1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Results

3.1. Single-Use Polypropylene Three-Ply Masks

Single-use face masks manufactured from three- or four-ply polypropylene, with a melt-blown filter layer sandwiched between outer layers of spunbonded polypropylene fabric [60], were the most common type of face masks encountered being worn by passers-by during walk-through surveys in Albury, [24] as well as Sydney and Melbourne [61,62]. They were also the most common type encountered lost or discarded on the ground [14,25]. A separate study that examined single-use face masks sold in Australia for their morphological characteristics that could allow archaeologists in the future to positively correlate a given mask encountered in deposits with a manufacturer found that the overwhelming majority (80.3%) of single-use face masks in that study was produced by numerous manufacturers in China [59]. Apart from masks manufactured in Australia (12.4%) also encountered were masks made in India, Indonesia, Japan, Spain and Turkey [59].

Single-use polypropylene masks were produced in three main types. The most common type are three-ply pleated masks with welded on ear loops such as the mask shown in Figure 3 (manufactured by Vicare Medical Supplies in Tullamarine, Victoria, Australia). These masks were sold as ‘utility masks’ and as ‘surgical masks’. The latter, which had to be approved for medical use by the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration, were graded as Level 1–3 depending on their levels of protection and fluid resistance [63]. The majority of masks possess an embedded nose wire that allows to shape the top of the mask when fitted, reducing air emission along the nose, which significantly prevents fogging of spectacles that may be worn and the ingress and egress of unfiltered air.

Figure 1. Typology of pleated masks [13].

Figure 1. Typology of pleated masks [13].

Figure 2. Typology of one-piece fabric (cloth) masks [13].

Figure 2. Typology of one-piece fabric (cloth) masks [13].

Figure 3. Single-Use Mask—Polypropylene—Manufacturer Branded.

Figure 3. Single-Use Mask—Polypropylene—Manufacturer Branded.

Pleated masks were also produced with straps, rather than ear loops, which allowed the mask to be fastened around the back of the head rather than placing strain on the earlobes. By and large, the use of these masks was confined to medical settings, particularly surgery. In addition to standard pleat masks, some level 3 masks where fitted with an additional clear polycarbonate anti-splash visor protecting the eyes from projected aerosols (Figure 4) (manufactured by A.R.Medicom Inc., Shanghai, China).

A different design were the ‘duck bill’ shaped masks made from the same type of polypropylene fabric, but cut in a way that they had a better facial fit and lesser chance of billowing open at the cheeks (compare side-ways fit of masks in Figures 3 and 5). One design folds out completely (hence duck bill), while the other folds out only partially (Figure 5). Both designs have straps that are tightened around the back of the head. The use of these masks, while available on the open market, was largely confined to medical settings (Figure 5) (ProShield TN01–11, distributed by BSN Medical, Musgrave, Victoria, Australia, manufactured in China and Japan).

Figure 4. Single-Use Mask—Polypropylene with anti-splash visor—Medical retail.

Figure 4. Single-Use Mask—Polypropylene with anti-splash visor—Medical retail.

Figure 5. Single-Use Mask, duck bill type—Polypropylene—Medical retail.

Figure 5. Single-Use Mask, duck bill type—Polypropylene—Medical retail.

3.2. Single-Use KN95/P2 Polypropylene Masks

P2/N95 respirators form a close seal around the nose and mouth and are effective in removing a minimum of 95% of aerosols (KN95, KF94, Japan DS2 and European FFP2 are equivalents) [63,64]. Like the foregoing masks, P2/N95 respirators were also sold as utility masks (mainly for the construction trade) and as respirators approved for medical use by the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration. N95 respirators were manufactured in four main types: flat-fold, cupped, duck-billed and beak-shaped.

Flat-fold particulate N95 respirators, offered by various companies, are designed with straps that are tightened around the back of the head (Figure 6). Both the top and bottom fold out, with the bottom having a small tab for easy adjustment and the top commonly furnished with a flat nose wire and a Polyurethane foam surface for wearer comfort (Figure 7). The respirators are comprised of a polypropylene filter covered with a polypropylene cover web on the outer and inner surfaces (Figure 6 example manufactured for Trident, Berkeley Vale, NSW, Australia by a Chinese supplier; Figure 7 example by 3M in the USA).

Figure 6. Single-Use P2 Respirator—Polypropylene—Medical retail.

Figure 6. Single-Use P2 Respirator—Polypropylene—Medical retail.

Figure 7. Single-Use flat-fold N95 Respirator. Unfolded, front, back and side view.

Figure 7. Single-Use flat-fold N95 Respirator. Unfolded, front, back and side view.

Cupped particulate N95 respirators are designed with straps that are tightened around the back of the head. They are comprised of a polyester shell, with polypropylene and polypropylene cover web on outer and inner surfaces. The top is commonly furnished with a flat nose wire and a dense Polyurethane foam surface for wearer comfort. Apart from the nose wire that allows to adjust the top, the rest of the mask shape cannot be adjusted (Figure 8) (example manufactured by 3M in the USA).

Figure 8. Single-Use cupped N95 Respirator—Polyester and Polypropylene—Medical retail.

Figure 8. Single-Use cupped N95 Respirator—Polyester and Polypropylene—Medical retail.

