Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 3 (2021) 100082

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering

journal homepage: www.editorialmanager.com/cscee/default.aspx

Fate of disposable face masks in high-solids anaerobic digestion:

Experimental observations and review of potential
environmental implications
Felipe Pereira de Albuquerque a, Mayank Dhadwal a, Wafa Dastyar a,
Seyed Mohammad Mirsoleimani Azizi a, Ibrahim Karidio b, Hamid Zaman a, b,
Bipro Ranjan Dhar a, *
a
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
b
Edmonton Waste Management Centre, City of Edmonton, Edmonton, AB, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Face masks became a part of our daily life amid the global COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Most of the face
COVID-19 masks are made for single-use and primarily disposed of in garbage bins with other non-recyclable wastes. To
SARS-CoV-2 date, little is known about how disposable face masks in municipal solid waste (MSW) would interfere with high-
Disposable face mask
solids anaerobic digestion (HSAD) in waste management facilities. Here, we first report preliminary results from a
Organic fraction of municipal solid waste
High-solids anaerobic digestion
lab experiment conducted with the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) amended with used
Waste management disposable face masks. The lab-scale HSAD systems were operated with percolate recirculation comparable to
commercial HSAD systems typically used for full-scale processing of OFMSW. The results suggested that the
presence of face masks in OFMSW could negatively affect methane productivity and kinetics. In the digesters
amended with face masks, total cumulative methane production decreased by up to 18%, along with a 12–29%
decrease in maximum methane production rates than the control digester (without face masks). Moreover, lag
phases increased by 7–14%. The results also suggested that the type of polymeric materials used in face masks
would be more critical than their total number/loading in the digester, which warrants further investigation. The
visual inspection of digestate showed that the face masks were mostly undegraded after 40 days of operation.
Much remains unknown about how the undegraded face masks will affect the digestate management practices,
such as composting, land application, and landfilling. However, the review of existing literature suggested that
they can be a potential source of plastic and microplastic pollution and amplify transmission of antibiotic resis-
tance genes to the ecosystem. In summary, this study underscores the importance of developing safe and reliable
disposal guidelines and management plans for single-use face masks.

1. Introduction
As the COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic continues, the efforts to
stop the spread of the virus have prompted the municipal solid waste
(MSW) generation rate in cities around the globe [1–3]. Particularly,
MSW characteristics and volume are considerably influenced by face
masks, gloves, and other personal protective equipment (PPE) [4–6].
Notably, the recommendation/requirement of using face masks in public
or crowded spaces has triggered the massive use of face masks (mostly
non-medical) worldwide [7,8]. The global demand for disposable face
masks (which should not be worn longer than a few hours) was estimated
at 129 billion per month to protect public health amid COVID-19 [9]. The
disposable or single-use face masks are primarily disposed of in the waste
bin [10] with other non-recyclable items. In municipalities without res-
idential source separated organics (SSO) program, face masks can be
commingled with landfill items and organic wastes. After removing
landfill items from commingled waste, organic fraction of solid waste
(OFMSW) can be collected for biological treatment (e.g., composting,
anaerobic digestion) [11]. Thus, depending on the sorting process (e.g.,
manual separation, trommel, etc.) used for screening out of landfill items,
face masks may end up in OFMSW. It is still unknown how face masks in
OFMSW would affect the biological processes in waste management

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bipro@ualberta.ca (B.R. Dhar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2021.100082
Received 18 December 2020; Received in revised form 12 January 2021; Accepted 16 January 2021
2666-0164/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
F. Pereira de Albuquerque et al.
facilities.
High-solids anaerobic digestion (HSAD) of OFMSW, which is also
known as dry anaerobic digestion, is an increasingly adopted practice by
many cities and municipalities in North American and European coun-
tries [12]. For instance, a full-scale HSAD facility with an annual capacity
of processing 40,000 tonnes of OFMSW has been integrated into the City
of Edmonton’s Waste Management Centre (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada).
