). By October 2020, production had bounced back to its usual levels.

Because plastic packaging production in the EU dropped overall, we saved about 770,000 tonnes of CO2e between April and October 2020 compared to usual levels. That’s roughly the same amount of CO2 emissions produced by 480,000 people in the EU in 2019 from heating their homes and driving.

Online shopping (e-commerce) 

During the strictest lockdown periods in Europe’s first COVID-19 wave, most non-essential shops were closed (OECD, 2020). People turned to online shopping, but it didn’t fully make up for the lost sales in physical stores (BBC News, 2020).

Between March and September 2020, e-commerce revenue jumped by 16% compared to usual levels. Parcel delivery services also hit record numbers, with Deutsche Post DHL Group handling nearly 1.8 billion parcels—a 15% increase from the previous year (DHL, 2020). This surge in online shopping likely led to a rise in plastic packaging, adding an estimated 11,400 to 17,600 tonnes of plastic between March and September 2020.

The extra plastic packaging from e-commerce impacts the environment and climate through its production, transport, and disposal, primarily through incineration, leading to more greenhouse gases and other emissions.

Food packaging

The restaurant and food services sector really struggled during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. Many places had to limit or completely close their dine-in options. From March to August 2020, the sector saw its revenue drop by 45%, even though it had been growing by 25% since 2015.

While people working from home and kids doing remote schooling likely led to less on-the-go eating and drinking, many restaurants switched to take-out and delivery. This shift probably increased the use of single-use packaging.

At the time of writing this, there isn’t reliable data on how the pandemic affected single-use plastic packaging in the food services industry in Europe in 2020. So, we can’t yet measure the actual environmental impacts of these changes.

Also Read: Global Plastics Bans and Regulations

Further knowledge and options for action

Gathering data and figuring out the impact of single-use plastics during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic has been tough. The effects can be mixed, like with food packaging, and there’s not enough detailed information on specific single-use plastic items, such as disposable medical gear, food containers, and e-commerce packaging. This makes it hard to track how these products are being used.

To improve future assessments, especially during ongoing or future pandemics and other major events, we need better data on how specific single-use plastics are used.

In a health crisis, most of the early research focused on the hygiene and protective qualities of medical gear like masks and gloves. While ensuring these items are safe is crucial, we also need to think about their environmental, climate, and social impacts.

Everyone has a role in properly disposing of single-use products. Authorities and businesses also need to offer good disposal options. Box 1 outlines some ways to prepare for future challenges related to single-use plastics and their environmental impact.

Box 1 Preparing for an uncertain future

One big takeaway from the COVID-19 pandemic is the need to get ready for future disruptions. We should plan now to tackle the environmental and climate impacts of our responses, like those from medical gear and packaging. Here are some key areas to focus on:

Research: To better handle future situations, we need to dig deeper into:

• Alternative materials and designs for products.
• Strategies to encourage good consumer habits, like proper use, cleaning, disposal, and preventing littering.
• The environmental effects of litter in public places and nature.
• Technologies for sanitizing reusable items, such as medical equipment.
• Recycling options for single-use products.

Monitoring: We need to improve how we track single-use plastics to help with research and guide future policies, including:

• Collecting up-to-date data on the production, use, and trade of these products.
• Monitoring littering, including waste from landfills.

Policy: With better monitoring and research, we can create policies to address the impact of single-use products, such as:

• Raising awareness and offering incentives across Europe to change behaviors.
• Promoting and regulating circular business models.
• Improving recycling and municipal waste management.

Business: Companies should also be encouraged to:

• Adopt circular models, like reusable packaging for food and other goods, take-back and redistribution systems, and efficient recycling.
• Use packaging made from recycled or low-impact materials that are easy to recycle at the end of their life.