Medical-type, beaked particulate N95 respirators, offered by various companies, are designed with straps that are tightened around the back of the head. The respirators are comprised of a polypropylene filter (sometimes with an additional hot-air blown cotton layer) covered with a polypropylene cover web. Apart from the flat nose wire that allow to adjust the top, the rest of the mask shape cannot be adjusted (Figure 9) (example manufactured by BYD Care in China). Consumer-grade, beaked particulate N95 respirators, offered by various companies, are of the same design, but can have less dense spunbonded and melt-blown polypropylene fabric. All consumer-grade beaked respirators are fitted with standard ear loops (Figure 10) (example distributed by Craftright, i.e Bunnings, manufactured in China).

Consumer-grade, particulate N95 / P2 respirators, had been sold prior to the pandemic and were used by the professional building trade. They commonly have straps that are tightened around the back of the head rather than ear loops. Examples are duck-billed P2 masks sold to the general building trade (Figure 11, example manufactured in China for Scott Safety) as well as cupped masks fitted with filter valves specifically for the gardening (Figure 12, example manufactured in China for Scott Safety) and painting trade (Figure 13; example manufactured in Korea for 3M Australia). In addition, some consumer-grade, beaked particulate N95 respirators were sold with activated carbon filters (Figure 14) (example manufactured by JinJiang in China).

Figure 9. Single-Use P2 Respirator, beak shaped—Polypropylene—Medical retail.

Figure 9. Single-Use P2 Respirator, beak shaped—Polypropylene—Medical retail.

Figure 10. Single-Use P2 Respirator, beak shaped—Commercial retail.

Figure 10. Single-Use P2 Respirator, beak shaped—Commercial retail.

Figure 11. P2 Respirator, duckbill shaped—Commercial retail.

Figure 11. P2 Respirator, duckbill shaped—Commercial retail.

Figure 12. P2 Respirator, cupped —Commercial retail (gardening).

Figure 12. P2 Respirator, cupped —Commercial retail (gardening).

Figure 13. P2 Respirator, cupped —Commercial retail (paint fumes).

Figure 13. P2 Respirator, cupped —Commercial retail (paint fumes).

Figure 14. Single-Use P2 Respirator, beak shaped with valve—Commercial retail.

Figure 14. Single-Use P2 Respirator, beak shaped with valve—Commercial retail.

3.3. Fabric Masks, Commercial Production

Given the shortage of single-use surgical masks in the face of an unprecedented demand for fitted face masks, public health advice in early 2020 suggested that wearing a cloth mask, albeit providing a lesser protection, was better than wearing no mask at all [65]. Commercial production soon commenced, with corporations and major clothing retailers soon recognizing the promotional and commercial opportunity this provided. The masks were manufactured in a large variety of shapes, both with sewn-on and integrated ear loops (Figure 2).

Companies and government agencies purchased masks in corporate colors that were decorated with slogans and/or company logos and that were made part of the corporate uniforms. These masks were commonly manufactured from cotton, polyester or a viscose/cotton mix, commonly with a with a polytetrafluoroethylene membrane as a filter core. The length of the elastic strips used for the ear loops could be adjusted with a sliding shortener. The early mask designs had a rounded shape and lacked a nose wire (Figure 15, Australia Post, manufacturer unknown) [14]. Similarly, companies and corporations, distributed masks as promotional items, commonly fitted with nose wires based on then best practice advice (Figure 16; Albury-Wodonga Student Representative Committee, Charles Sturt University, manufacturer unknown).

Figure 15. Fabric Mask—Cotton without nosewire—Company Branded (for staff use).

Figure 15. Fabric Mask—Cotton without nosewire—Company Branded (for staff use).

Figure 16. Fabric Mask—Cotton with nose wire—Promotionally Branded.

Figure 16. Fabric Mask—Cotton with nose wire—Promotionally Branded.

The corporate promotional giftware and novelty industry soon saw a market niche offering in short-runs using customer supplied designs. This allowed, inter alia, community organizations to create fabric face masks designed by community members, such as the mask with an Indigenous Australian motif produced by a disability service provider (Figure 17; Mercy Connect, Albury, manufacturer unknown) [12].

Not surprisingly, major clothing retailers soon recognized the commercial opportunity this provided. Especially in the early days, soon after the initial wave of lockdown period finished, the majority of masks were either plain black or mono color on the outside and often white on the inside (Figure 18a–d). Clothing retailers, in particular those servicing the teen and young adult market, quickly realized that fitted face masks as mandatory items, could function as compulsory accessories, and soon produced such masks in a variety of colors and patterns, often with slogans (Figure 19; with slogan “Social distancing like a pro”), some of which carried the same pattern as clothing sold by the same chain (Figure 20).

Figure 17. Fabric Mask— Cotton with nose wire —Community designed (branded).

Figure 17. Fabric Mask— Cotton with nose wire —Community designed (branded).

Figure 18. Fabric Mask—Cotton—Commercial retail offerings. a) Bonds (Australia, June 2020); b) Fashion F (China, mid 2021), c) Cotton On (China, mid 2021); d) Sexy Socks (South Africa, April 2020).

Figure 18. Fabric Mask—Cotton—Commercial retail offerings. a) Bonds (Australia, June 2020); b) Fashion F (China, mid 2021), c) Cotton On (China, mid 2021); d) Sexy Socks (South Africa, April 2020).

Figure 19. Fabric Mask—Cotton—Commercial retail (branded).