In addition to handling heterogeneous feedstock like OFMSW, lignocel-
lulose biomass, etc. HSAD alleviates the requirement of dewatering of
residuals (i.e., digestate), which is typical for low-solids/wet-type
anaerobic digestion [13,14]. Moreover, HSAD systems require less
heating cost due to low water content in feedstock and/or smaller
digester footprints [15]. A majority of full-scale commercial HSAD sys-
tems are based on modular system design combining digester tanks for
solids and percolate storage tanks [16–18]. The recirculation of percolate
(also called leachate) between the digester and percolate storage tanks
provides homogenization of organics and nutrients, which is critical
because high-solids digester is typically operated without any active
mixing [16,18,19]. Due to high heterogeneity and solids content in
OFMSW, HSAD is used instead of low-solids/wet-type anaerobic diges-
tion [12,16]. However, based on the authors’ knowledge, there has been
almost no research looking at how face masks can potentially affect
HSAD performance amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Single-use face masks are manufactured from various polymeric
materials such as polypropylene, polyurethane, polyacrylonitrile, poly-
ethylene, polystyrene, etc. [20–22]. A few studies already identified
disposable face masks as emerging sources of microplastics contamina-
tion of our ecosystem [20–22]. There have been shreds of evidence that
microplastics compounds can adversely affect methanogenic commu-
nities in anaerobic digesters [23–25]. However, based on the authors’
knowledge, the potential impact of face masks in OFMSW on HSAD
performance and operation is still unknown. Although the use of face
masks is critical to slow down the spread of the COVID-19 outbreak, it is
desirable to estimate the potential environmental risks associated with
the uncontrolled disposal of single-use face masks. Consequently, in this
study, we investigated the impact of disposable face masks on the per-
formance of lab-scale HSAD systems with percolate recirculation.
Furthermore, we briefly reviewed existing literature to provide an
outlook on the possible environmental consequences of undegraded face
Fig. 1. Photographs of (a) organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW), (b) biosolids, (c) lab-scale HSAD systems consisting of the digester and percolate tanks,
(d) interior of the digester tank with stainless mesh plate in the base separating its upper and bottom sections, and (e) disposable face masks mixed with OFMSW and
biosolids for loading in digester tanks.
2
Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 3 (2021) 100082
masks in the digestate of the HSAD process. We acknowledge that there
have been concerns regarding the potential spread of the virus through
inappropriate handling of infected face masks and medical waste [3,26].
It should be noted that these aspects were not considered within the
scope of this preliminary study.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Experiments
OFMSW and solid inoculum were obtained from the Edmonton Waste
Management Centre (EWMC), operated by the City of Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada. Dewatering centrate from anaerobic digester sludge
collected from the Gold Bar Wastewater Treatment Plant (Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada) was used as the percolate (liquid inoculum) in this
study. After sampling, OFMSW and inoculums (solid and liquid) were
stored in plastic containers in a cold room at 4  C. As the City of
Edmonton currently does not have a source separated organics (SSO)
program, OFMSW was a blend of food waste, lawn trimmings, paper,
wood, and few fragments of plastics and metals (Fig. 1a). Based on visual
inspection, large pieces of inorganic materials were removed, and the
remaining feedstock was manually homogenized before loading to the
digesters. The average characteristics of OFMSW were as follows: mois-
ture content (MC): 72.03  3.31%; total solids (TS): 28.95  3.31%, and
volatile solids (VS): 21.03  2.91%, respectively. Dewatered biosolids
(digested sewage sludge) was used as the solid inoculum in this study
(Fig. 1b). The average characteristics of biosolids (solid inoculum) were
as follows: MC: 76.87  0.86%; TS: 23.56  0.86%, and VS: 12.84 
0.47%. The average characteristics of percolate (liquid inoculum) were:
MC: 94.17  0.14%; TS: 5.83  0.14%; VS: 0.04  0.00%; total chemical
oxygen demand (TCOD): 35,238  2069 mg/L; soluble chemical oxygen
demand (SCOD): 30,396  148 mg/L; total ammonia nitrogen (TAN):
2002  58 mg/L; alkalinity: 7957  303 mg/L as CaCO3; pH: 6.98 
0.01. Both solid and liquid inoculum were acclimated at ~37  C for about
two weeks before reactors’ start-up.
