Search

One of the main preventive measures recognized by WHO and implemented to mitigate the COVID-19 epidemic impact, by controlling the transmission of coronavirus, was the use of a facemask. Since a facemask is an accessory that can be used several hours a day, through which the air we breathe passes, and which is in contact with the face skin, it must not cause discomfort to the wearer and must not contain toxic, irritating or sensitizing substances. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to identify the toxic chemical compounds present in the facemask material. Hence, the present study aims to discuss a proposal for a low-VOC emission label to be assigned to facemasks’ materials in terms of respiratory and skin health. Two types of tests were proposed, one for analysis of VOC emissions, to assess the user exposure by inhalation, and the other for analysis of the VOC content, for evaluating the user exposure by dermal contact. Nine facemasks of different types: surgical (M1–M3), FFP2 (M4–M6) and reusable (M7–M9), were tested according to these methods. Comparing all the analyzed facemask types, the calculated TVOC dose, resulting from the exposure by inhalation, is very diversified, with low and high values, varying between 0 (in M7) and 2374 µg/day (in M6). However, they are consistently higher for the three analyzed self-filtering FFP2 respirators (M4–M6). Concerning dermal exposure, it is not possible to generalize, but the reusable facemasks analyzed in this work (M7–M9) consistently present higher values of skin-sensitizing compounds than the disposable facemasks (M1–M6). An attempt was made to establish criteria for assigning the low-VOC emission label. The proposed values are suggestions, requiring further studies. The authors expect that the results of this study may lead to future implementation of standards and regulations regarding the chemical compounds present in facemasks materials.

Aims: Indoor air quality (IAQ) has attracted increased attention with the emergence of COVID-19. Ventilation is perhaps the area in which the most changes have been proposed in response to the emergency caused by this virus. However, other strategies are possible, such as source control and the extraction of pollutants. The latter incorporates clean technologies, an emergent area with respect to IAQ. Method: Various air treatment technologies can be used to control contaminants, which are reviewed and discussed in this work, including physicochemical technologies (e.g., filtration, adsorption, UV-photocatalytic oxidation, ultraviolet disinfection and ionization) and biological technologies (e.g., plant purification methods and microalgae-based methods). Results and interpretation: This work reviews currently available solutions and technologies for “cleaning” indoor air, with a focus on their advantages and disadvantages. One of the most common problems in this area is the emission of pollutants that are sometimes more dangerous to human health than those that the technologies were developed to remove. Another aspect to consider is the limitation of each technology in relation to the type of pollutants that need to be removed. Each of the investigated technologies works well for a family of pollutants with similar characteristics, but it is not applicable to all pollutant types. Thus, the optimal solution may involve the use of a combination of technologies to extend the scope of application, in addition to the development of new materials, for example, through the use of nanotechnology.

The world population is ageing, in particular in the developed world, with a significant increase in the percentage of people above 60 years old. They represent a segment of the population that is more vulnerable to adverse environmental conditions. Among them, indoor air quality is one of the most relevant, as elders spend comparatively more time indoors than younger generations. Furthermore, the recent COVID-19 pandemic contributed immensely to raising awareness of the importance of breathing air quality for human health and of the fact that indoor air is a vector for airborne infections and poisoning. Hence, this work reviews the state of the art regarding indoor air quality in elderly centers, considering the type of pollutants involved, their emission sources, and their health effects. Moreover, the influence of ventilation on air quality is also addressed. Notwithstanding the potential health problems with the corresponding costs and morbidity effects, only a few studies have considered explicitly indoor air quality and its impacts on elderly health. More studies are, therefore, necessary to objectively identify what are the impacts on the health of elderly people due to the quality of indoor air and how it can be improved, either by reducing the pollutants emission sources or by more adequate ventilation and thermal comfort strategies.