Figure 19. Fabric Mask—Cotton—Commercial retail (branded).

Figure 20. Fabric Mask—Cotton—Commercial retail. Mask with three filter insets [13].

Figure 20. Fabric Mask—Cotton—Commercial retail. Mask with three filter insets [13].

The materials used for these masks varied from 100% cotton or 100% polyester on both sides (depending on pattern and colors) to combinations [66,67,68], 100% cotton (inner) and or 100% polyester (outer) [68] as well as viscose/cotton mixes (Figure 20, 70% viscose, 30% cotton) [69]. Common to most was that they were fitted with a polytetrafluoroethylene membrane as a filter core in the fabric ‘sandwich’.

While the majority was being imported from China as soon as supply chains reopened [67,68,70,71], local Australian production also occurred [66], as well as imports from as far afield as South Africa (Figure 18d) [72]. The early masks were limited to a recommended 20 washes after which the fabric would lose its filtering capabilities [66], but later masks were fitted with pockets for replaceable PM 2.5 filters (Figure 20). In addition to accessorizing promoted by clothing retailers, masks with novelty designs such as flowers, animals, faces, superheroes and the like soon came on the market, primarily distributed through online channels (Figures 21 and 22, Maskit Brand, manufactured in China, distributed by Gibson Gifts). Some of these were sold with and without replaceable PM 2.5 filters.

Figure 21. Fabric Masks— Cotton with filter insert —Commercial, novelty market.

Figure 21. Fabric Masks— Cotton with filter insert —Commercial, novelty market.

Figure 22. Fabric Masks— Cotton with filter insert —Commercial, novelty market.

Figure 22. Fabric Masks— Cotton with filter insert —Commercial, novelty market.

While the majority of masks were cotton or polyester fabric with sewn-on elastic ear loops, some were single piece masks with integrated ear loops made from polyester fiber blend, cotton/Spandex blends, neoprene or reticulated polyurethane foam (Figures 23 and 24). Since these masks did not have a filter insert, their efficacy relied solely on the nature of the fabric. Recommendations for discarding used masks after a set number of washing cycles depended on the material, with polyurethane foam masks reputedly lasting 8–10 cycles [73], although most retailers asserted reuse and washability, but did not provide any recommendations on the length of use [74,75,76,77].

The overwhelming majority of reusable fabric face masks were of various shapes of the one-piece design (Figure 2). Some fashion accessory retailers also distributed pleated masks with silk inner and outer layers and a dense cotton filter layer (Figure 25, distributed by Lovisa) [78].

Figure 23. Fabric Masks—Polyester Fiber Blend—Commercial retail (neutral).

Figure 23. Fabric Masks—Polyester Fiber Blend—Commercial retail (neutral).

Figure 24. Fabric Masks—Neoprene—Commercial retail (neutral).

Figure 24. Fabric Masks—Neoprene—Commercial retail (neutral).

Figure 25. Fabric Masks—Silk—Commercial retail (monochrome). Pleated type.

Figure 25. Fabric Masks—Silk—Commercial retail (monochrome). Pleated type.

3.4. Fabric Masks, Artisanal Production

The shortage of single-use surgical type and N95 type face masks during the early period of the pandemic, coupled with the mandate to wear face masks and the advice that fabric face masks would provide adequate, albeit not perfect, protection, resulted in a cottage industry of artisanal productions. Some of the productions were simple and ill-fitting face coverings (Figure 26), that provided little, if any protection. Soon after the shortage of surgical type face masks had become evident, public health departments published design instructions for simple masks, [79] while national drapery chains offered sewing templates [80,81]. A wide range of mask types were produced both of pleated (Figures 1 and 27) and one-piece designs (Figure 2) both with (Figure 28) and without nose wires (Figures 29 and 30) [13]. Some artisanal designs even included removeable filter layers (Figure 31). All artisanal productions used cotton of various density (thread count) as raw material, with a wide range of design patterns.

Figure 26. Fabric Mask—Cotton—Artisanal production. Flat sheet design.

Figure 26. Fabric Mask—Cotton—Artisanal production. Flat sheet design.

Figure 27. Fabric Masks—Cotton—Artisanal production. Pleated type.

Figure 27. Fabric Masks—Cotton—Artisanal production. Pleated type.

Figure 28. Fabric Masks—Cotton—Artisanal production. Beaked type with ear loops.

Figure 28. Fabric Masks—Cotton—Artisanal production. Beaked type with ear loops.

Figure 29. Fabric Masks—Cotton—Artisanal production. Rounded type without ear loops.

Figure 29. Fabric Masks—Cotton—Artisanal production. Rounded type without ear loops.

Figure 30. Fabric Mask—Cotton—Artisanal production. Two incomplete home-made masks with pins attached, as well as two templates used, donated to charity in mid 2022. The newspaper clipping dates to 25 September 2020 suggesting the commencement of artisanal production [13].

Figure 30. Fabric Mask—Cotton—Artisanal production. Two incomplete home-made masks with pins attached, as well as two templates used, donated to charity in mid 2022. The newspaper clipping dates to 25 September 2020 suggesting the commencement of artisanal production [13].

Figure 31. Fabric Mask—Cotton—Artisanal production. Pleated type mask with self-made filter and instructions [13].

Figure 31. Fabric Mask—Cotton—Artisanal production. Pleated type mask with self-made filter and instructions [13].