The experimental set-up used three identical lab-scale HSAD systems
(Fig. 1c). Each system was composed of a digester tank and a percolate
storage tank [27,28]. The digester tank was cylindrical, with a diameter
of 20 cm and a height of 50 cm. It was manufactured with polycarbonate
F. Pereira de Albuquerque et al. Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 3 (2021) 100082

and sub-divided into two sections by a stainless mesh plate (1 mm

thickness and ~2 mm holes diameter) (Fig. 1d). With approximately 1.5
L of volume, the bottom section of the tank had the purpose of collecting
the leachate (percolate). The upper section (~14.5 L) carried the OFMSW
plus the biosolids. To maintain an operating temperature of 36  2  C,
the upper section’s exterior wall was wrapped with heating tubes con-
nected to a circulating water bath. The tubes were then covered with
bubble-wrap insulators to minimize heat loss during operation. The
percolate tank was an anaerobic glass reactor with a mechanical mixer
equipped with an electrical motor, which was operated at 300 rpm
during operation. The percolate tanks were partially submerged in a
water bath to maintain a temperature of 37  2  C. The gas outlets of
both tanks were connected to an individual absorption trap bottle con-
taining a 3 M NaOH solution with a thymolphthalein pH-indicator to
capture acidic gases from the biogas (e.g., CO2, H2S, etc.) [27–29]. The
resulting methane volume was measured with wet-tip gas-flow meters
(ISES-Canada, Vaughan, ON, Canada). For experiments, digester tanks
were loaded with a 4 kg mixture of OFMSW and biosolids. The food to
microorganisms (F/M) ratio of the mixture was 2 (kg VSOFMSW/kg
VSBiosolids). Thus, the mixture contained 2.2 kg of OFMSW and 1.8 kg of
biosolids. Before loading feedstock to the digester, OFMSW and biosolids
were thoroughly mixed. The first reactor served as the control (No face
mask). For the test reactors T1 and T2, the mixture of OFMSW and bio-
solids were amended with 4 and 20 used disposable face masks,
respectively (Fig. 1e). The number of face masks added in reactor T1 was
based on an average MSW generation rate of 578 kg/capita/year among
17 developed countries [30]. Considering 40% of MSW is OFMSW, the
daily OFMSW generation rate was estimated at 0.6 kg/capita/day. Based
on the assumption that each person uses one disposable face mask per
day [3], 4 face masks were added for 2.2 kg OFMSW. For reactor T2, the
number of face masks was increased to 20 to represent OFMSW gener-
ated from sources other than residential, such as offices, schools, and
other institutions.
The disposable face masks were collected from a separate waste bin
dedicated to our lab members’ disposal of used face masks. The percolate
tanks of all systems were filled with 2.5 L of liquid inoculum (i.e.,
percolate). During operation, percolate was recirculated between the
digester and percolate storage tanks for 1.5 h/d (rate of 100 mL/min) for
the first 27 days of operation. It should be noted that the operating
conditions (F/M ratio and percolate recirculation rate) were selected
based on the optimum operating conditions obtained from our pre- Fig. 2. (a) Daily, and (b) cumulative methane production from the control and
liminary experiments (results not shown). Following the loading process, test digesters.
all reactors were sealed and purged with ultra-pure nitrogen gas to
ensure anaerobic conditions. The methane production from reactors was first two days of operation (see Fig. 2a). As suggested in the literature,
monitored regularly. such high methane production at the beginning of start-up period could
have resulted from the utilization of readily biodegradable organics
2.2. Analytical methods and kinetic analysis available in the feedstock [28]. From day 3, the lag phase (daily CH4
production <1 L/d) was noticeable in all reactors, which continued until
The MC, TS, VS, and alkalinity were measured according to Standard day 10, then the exponential phase began. It was apparent that the daily
Methods [31]. HACH reagent kits (HACH, Loveland, CO, USA) were used methane production for the test digesters (T1 and T2 loaded with face
to determine COD and TAN concentrations. The methanogenesis process masks) was considerably lower than the control (without face mask)
kinetics were evaluated with the modified Gompertz kinetic model, as during most of the period of this exponential phase. This observation
described in the literature [32]. The modified Gompertz kinetic model indicates that the presence of face masks in the feedstock adversely
was used to estimate the best-fit values of the maximum methane pro- affected the methanogenesis kinetics.
duction rate (R, L/d) and lag phase time (λ, d). The experimentally The control digester showed a maximum daily methane production of
measured total cumulative methane production was used as the 13 L on day 24, while both test digesters showed the maximum daily
maximum methane production (Vm, L) for the estimation of kinetic pa- methane production on day 25 (T1: 10 L, T2: 13 L) (see Fig. 2a). The
rameters (R and λ) [32]. cumulative methane production from the control on day 24 was 116 L,
which was considerably higher than the cumulative methane from test
3. Results and discussion digesters (T1: 69 L, T2: 83 L) (see Fig. 2b). After reaching the maximum
daily methane production, methane production from all digesters started
3.1. Degradability of disposable face masks and their impact on HSAD to decline. However, this pattern is quite typical for the batch high-solids
anaerobic digestion [27,28]. Unlike the exponential phase, the methane
Fig. 2 shows the daily and cumulative methane production from the productions from the test digesters loaded with face masks were slightly
control and test digesters. An immediate methane production (Control: higher than the control during this entire declining phase (see Fig. 2a).
