Md. Ehsanur Rashid,Raihan Ul Haque,Md. Rubel Khan,Md. Bashar Uddin,Zahidul Islam Khan,Md Atikul Islam,Towfik Aziz Kanon,Md. Washique Tonmoy
Implementation of jute-based nose holder in surgical masks to reduce plastic contamination
Surgical mask,COVID,Jute,Core yarn,Microplastic,Pollution
Plastic, in all its forms, always harms the environment, humans, and other living organisms. The coronavirus situation exacerbates the use of plastic products more than at any other time, of which surgical masks contribute to plastic pollution the most. These masks spread to terrestrial and aquatic environments, where they break down into even more noxious microplastics. These microplastics enter the human food chain through water and fish, causing severe damage to the lungs, kidneys, and intestines and even causing death. In this paper, a jute nose holder mask was prepared as an alternative to typical masks to reduce plastic pollution. The jute nose holder was produced with a modified jute flyer-spinning frame machine, where jute was used as the sheath and metal wire was applied as the core component. The nose holder was later coated with starch-based natural gum. Then, the non-woven fabric of 75 grams per square meter (GSM), and the jute nose holder were used to produce the alternative, environmentally friendly mask, which might reduce the 773 tons of plastic waste generated daily from the nose holder of the mask. This alternative mask was then distributed to 900 people for a survey to find out their opinion. From the results of the survey, it is seen that 82.6% of people felt no problem in the nose when they put on the given mask. 85.6% considered the mask more comfortable than the traditional mask, and it was rated above average by 79.8% of the surveyors. So, this study suggests that the given mask can be a sustainable alternative to traditional masks.
Implementation of jute-based nose holder in surgical masks to reduce plastic contamination

Plastic, in all its forms, always harms the environment, humans, and other living organisms. The coronavirus situation exacerbates the use of plastic products more than at any other time, of which surgical masks contribute to plastic pollution the most. These masks spread to terrestrial and aquatic environments, where they break down into even more noxious microplastics. These microplastics enter the human food chain through water and fish, causing severe damage to the lungs, kidneys, and intestines and even causing death. In this paper, a jute nose holder mask was prepared as an alternative to typical masks to reduce plastic pollution. The jute nose holder was produced with a modified jute flyer-spinning frame machine, where jute was used as the sheath and metal wire was applied as the core component. The nose holder was later coated with starch-based natural gum. Then, the non-woven fabric of 75 grams per square meter (GSM), and the jute nose holder were used to produce the alternative, environmentally friendly mask, which might reduce the 773 tons of plastic waste generated daily from the nose holder of the mask. This alternative mask was then distributed to 900 people for a survey to find out their opinion. From the results of the survey, it is seen that 82.6% of people felt no problem in the nose when they put on the given mask. 85.6% considered the mask more comfortable than the traditional mask, and it was rated above average by 79.8% of the surveyors. So, this study suggests that the given mask can be a sustainable alternative to traditional masks.