4. Discussion and Conclusions

References

1. WHO. Naming the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the virus that causes it. Available online: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/naming-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-2019)-and-the-virus-that-causes-it (accessed on Aug 10, 2020).
2. Stadnytskyi, V.; Anfinrud, P.; Bax, A. Breathing, speaking, coughing or sneezing: What drives transmission of SARS-CoV-2? Journal of Internal Medicine 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
3. Gorbunov, B. Aerosol particles generated by coughing and sneezing of a SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) host travel over 30 m distance. Aerosol and Air Quality Research 2021, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
4. Karaivanov, A.; Lu, S.E.; Shigeoka, H.; Chen, C.; Pamplona, S. Face masks, public policies and slowing the spread of COVID-19: evidence from Canada. Journal of Health Economics 2021, 102475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Cherry, T.L.; James, A.G.; Murphy, J. The impact of public health messaging and personal experience on the acceptance of mask wearing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of economic behavior & organization 2021, 187, 415–430. [Google Scholar]
6. Guy Jr, G.P.; Lee, F.C.; Sunshine, G.; McCord, R.; Howard-Williams, M.; Kompaniyets, L.; Dunphy, C.; Gakh, M.; Weber, R.; Sauber-Schatz, E. Association of state-issued mask mandates and allowing on-premises restaurant dining with county-level COVID-19 case and death growth rates—United States, March 1–December 31, 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2021, 70, 350. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
7. MacIntyre, C.R.; Nguyen, P.-Y.; Chughtai, A.A.; Trent, M.; Gerber, B.; Steinhofel, K.; Seale, H. Mask use, risk-mitigation behaviours and pandemic fatigue during the COVID-19 pandemic in five cities in Australia, the UK and USA: A cross-sectional survey. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 2021, 106, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Prata, J.C.; Silva, A.L.P.; Duarte, A.C.; Rocha-Santos, T. Disposable over Reusable Face Masks: Public Safety or Environmental Disaster? Environments 2021, 8, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. Kournikakis, B.; Harding, R.K.; Tremblay, J.; Simpson, M. Comparison of protection factors for selected medical, industrial and military masks. Applied Biosafety 2000, 5, 12–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. Cherrie, J.W.; Apsley, A.; Cowie, H.; Steinle, S.; Mueller, W.; Lin, C.; Horwell, C.J.; Sleeuwenhoek, A.; Loh, M. Effectiveness of face masks used to protect Beijing residents against particulate air pollution. Occupational and environmental medicine 2018, 75, 446–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11. Park, C.-Y.; Kim, K.; Roth, S. Global shortage of personal protective equipment amid COVID-19: supply chains, bottlenecks, and policy implications; Asian Development Bank: 2020.
12. Sayers, E. Facing COVID: Engaging participants during lockdown. International Journal on Disability and Human Development 2022, 21, 353–358. [Google Scholar]
13. Spennemann, D.H.R. The Material Culture of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Face Masks Donated to Charity. A cross-section of masks donated to charitable organisations by a regional Australian community; SAEVS, Charles Sturt University: Albury, NSW, 2022. [Google Scholar]
14. Spennemann, D.H.R. Patterns of a Pandemic. A documentation of COVID-19 masks sold, lost and discarded in a regional Australian city; 164; Institute for Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University: Albury, NSW, 2021. [Google Scholar]
15. Spennemann, D.H.R. COVID-19 Face Masks as a Long-Term Source of Microplastics in Recycled Urban Green Waste. Sustainability 2022, 14, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16. Spennemann, D.H.R. Impact of Vehicular Traffic on Single Use Surgical Face Masks as a source of Environmental Micro-fiber Pollution. Pollution 2023, 9, [accepted]. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
17. MedicalXpress. China exported more than 220 billion masks in 2020: government. Available online: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-01-china-exported-billion-masks.html.
18. Spennemann, D.H.R. Collecting COVID-19 Ephemera: a photographic documentation of examples from regional Australia; Institute for Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University: Albury, NSW, 2021. [Google Scholar]
19. Spennemann, D.H.R. COVID-19 on the ground: heritage sites of a pandemic. Heritage 2021, 3, 2140–2162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
20. Spennemann, D.H.R. “No Entry into New South Wales”: COVID-19 and the Historic and Contemporary Trajectories of the Effects of Border Closures on an Australian Cross-Border Community. Land 2021, 10, 610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Spennemann, D.H.R. Curating the Contemporary: a case for national and local COVID-19 collections. Curator 2022, 65, 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Spennemann, D.H.R. The Material Culture of the COVID-19 Pandemic. A Descriptive Catalogue of SARS-Cov-2 Rapid Antigen Tests collected for the Albury LibraryMuseum; SAEVS, Charles Sturt University: Albury, NSW, 2023. [Google Scholar]
23. Spennemann, D.H.R. The Digital Heritage of the battle to contain COVID-19 in Australia and its implications for Heritage Studies. Heritage subm., [under review]. [CrossRef]