5–14 L, T1: 4–14 L, T2: 4–9 L) was observed from all reactors during the

3
F. Pereira de Albuquerque et al. Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 3 (2021) 100082

Nonetheless, after 40 days of batch operation, the total cumulative significance of polymer types used in face masks rather than their total
methane generation for the control was 9–18% higher than the test di- loading in the digester. Different polymeric materials are used for
gesters (216.20 vs. 178.14 and 197.4 L) (see Fig. 2b). disposable face masks [21,22], and various types of polymers can lead to
It should be noted that full-scale HSAD digesters are typically oper- a different impact on anaerobic digestion (discussed earlier). This could
ated for a retention time of 28 days [17,18], while we continued this possibly explain our experimental observation (i.e., higher methane
experiment for 40 days as face masks loaded digesters were producing production from T2 than T1), which warrants further investigation.
more methane during the declining phase. After 28 days, the difference In addition to inhibition by microplastics or leaching of toxic com-
in the cumulative methane production between the control and test di- pounds, face masks can also create barriers to percolate distribution in
gesters were more prominent (157 vs. 104 and 126 L). Thus, the full-scale lab-scale digester tanks. Despite a more prolonged lag phase, the digester
facilities operated <30 days residence time may see a considerable loaded with 20 face masks (T2) provided higher methane production
decline in methane productivity due to the presence of face masks in than the one loaded with 4 face masks (T1). Moreover, the digesters
OFMSW. Interestingly, the digester loaded with 20 face masks (T2) loaded with face masks did not show any signs of additional clogging
showed appreciably higher methane production than the digester loaded with lower solid inoculum washout, as compared to the control. Hence,
with 4 face masks (T1). Thus, the results suggest that the characteristics the possibility or effect of localized mass transfer limitations can be ruled
of face masks (e.g., polymer types) would be more critical than their total out. We also envision that the clogging of full-scale digester by face masks
number/loading. would be quite unlikely or may not be realized depending on the design
Table 1 summarizes the best-fit values of maximum methane pro- of the recirculation system.
duction rates (R) and lag phases (λ) estimated using the modified Gom- Fig. 3 shows the photographs of digestate from the test digesters
pertz model. The estimated R value for the control was 12–29% higher loaded with face masks. For both test digesters, face masks remained
than the test conditions. The estimated λ values for the test digesters were undegraded. It should be noted that such a visual inspection does not rule
7–14% higher than the control. The R value for T2 (20 face masks) was out the possibility of leaching any toxic compounds during digestion.
considerably higher than T1 (4 face masks), while λ values showed an Nonetheless, it was evident that 40 days of mesophilic anaerobic diges-
opposite trend. Thus, the higher methane production rate in T2 ulti- tion was inadequate to provide complete disintegration/hydrolysis of
mately led to higher total cumulative methane production. face masks. To acquire insights on the environmental impacts that may
Previous reports suggested that degradation of disposable face masks result from face masks in digestate, we looked into the existing literature.
can release microplastic fibers [21,22]. As identified as an emerging
contaminant in sewage sludge, research on the fate and degradation of
microplastics in anaerobic digestion has already received considerable
attention [23,33,34]. These studies reported the inhibitory effects of
microplastics on methanogenesis kinetics. The leaching of toxic com-
pounds from microplastics has been identified as an inhibition mecha-
nism. For instance, polyvinyl chloride can leach toxic bisphenol-A (BPA)
during anaerobic digestion that can inhibit methanogens [24]. However,
there have also been reports on the positive impact of microplastics on
the anaerobic digestion process when their concentration was within
certain limits. For instance, polyamide microplastics could enhance
fermentation and methanogenesis kinetics in anaerobic digestion by
leaching caprolactam, which could promote activities of key enzymes
associated with these biochemical steps [35]. During bio-
logical/chemical degradation, polymeric materials used in face masks
can release various toxic compounds, such as polybrominated biphenyl
ether, phthalate, nonylphenol, triclosan, etc. [21]. Based on the previous
reports, some of these compounds (e.g., triclosan) could inhibit the
anaerobic digestion process [36]. In contrast, others (e.g., nonylphenol,
phthalate, polybrominated biphenyl ether) can be degraded in anaerobic
digesters depending on the operating conditions (e.g., temperature)
[37–39]. These previous findings suggest that the potential effects and
anaerobic degradability of microplastics or compounds leached from
microplastics would depend on their type (e.g., chemical structure).