24. Spennemann, D.H.R. Facing COVID-19: quantifying the use of reusable vs disposable facemasks. Hygiene 2021, 1, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Spennemann, D.H.R. COVID face masks: policy shift results in increased littering. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26. Spennemann, D.H.R. Environmental Decay of Single Use Surgical Face Masks as an agent of plastic micro-fiber pollution. Environments 2022, 9, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
27. De-la-Torre, G.E.; Dioses-Salinas, D.C.; Dobaradaran, S.; Spitz, J.; Keshtkar, M.; Akhbarizadeh, R.; Abedi, D.; Tavakolian, A. Physical and chemical degradation of littered personal protective equipment (PPE) under simulated environmental conditions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2022, 178, 113587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
28. Chen, X.; Chen, X.; Liu, Q.; Zhao, Q.; Xiong, X.; Wu, C. Used disposable face masks are significant sources of microplastics to environment. Environmental Pollution 2022, 285, 117485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
29. Cornelio, A.; Zanoletti, A.; Federici, S.; Ciacci, L.; Depero, L.E.; Bontempi, E. Environmental Impact of Surgical Masks Consumption in Italy Due to COVID-19 Pandemic. Materials 2022, 15, 2046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30. Du, H.; Huang, S.; Wang, J. Environmental risks of polymer materials from disposable face masks linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. Science of The Total Environment 2022, 152980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
31. Fadare, O.O.; Okoffo, E.D. Covid-19 face masks: A potential source of microplastic fibers in the environment. The Science of the total environment 2020, 737, 140279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
32. Kwak, J.I.; An, Y.J. Post COVID-19 pandemic: Biofragmentation and soil ecotoxicological effects of microplastics derived from face masks. J Hazard Mater 2021, 416, 126169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
33. Liang, H.; Ji, Y.; Ge, W.; Wu, J.; Song, N.; Yin, Z.; Chai, C. Release kinetics of microplastics from disposable face masks into the aqueous environment. Science of the Total Environment 2022, 816, 151650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
34. Saliu, F.; Veronelli, M.; Raguso, C.; Barana, D.; Galli, P.; Lasagni, M. The release process of microfibers: from surgical face masks into the marine environment. Environmental Advances 2021, 4, 100042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
35. Selvaranjan, K.; Navaratnam, S.; Rajeev, P.; Ravintherakumaran, N. Environmental challenges induced by extensive use of face masks during COVID-19: a review and potential solutions. Environmental Challenges 2021, 100039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
36. Shen, M.; Zeng, Z.; Song, B.; Yi, H.; Hu, T.; Zhang, Y.; Zeng, G.; Xiao, R. Neglected microplastics pollution in global COVID-19: disposable surgical masks. Science of the Total Environment 2021, 790, 148130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
37. Silva, A.L.P.; Prata, J.C.; Mouneyrac, C.; Barcelò, D.; Duarte, A.C.; Rocha-Santos, T. Risks of Covid-19 face masks to wildlife: Present and future research needs. Science of The Total Environment 2021, 148505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Wang, Z.; An, C.; Chen, X.; Lee, K.; Zhang, B.; Feng, Q. Disposable masks release microplastics to the aqueous environment with exacerbation by natural weathering. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2021, 417, 126036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Wu, P.; Li, J.; Lu, X.; Tang, Y.; Cai, Z. Release of tens of thousands of microfibers from discarded face masks under simulated environmental conditions. Science of the Total Environment 2022, 806, 150458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
40. Ma, J.; Chen, F.; Xu, H.; Jiang, H.; Liu, J.; Li, P.; Chen, C.C.; Pan, K. Face masks as a source of nanoplastics and microplastics in the environment: Quantification, characterization, and potential for bioaccumulation. Environmental Pollution 2021, 288, 117748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
41. Duong, M.C.; Nguyen, H.T.; Duong, B.T. A Cross-Sectional Study of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Towards Face Mask Use Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic Amongst University Students in Vietnam. Journal of Community Health 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
42. Dwivedi, K.; Sharma, E.; Fatima, N. An empirical analysis on consumer’s preferences of face mask during COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Home Science 2021, 7, 147–151. [Google Scholar]
43. Green, D.N.; Kozen, F.H.; Blumenkamp, C.K. Facemasking Behaviors, Preferences, and Attitudes Among Emerging Adults in the United States During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Exploratory Study. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 2021, 0887302X211006775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
44. Lee, L.Y.-k.; Chan, I.C.-w.; Wong, O.P.-m.; Ng, Y.H.-y.; Ng, C.K.-y.; Chan, M.H.-w.; Ng, J.K.-c.; Koo, H.H.-t.; Lam, S.-t.; Chu, A.C.-w. Reuse of face masks among adults in Hong Kong during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Public Health 2021, 21, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
45. Matusiak, Ł.; Szepietowska, M.; Krajewski, P.K.; Białynicki-Birula, R.; Szepietowski, J.C. The use of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in Poland: A survey study of 2315 young adults. Dermatologic Therapy 2020, 33, e13909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