Thus, these previous reports indirectly support our notion of the higher

Table 1
The estimated methanogenesis kinetic parameters.
Conditions Maximum Maximum Standard Lag Standard
methane methane error for phase, error for λ
production, production R λ (d)
Vm (L)a rate, R (L/d)

Control 214.83 11.44 0.70 13.05 0.62

(No face
mask)
T1 (4 face 175.24 8.10 0.58 13.98 0.83
masks)
T1 (20 194.34 10.12 0.57 14.89 0.58
face
masks)
Fig. 3. Photographs showing undegraded face masks in the digestate collected
a
Experimental total cumulative methane production. after 40 days of operation of test reactors: (a) T1, and (b) T2.

4
F. Pereira de Albuquerque et al.
3.2. Possible environmental consequences
Depending on the waste management facilities, the management of
digestate from anaerobic digestion may include landfilling or lime sta-
bilization/composting followed by land application. Aerobic composting
of digestate is used by many waste management facilities. During the
composting process, the temperature of the compost pile can reach up to
70  C [40,41]. Recently, thermophilic and hyperthermophile (>90  C)
composting processes showed effectiveness in degrading plastics [42,
43]. However, some microplastics may have high thermal stability [44],
and may not be degraded effectively without any thermochemical con-
version processes like gasification, pyrolysis, etc. [20]. Lime stabilization
of digestate is often practiced for removing pathogens before land
application [43,45]. It has been reported that lime application to diges-
tate can disintegrate plastics into microplastics [43,45]. The land appli-
cation of digestate is considered one of the major routes for transmitting
antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs) to the environment [46], while
microplastics can adsorb antibiotics and also serve as potential carriers
Fig. 4. A conceptual representation of how face masks in digestate can amplify transmission of ARGs to the environment through landfilling and land application
of digestate.
5
Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 3 (2021) 100082
for ARGs [47,48]. Thus, microplastics released from face masks in
digestate may amplify the transmission of ARGs to our ecosystem via the
land application. Also, sending the digestate to the landfill may not
provide a suitable solution [22]. Microplastics released from landfilled
plastic waste can also serve as potential carriers for ARGs and stimulate
the propagation of ARGs to the landfill leachate [49]. Ultimately, it can
provide a gateway for the transmission of ARGs from landfills to the
groundwater [49]. Therefore, future research should examine the re-
lationships between face masks in OFMSW on the possible transmission
of ARGs to our ecosystem. Fig. 4 provides a conceptual representation of
how face masks in digestate can increase transmission of ARGs to the
environment via landfilling and land application.
Based on these, we cannot afford to overlook such significant envi-
ronmental consequences of the unregulated disposal of used face masks
or disposal of digestate having undegraded face masks. Thermochemical
valorization of face masks through pyrolysis has already been proposed
in the literature [20]. Thus, thermochemical conversion processes (e.g.,
pyrolysis, gasification) may provide an environmentally benign solution
F. Pereira de Albuquerque et al.
to divert digestate having face masks from the landfill or land applica-
tion. However, to date, only a few waste management facilities in the
world have full-scale MSW-based thermochemical processes [50]. Thus,
more research is encouraged to address the environmental consequences
of face masks in digestate. Although there has been significant progress
towards COVID-19 vaccine developments, face masks will not go away
immediately. Face masks will be remained as a part of our life for at least
several more months. In addition to addressing immediate concerns
regarding disposable face masks, this is an opportunity to develop
innovative technologies for sustainable plastic waste management, an
existing challenge for waste management industries.
4. Conclusions
Most of the municipalities in Canada and other countries recom-
mended their citizen to keep used face masks out of recycling bins.