46. Angelo, D.; Britt, K.M.; Brown, M.L.; Camp, S.L. Spaces: Documenting COVID-19 Material Culture and Landscapes. Journal of Contemporary Archaeology 2021, 8, 154–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
47. Magnani, M.; Magnani, N.; Venovcevs, A.; Farstadvoll, S. A contemporary archaeology of pandemic. Journal of Social Archaeology 2021, 14696053211043430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
48. Magnani, M.; Venovcevs, A.; Farstadvoll, S.; Magnani, N. How to record current events like an archaeologist. Advances in Archaeological Practice 2021, 9, 379–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
49. Schofield, J.; Praet, E.; Townsend, K.A.; Vince, J. ‘COVID waste’and social media as method: an archaeology of personal protective equipment and its contribution to policy. Antiquity 2021, 95, 435–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
50. Witcher, R. The materiality of COVID-19. Antiquity 2021, 95, 285–292. [Google Scholar]
51. Davis, M.D.M. ‘Live with the Virus’ Narrative and Pandemic Amnesia in the Governance of COVID-19. Social Sciences 2022, 11, 340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
52. Tanne, J.H. Covid-19: Former advisers urge Biden to adopt new pandemic strategy and learn to live with virus. BMJ 2022, 376, 376:o356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
53. Department of Health and Aged Care. Coronavirus (COVID-19) case numbers and statistics. COVID-19 cases and 7 day rolling average, 01 Jan 2022 to 21 Feb 2023. Available online: https://www.health.gov.au/health-alerts/covid-19/case-numbers-and-statistics (accessed on Feb 27, 2023).
54. Spennemann, D.H.R. Designing for COVID-2x: Reflecting on Future-Proofing Human Habitation for the Inevitable Next Pandemic. Buildings 2022, 12, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
55. Spennemann, D.H.R. Exercising under COVID-2x: conceptualizing future green spaces in Australia’s neighborhoods. Urban Design 2021, 5, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
56. Spennemann, D.H.R. Preparing for COVID-2x: urban planning needs to regard urological wastewater as an invaluable communal public health asset and not as a burden. Urban Design 2021, 5, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
57. Spennemann, D.H.R. Residential Architecture in a post-pandemic world: implications of COVID-19 for new construction and for adapting heritage buildings. Journal of Green Building 2021, 16, 199–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
58. Spennemann, D.H.R. A Photographic Documentation of Sales Packaging of Single-use Surgical Face Masks; SAEVS, Charles Sturt University: Albury, NSW, 2022. [Google Scholar]
59. Spennemann, D.H.R. The future archaeological signature of single-use surgical face masks, the most ubiquitous artefact of the COVID-19 pandemic: A Typological Study; SAEVS, Charles Sturt University: Albury, 2023. [Google Scholar]
60. Spennemann, D.H.R. Photographic documentation of fibre patterns of spunbonded fabric used in single-use surgical face masks; SAEVS, Charles Sturt University: Albury, 2022. [Google Scholar]
61. Spennemann, D.H.R. A rapid observational survey of face mask use in a major shopping centre in Melbourne (Victoria); Institute for Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University: Albury, NSW, 2021. [Google Scholar]
62. Spennemann, D.H.R. A rapid observational survey of face mask use in a major shopping centre in Sydney (New South Wales); Institute for Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University: Albury, NSW, 2022. [Google Scholar]
63. Safe Work Australia. Comparison of mask types for COVID-19. Available online: https://covid19.swa.gov.au/comparison-mask-types-covid-19 (accessed on Feb 20, 2023).
64. Infection Control Expert Group. Infection Control Expert Group. The Use of Face Masks and Respirators in the Context of COVID-19; Departmwent of Health: Canberra, ACT, 2020. [Google Scholar]
65. CDC. Types of Masks and Respirators [Archive copy]. Available online: https://web.archive.org/web/20210210180932/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/types-of-masks.html (accessed on Feb 20, 2023).
66. Bonds. Bonds Protective Comfy Face Mask Treated eith HEIQ Viroblock. Available online: https://www.bonds.com.au/bonds-face-mask-3-pack-zynr-blk.html (accessed on Feb 21, 2023).
67. Factorie. Foundation Face Mask Adults. Available online: https://factorie.com.au/show-variation/?pid=9630228 (accessed on October 15, 2021).
68. Supre. Foundation Face Mask Junior. Available online: https://supre.com.au/foundation-face-mask-junior/9630171-04.html (accessed on Feb 20, 2023).
69. Ghanda. Face Mask. Available online: https://ghanda.com/product/face-mask_natural_642 (accessed on Feb 21, 2023).
70. Cotton On. Foundation Face Mask Adults. Available online: https://cottonon.com/UK/foundation-face-mask-adults/9357067451063.html (accessed on October 15, 2021).
71. Cotton On. Foundation Face Mask Junior. Available online: https://cottonon.com/SG/foundation-face-mask-adults/9630228-05.html?bvstate=pg:9/ct:r (accessed on Jan 18, 2022).
72. Sexy Socks. Our Fabric Face Masks + Active Snood. Available online: https://buysexysocks.com/all-about-our-fabric-face-masks-active-snood/ (accessed on Feb 21, 2023).
73. Carbon Collective. Reticulated Polyurethane Foam Mask. Available online: https://www.carboncollective.com/product/reticulated-polyurethane-foam-mask/ (accessed on Feb 21, 2023).
74. FaceTubes. Pink Face Masks Face Mask Washable Neoprene Reusable Covid. Available online: https://www.facetubes.com.au/products/pink-face-masks-face-mask-washable-neoprene-reusable-covid (accessed on Feb 21, 2023).
75. CHUU. CHUU Fashion Washable Soft Neoprene Face Cover Mask. Available online: https://www.amazon.com.au/CHUU-Fashion-Washable-Neoprene-Summer/dp/B0895JX6D3 (accessed on Feb 20, 2023).