Therefore, disposing of them in garbage bins with other non-recyclable
wastes became a common practice. For municipalities without a resi-
dential source separated organics (SSO) program, face masks will
potentially end up in OFMSW used for biological waste treatment like
high-solids anaerobic digestion. Our results suggested that face masks in
OFMSW could negatively impact high-solids anaerobic digestion, while
more research is encouraged to understand the underlying mechanisms.
The available literature indicates that undegraded face masks in digestate
may pose significant threats to our ecosystem, like microplastic pollution
and enhanced transmission of antibiotic resistance genes. Therefore, a
better disposal and management plan (e.g., pre-processing of OFMSW
and/or post-processing of digestate) for single-use face masks should be
developed. Although our crucial priority these days is to safeguard public
health and the economy, this is an opportunity to improve our waste
management practices and build a resilient waste management infra-
structure from the challenges and lessons learned amid the COVID-19
pandemic.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the
publication of this research manuscript.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (Discovery Grant). The authors sincerely
acknowledge Jennifer Chiang (Edmonton Waste Management Centre,
Edmonton, Alberta) and Hok Nam Joey Ting (Dr. Dhar’s Lab) for their
kind assistance with the sampling of OFMSW and biosolids.
References
[1] B.N. Kulkarni, V. Anantharama, Repercussions of COVID-19 pandemic on municipal
solid waste management: challenges and opportunities, Sci. Total Environ. (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140693.
[2] Y. Van Fan, P. Jiang, M. Hemzal, J.J. Kleme
s, An update of COVID-19 influence on
waste management, Sci. Total Environ. (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2020.142014.
[3] S. Sangkham, Face mask and medical waste disposal during the novel COVID-19
pandemic in Asia, Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. (2020), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cscee.2020.100052.
[4] A.D. Zand, A.V. Heir, Emerging challenges in urban waste management in Tehran,
Iran during the COVID-19 pandemic, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. (2020), https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105051.
[5] C. Nzediegwu, S.X. Chang, Improper solid waste management increases potential
for COVID-19 spread in developing countries, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104947.
[6] G.E. De-la-Torre, T.A. Aragaw, What we need to know about PPE associated with
the COVID-19 pandemic in the marine environment, Mar. Pollut. Bull. (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111879.
[7] W. Lyu, G.L. Wehby, Community Use of Face Masks and COVID-19: Evidence from a
Natural Experiment of State Mandates in the US, Health Aff, 2020, https://doi.org/
10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818.
6
Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 3 (2021) 100082
[8] S. Rab, M. Javaid, A. Haleem, R. Vaishya, Face masks are new normal after COVID-
19 pandemic, Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Clin. Res. Rev. (2020), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.dsx.2020.08.021.
[9] J.C. Prata, A.L.P. Silva, T.R. Walker, A.C. Duarte, T. Rocha-Santos, COVID-19
pandemic repercussions on the use and management of plastics, Environ. Sci.
Technol. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02178.
[10] M.T. Rn, Y.W. Rn, L. Luo, J.H. Rn, How the public used face masks in China during
the coronavirus disease pandemic: a survey study, Int. J. Nurs. Stud. (2020)
103853, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103853.
[11] A.R. Ashkiki, C. Felske, D. McCartney, Impacts of seasonal variation and operating
parameters on double-stage trommel performance, Waste Manag. (2019), https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.01.026.
[12] W.P. Clarke, The uptake of anaerobic digestion for the organic fraction of municipal
solid waste – push versus pull factors, Bioresour. Technol. (2018), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2017.10.086.
[13] P. Michele, D. Giuliana, M. Carlo, S. Sergio, A. Fabrizio, Optimization of solid state
anaerobic digestion of the OFMSW by digestate recirculation: a new approach,
Waste Manag. (2015), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.09.009.
[14] Y. Li, S.Y. Park, J. Zhu, Solid-state anaerobic digestion for methane production from
organic waste, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. (2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2010.07.042.
[15] V. Pastor-Poquet, S. Papirio, E. Trably, J. Rintala, R. Escudie, G. Esposito, High-
solids anaerobic digestion requires a trade-off between total solids, inoculum-to-
substrate ratio and ammonia inhibition, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. (2019),
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-019-02264-z.
[16] I. Rocamora, S.T. Wagland, R. Villa, E.W. Simpson, O. Fernandez, Y. Baj on-
Fernandez, Dry anaerobic digestion of organic waste: a review of operational
parameters and their impact on process performance, Bioresour. Technol. (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122681.