76. FaceTubes Australia. Black Face Masks Face Mask Washable Neoprene Reusable Covid. Available online: https://www.facetubes.com.au/products/black-face-masks-face-mask-washable-neoprene-reusable-covid?_pos=3&_sid=d7228c53f&_ss=r (accessed on Feb 20, 2023).
77. ToBeGear. Reusable Washable Breathable Face Masks single layer. Available online: https://tobe.com.au/products/reusable-washable-breathable-face-masks-single-layer?variant=42930353078442 (accessed on Feb 20, 2023).
78. Lovisa. 100% Silk Mask. Available online: www.lovisa.com.au/collections/100-silk-face-masks (accessed on Oct 12, 2022).
79. Department of Health & Human Services. How to make a cloth mask. Instructions for making a cloth face mask. Available online: https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/202007/Design%20and%20preparation%20of%20cloth%20mask_0.pdf (accessed on Dec 10, 2020).
80. Lincraft. Face Mask; Lincraft: Melbourne, 2020. [Google Scholar]
81. Spotlight. Nose Wire Mask Project Sheet; Spotlight: South Melbourne, 2020. [Google Scholar]
82. Baradaran-Binazir, M.; Heidari, F. The necessity of prohibiting the masks with exhalation valve during emerging infections Like COVID-19. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health 2021, 33, 458–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
83. Matuschek, C.; Moll, F.; Fangerau, H.; Fischer, J.C.; Zänker, K.; van Griensven, M.; Schneider, M.; Kindgen-Milles, D.; Knoefel, W.T.; Lichtenberg, A. Face masks: benefits and risks during the COVID-19 crisis. European journal of medical research 2020, 25, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
84. Chang, J.C.; Johnson, J.S.; Olmsted, R.N. Demystifying theoretical concerns involving respirators with exhalation valves during COVID-19 pandemic. American journal of infection control 2020, 48, 1564–1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
85. Ippolito, M.; Iozzo, P.; Gregoretti, C.; Grasselli, G.; Cortegiani, A. Facepiece filtering respirators with exhalation valve should not be used in the community to limit SARS-CoV-2 diffusion. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 2021, 42, 369–370. [Google Scholar]
86. Kirubarajan, A.; Khan, S.; Got, T.; Yau, M.; Bryan, J.M.; Friedman, S.M. Mask shortage during epidemics and pandemics: a scoping review of interventions to overcome limited supply. BMJ open 2020, 10, e040547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
87. Shin, H.; Tunca, T.I. Do firms invest in forecasting efficiently? The effect of competition on demand forecast investments and supply chain coordination. Operations research 2010, 58, 1592–1610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
88. An, C.; Fromm, H. Supply chain management on demand: Strategies and technologies, applications; Springer Science & Business Media, 2005. [Google Scholar]
89. Li, P. Supply chain management; BoD–Books on Demand, 2011. [Google Scholar]
90. Francis, J.R. COVID-19: implications for supply chain management. Frontiers of health services management 2020, 37, 33–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
91. Rowan, N.J.; Laffey, J.G. Challenges and solutions for addressing critical shortage of supply chain for personal and protective equipment (PPE) arising from Coronavirus disease (COVID19) pandemic–Case study from the Republic of Ireland. Science of the Total Environment 2020, 725, 138532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
92. Miller, F.A.; Young, S.B.; Dobrow, M.; Shojania, K.G. Vulnerability of the medical product supply chain: the wake-up call of COVID-19. BMJ quality & safety 2021, 30, 331–335. [Google Scholar]
93. Armani, A.M.; Hurt, D.E.; Hwang, D.; McCarthy, M.C.; Scholtz, A. Low-tech solutions for the COVID-19 supply chain crisis. Nature Reviews Materials 2020, 5, 403–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
94. Schwartz, A.; Stiegel, M.; Greeson, N.; Vogel, A.; Thomann, W.; Brown, M.; Sempowski, G.D.; Alderman, T.S.; Condreay, J.P.; Burch, J. Decontamination and reuse of N95 respirators with hydrogen peroxide vapor to address worldwide personal protective equipment shortages during the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic. Applied Biosafety 2020, 25, 67–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
95. Boškoski, I.; Gallo, C.; Wallace, M.B.; Costamagna, G. COVID-19 pandemic and personal protective equipment shortage: protective efficacy comparing masks and scientific methods for respirator reuse. Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2020, 92, 519–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
96. Rubio-Romero, J.C.; del Carmen Pardo-Ferreira, M.; Torrecilla-García, J.A.; Calero-Castro, S. Disposable masks: Disinfection and sterilization for reuse, and non-certified manufacturing, in the face of shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic. Safety Sci. 2020, 129, 104830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
97. Gilbert, R.M.; Donzanti, M.J.; Minahan, D.J.; Shirazi, J.; Hatem, C.L.; Hayward-Piatkovskyi, B.; Dang, A.M.; Nelson, K.M.; Bothi, K.L.; Gleghorn, J.P. Mask reuse in the COVID-19 pandemic: creating an inexpensive and scalable ultraviolet system for filtering facepiece respirator decontamination. Global Health: Science and Practice 2020, 8, 582–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
98. Gibson, C.; Carr, C.; Lyons, C.; Taksa, L.; Warren, A. COVID-19 and the shifting industrial landscape. Geographical Research 2021, 59, 196–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