[17] A. Chiumenti, F. da Borso, S. Limina, Dry anaerobic digestion of cow manure and
agricultural products in a full-scale plant: efficiency and comparison with wet
fermentation, Waste Manag. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2017.03.046.
[18] E. Lee, D.S.B.L. Oliveira, L.S.B.L. Oliveira, E. Jimenez, Y. Kim, M. Wang, S.J. Ergas,
Q. Zhang, Comparative environmental and economic life cycle assessment of high
solids anaerobic co-digestion for biosolids and organic waste management, Water
Res. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.115443.
[19] O.P. Karthikeyan, C. Visvanathan, Bio-energy recovery from high-solid organic
substrates by dry anaerobic bio-conversion processes: a review, Rev. Environ. Sci.
Biotechnol. (2013), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-012-9304-9.
[20] S. Jung, S. Lee, X. Dou, E.E. Kwon, Valorization of disposable COVID-19 mask
through the thermo-chemical process, Chem. Eng. J. (2021), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cej.2020.126658.
[21] T.A. Aragaw, Surgical face masks as a potential source for microplastic pollution in
the COVID-19 scenario, Mar. Pollut. Bull. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.marpolbul.2020.111517.
[22] O.O. Fadare, E.D. Okoffo, Covid-19 face masks: a potential source of microplastic
fibers in the environment, Sci. Total Environ. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2020.140279.
[23] L. Li, S. Geng, Z. Li, K. Song, Effect of microplastic on anaerobic digestion of wasted
activated sludge, Chemosphere (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chemosphere.2020.125874.
[24] W. Wei, Q.S. Huang, J. Sun, J.Y. Wang, S.L. Wu, B.J. Ni, Polyvinyl chloride
microplastics affect methane production from the anaerobic digestion of waste
activated sludge through leaching toxic bisphenol-A, Environ. Sci. Technol. (2019),
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b07069.
[25] J. Zhang, M. Zhao, C. Li, H. Miao, Z. Huang, X. Dai, W. Ruan, Evaluation the impact
of polystyrene micro and nanoplastics on the methane generation by anaerobic
digestion, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecoenv.2020.111095.
[26] A. Tripathi, V.K. Tyagi, V. Vivekanand, P. Bose, S. Suthar, Challenges, opportunities
and progress in solid waste management during COVID-19 pandemic, Case Stud.
Chem. Environ. Eng. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2020.100060.
[27] B. Chowdhury, S.B. Magsi, H.N. Joey Ting, B.R. Dhar, High-solids Anaerobic
Digestion Followed by Ultrasonication of Digestate and Wet-type Anaerobic
Digestion for Enhancing Methane Yield from OFMSW, Processes, 2020, https://
doi.org/10.3390/PR8050555.
[28] H.N.J. Ting, L. Lin, R.B. Cruz, B. Chowdhury, I. Karidio, H. Zaman, B.R. Dhar,
Transitions of microbial communities in the solid and liquid phases during high-
solids anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste, Bioresour.
Technol. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123951.
[29] J. Ryue, L. Lin, Y. Liu, W. Lu, D. McCartney, B.R. Dhar, Comparative effects of GAC
addition on methane productivity and microbial community in mesophilic and
thermophilic anaerobic digestion of food waste, Biochem. Eng. J. 146 (2019)
79–87, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2019.03.010.
[30] CBC News, (n.d.) Canadians produce more garbage than anyone else, https://www
.cbc.ca/news/business/canadians-produce-more-garbage-thananyone-else-
1.1394020. (Accessed 5 January 2021).
[31] APHA, Standard Method for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1999,
https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2013.0216.
[32] P. Zhou, M.N.A. Meshref, B. Ranjan, Bioresource Technology Optimization of
thermal hydrolysis process for enhancing anaerobic digestion in a wastewater
treatment plant with existing primary sludge fermentation, Bioresour. Technol. 321
(2021) 124498, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124498.
F. Pereira de Albuquerque et al.
[33] W. Wei, Q.S. Huang, J. Sun, X. Dai, B.J. Ni, Revealing the mechanisms of
polyethylene microplastics affecting anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge,
Environ. Sci. Technol. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b02971.
[34] X. Zhang, J. Chen, J. Li, The removal of microplastics in the wastewater treatment
process and their potential impact on anaerobic digestion due to pollutants
association, Chemosphere (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chemosphere.2020.126360.
[35] H. Chen, M. Tang, X. Yang, Y.F. Tsang, Y. Wu, D. Wang, Y. Zhou, Polyamide 6
microplastics facilitate methane production during anaerobic digestion of waste
activated sludge, Chem. Eng. J. (2020) 127251, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cej.2020.127251.
[36] P.J. McNamara, T.M. Lapara, P.J. Novak, The impacts of triclosan on anaerobic
community structures, function, and antimicrobial resistance, Environ. Sci.
Technol. (2014), https://doi.org/10.1021/es501388v.
[37] N. Paterakis, T.Y. Chiu, Y.K.K. Koh, J.N. Lester, E.J. McAdam, M.D. Scrimshaw,
A. Soares, E. Cartmell, The effectiveness of anaerobic digestion in removing
estrogens and nonylphenol ethoxylates, J. Hazard Mater. (2012), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.10.075.
[38] H.N. Gavala, F. Alatriste-Mondragon, R. Iranpour, B.K. Ahring, Biodegradation of
phthalate esters during the mesophilic anaerobic digestion of sludge, Chemosphere
(2003), https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(03)00126-7.
[39] C. Shi, Y. Hu, T. Kobayashi, N. Zhang, H. Kuramochi, Z. Zhang, K.Q. Xu, Anaerobic
degradation of deca-brominated diphenyl ether contaminated in products: effect of
temperature on degradation characteristics, Bioresour. Technol. (2019), https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.03.059.
€
[40] D. Van, Than, Plastic Waste in Composting of Biowaste at HSY Amm€ assuo Biowaste
Treatment Facility, 2020.
[41] D. Elango, N. Thinakaran, P. Panneerselvam, S. Sivanesan, Thermophilic
composting of municipal solid waste, Appl. Energy (2009), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.06.009.
[42] N.K. Kalita, M.K. Nagar, C. Mudenur, A. Kalamdhad, V. Katiyar, Biodegradation of
modified Poly(lactic acid) based biocomposite films under thermophilic composting
Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 3 (2021) 100082
conditions, Polym. Test. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.polymertesting.2019.02.021.
[43] Z. Chen, W. Zhao, R. Xing, S. Xie, X. Yang, P. Cui, J. Lü, H. Liao, Z. Yu, S. Wang,
S. Zhou, Enhanced in situ biodegradation of microplastics in sewage sludge using
hyperthermophilic composting technology, J. Hazard Mater. (2020), https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121271.
[44] J.P. Da Costa, A.R. Nunes, P.S.M. Santos, A.V. Gir~ao, A.C. Duarte, T. Rocha-Santos,
Degradation of polyethylene microplastics in seawater: insights into the
environmental degradation of polymers, J. Environ. Sci. Heal. - Part A Toxic/
Hazardous Subst. Environ. Eng. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1080/
10934529.2018.1455381.
[45] A.M. Mahon, B. O’Connell, M.G. Healy, I. O’Connor, R. Officer, R. Nash,
L. Morrison, Microplastics in sewage sludge: effects of treatment, Environ. Sci.
Technol. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04048.
[46] Q. Sui, J. Zhang, M. Chen, J. Tong, R. Wang, Y. Wei, Distribution of antibiotic
resistance genes (ARGs) in anaerobic digestion and land application of swine
wastewater, Environ. Pollut. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.envpol.2016.03.038.
[47] S. Wang, N. Xue, W. Li, D. Zhang, X. Pan, Y. Luo, Selectively enrichment of
antibiotics and ARGs by microplastics in river, estuary and marine waters, Sci. Total
Environ. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134594.
[48] H. Dong, Y. Chen, J. Wang, Y. Zhang, P. Zhang, X. Li, J. Zou, A. Zhou, Interactions of
microplastics and antibiotic resistance genes and their effects on the aquaculture
environments, J. Hazard Mater. (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jhazmat.2020.123961.
[49] J. Shi, D. Wu, Y. Su, B. Xie, Nano)microplastics promote the propagation of
antibiotic resistance genes in landfill leachate, Environ. Sci. Nano. (2020), https://
doi.org/10.1039/d0en00511h.
[50] A. Borgogna, A. Salladini, L. Spadacini, A. Pitrelli, M.C. Annesini, G. Iaquaniello,
Methanol production from Refuse Derived Fuel: influence of feedstock composition
on process yield through gasification analysis, J. Clean. Prod. (2019), https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.185.