99. Nilasaroya, A.; Kop, A.M.; Collier, R.C.; Kennedy, B.; Kelsey, L.J.; Pollard, F.; Ha, J.F.; Morrison, D.A. Establishing local manufacture of PPE for healthcare workers in the time of a global pandemic. Heliyon 2023, 9, e13349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
100. Cameron, S.; Cheung, W.; Cronin, N.; Griffiths, K.; Hunt, R.; Innes, L.; Kol, M.; Lawrence, A.; Shah, A.; Skylas, K.; et al. Quantitative fit testing with limited supplies of respirator masks in hospital personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic. Australian Health Review 2020, 44, 542–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
101. Spennemann, D.H.R. “COVID has been good to me”. The Artefact 2022, 44, 10–16. [Google Scholar]
102. Washington Post Staff. How to sew your own fabric mask. Available online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/05/how-sew-your-own-fabric-mask/ (accessed on Feb 20, 2023).
103. Ammendolia, J.; Coalition, C.O.L.; Saturno, J.; Jacobs, S. Environmental concern emerges from COVID-19 pandemic: PPE waste by the public. Can. Sci. Policy Cent 2020. [Google Scholar]
104. Wang, Z.; Guy, C.; Ng, K.T.W.; An, C. A new challenge for the management and disposal of personal protective equipment waste during the COVID-19 pandemic. 2021, 13, 7034.
105. Islam, S.D.-U.; Safiq, M.B.; Bodrud-Doza, M.; Mamun, M.A. Perception and attitudes toward PPE-related waste disposal amid COVID-19 in Bangladesh: an exploratory study. Frontiers in Public Health 2020, 8, 592345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
106. Nowakowski, P.; Kuśnierz, S.; Sosna, P.; Mauer, J.; Maj, D. Disposal of personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic is a challenge for waste collection companies and society: a case study in Poland. Resources 2020, 9, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
107. Olatayo, K.I.; Mativenga, P.T.; Marnewick, A.L. COVID-19 PPE plastic material flows and waste management: Quantification and implications for South Africa. Science of the Total Environment 2021, 790, 148190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
108. Jiang, M.; Dodoo, N.A. Promoting Mask-Wearing in COVID-19 Brand Communications: Effects of Gain-Loss Frames, Self-or Other-Interest Appeals, and Perceived Risks. Journal of Advertising 2021, 50, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
109. Wang, Y.; Feng, D.; Ho, W.Y.J. Identity, lifestyle, and face-mask branding: A social semiotic multimodal discourse analysis. Multimodality & Society 2021, 1, 216–237. [Google Scholar]
110. Faruque, Z. Know how to manage face-mask branding in the time of COVID-19. Campus Legal Advisor 2020, 21, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
111. Chughtai, A.A.; Seale, H.; Macintyre, C.R. Effectiveness of cloth masks for protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Emerging infectious diseases 2020, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
112. Ataei, M.; Shirazi, F.M.; Nakhaee, S.; Abdollahi, M.; Mehrpour, O. Assessment of cloth masks ability to limit Covid-19 particles spread: a systematic review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2022, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
113. Narayan, Y.; Chatterjee, S.; Agrawal, A.; Bhardwaj, R. Assessing effectiveness and comfortability of a two-layer cloth mask with a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) insert to mitigate COVID-19 transmission. Physics of Fluids 2022, 34, 061703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
114. Tanisali, G.; Sozak, A.; Bulut, A.S.; Sander, T.Z.; Dogan, O.; Dağ, Ç.; Gönen, M.; Can, F.; DeMirci, H.; Ergonul, O. Effectiveness of different types of mask in aerosol dispersion in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2021, 109, 310–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
115. Andrejko, K.L.; Pry, J.M.; Myers, J.F.; Fukui, N.; DeGuzman, J.L.; Openshaw, J.; Watt, J.P.; Lewnard, J.A.; Jain, S.; COVID, C. Effectiveness of face mask or respirator use in indoor public settings for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection—California, February–December 2021. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2022, 71, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
116. Duncan, S.; Bodurtha, P.; Naqvi, S. The protective performance of reusable cloth face masks, disposable procedure masks, KN95 masks and N95 respirators: Filtration and total inward leakage. PloS one 2021, 16, e0258191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
117. Pieris, A.; Lozanovska, M.; Dellios, A.; Miller-Yeaman, R.; Eklund, E.; Beynon, D.; Tuffin, R. Industrial sites and immigrant architectures. A case study approach. Fabrications 2019, 29, 257–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
118. Mandavilli, A. The C.D.C. concedes that cloth masks do not protect against the virus as effectively as other masks [New York Times]. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/14/health/cloth-masks-covid-cdc.html (accessed on Feb 20, 2023).
119. Morris, L.; Noack, R. Europe’s growing mask ask: Ditch the cloth ones for medical-grade coverings [The Washington Post]. Available online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/europe-coronavirus-masks-regulations/2021/01/20/23463c08-5a74-11eb-a849-6f9423a75ffd_story.html (accessed on Feb 12, 2023).
120. Nirappil, F. Time to double or upgrade masks as coronavirus variants emerge, experts say. Available online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/01/27/double-mask-variants-guidance/ (accessed on Feb 12, 2023).
121. Commissioner, H.C. Wearing a face mask in Healthcare settings. Available online: https://hcc.vic.gov.au/public/wearing-face-mask-healthcare-settings (accessed on Feb 20, 2023).