Surgical mask was the most popular among plastic items throughout the Covid 19 pandemic, given the estimated monthly worldwide use of 129 billion [1]. The situation is exacerbated more when world health organization (WHO) [2] and U.S. food and drug administration (FDA) [3] advised COVID 19 workers not to reuse their protective gear in order to lessen the infection. Even though COVID-19 has escalated the use of surgical masks, there has always been a demand for them worldwide. Surgical masks are extensively used in polluted countries to fight air pollution, driving up the demand for face masks. In 2015, air pollution was responsible for 21% of all cardiovascular fatalities worldwide, 25% of deaths from ischemic heart disease, 24% of stroke deaths, and 27% of lung cancer deaths [4]. Moreover, according to the WHO, air pollution causes 7 million premature deaths worldwide [5]. In a test, researchers from Edinburgh University discovered that surgical masks reduces the chance to spread coronavirus transmission risk by 90% [6]. Face masks were regularly adopted by scientists, engineers, medical experts, health workers, and employees in the pre-pandemic era, but now everyone is compelled to wear them [7]. Miners who do not utilize respirators are asked to wear protective masks [8]. The Construction Leadership Council (CLC) urges construction companies to continue instructing their employees to wear masks while working in confined spaces or on congested sites [9]. Employees in numerous manufacturing enterprises throughout the world use surgical masks to protect themselves from the hazards of the workplace. That is why surgical masks will be a part of everyday life for the foreseeable future [10] and the market size is expected to reach 87.67 billion USD by 2027 [11]. Surgical masks are composed of three parts: fabric, nose holder, and ear holder. The fabric is manufactured from various polymers (polyester, polypropylene, polyethene, polycarbonate, polyacrylonitrile) [12] utilizing various bonding processes, spun bond [13], melt-blown [14], electro spun [15] and a combination of all these [16]. The nose holders are of two types. One is formed entirely of polymeric materials (polypropylene, polyester, polyethene), whereas the other is formed by coating plastic polymers on a metal wire. The braided technique creates the third part, the ear holder. Raw materials include polyester and spandex threads. Consumers are throwing surgical masks in terrestrial environment due to the lack of awareness [17]. The masks are then carried to the water's surface by runoff and wind [18]. These hydrophobic masks clog sewage pipelines and lanes during this operation. Since these masks are not biodegradable, manual cleaning of the lanes and sewage is necessary. Furthermore, these masks break down into microplastics in various environments [19]. The fact that these masks are made of microplastics, which weather faster than conventional plastic materials, is even more worrisome [20]. Nano masks, which directly use nano-sized plastic fibers and provide a new source of nano plastic pollution, have been developed that exacerbate the situation [21]. In terrestrial ecosystems, soils have been a long-term and likely primary absorber of MPs [22]. Furthermore, littered plastics are discharged in sewage, where many MP fragments and microfibrils have already been discovered [23]. Sludge from sewage treatment plants is used as a cheap fertilizer in agricultural lands, and it is a typical practice in developing nations on a big scale [24]. These MPs have a deleterious effect on soil, the organisms that live in it, and the plants that grow in it (see Fig. 1). Additionally, as chemicals were required to make MPs, they may be harmful to soil-dwelling microorganisms [25]. Furthermore, MPs have been shown to reduce microbial population in the soil [26]. Since plants, organisms, and soil are all part of an ecosystem and interdependent, changing one negatively influenced the other. MPs have been discovered in the intestines of sea fish, a common source of protein [28]. Corals, phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish, sea urchins, lobsters, turtles, penguins, crabs, seabirds, and other creatures misinterpret these tiny fibers for food, causing them to be pushed up the nutritional food chain and causing havoc on the entire food chain [29]. Ingestion causes choking in the digestive organs and makes it difficult for animals to be nourished, leading to death from famine and malnutrition [30]. Microplastics have been detected in a broad range of human foodstuffs, including seafood [31], sea salt [32], drinking water [33], beer [34], sugar, and honey [35]. Seafood offers 20% of animal protein, making it one of the most essential protein sources for humans [36]. Moreover, over 90% of MPs were discovered in bottled water from various populated places [37]. Due to pollution, scientists are looking for substitutes for surgical masks and adjusting other areas of the system to lessen the impact of pollution. As an alternative to the synthetic materials used in disposable masks, many scientists have looked into the use of biodegradable polymers as filtering membranes, natural fibers with antibacterial/antimicrobial finishes, and cellulose and nanocellulose-based materials (in manufacturing) [38]. Synthetic fibers outperform biodegradable sustainable materials in terms of performance, ease of availability, and cost. There aren't many articles that study how well masks can be recycled into useful products. Varghese et al. synthesized a mixture of nitrile rubber and recycled polypropylene fibers with a maleic anhydride compatibilizer [39]. The developed blend exhibited improved thermomechanical characteristics, making it appropriate for many engineering fields. To manufacture knitted fabric, Ramasamy et al. blended waste polypropylene fibers from masks with virgin cotton in various ratios [40]. Compared to 100% virgin cotton yarn, they discovered that the quality of the yarn was poor. To promote its usage as packaging materials and cutlery, Pulikkalparambil et al. recycled disposable masks made of polypropylene fibers into composites reinforced with natural fibers (sisal and hemp) [41]. With the use of the melt extrusion technique, the discarded masks were chopped up and recycled. The recycled materials were then formed into pellets and tested for their mechanical, chemical, and thermal characteristics [42]. Crespo et al. also produced blends that can be processed using melt extrusion and injection moulding equipment and showed the mechanical recycling approach for the recycling of face masks. These materials are mentioned as being appropriate for applications including toys, shipping pallets, storage containers, and flower pots [43]. All of these studies are focused on recycling surgical mask ear holders and polypropylene from fabric. Yet, there hasn't been any research done to reduce or do away with the use of plastic in the masks' nose holders. If the nose holders are created from biodegradable materials, the surgical mask as a whole will eventually turn into a sustainable product. This paper shows the amount of plastic pollution caused by the nose holder from surgical masks. The research also discusses an alternative nose holder manufacturing system that utilizes environmentally friendly materials. Finally, a study of 900 people who consistently used a surgical mask with a modified nose holder made from jute fiber (JNHM) was conducted to obtain user feedback.

The materials used for the study to make nose holders include- • Jute fiber (Bangla White B Grade), collected from the jute laboratory of Bangladesh University of Textiles. • Metal wires (Diameter of 0.27 mm/32 Gauge), obtained from a local shop. • Natural gum (Starch-based).

In this study, the daily facemasks produced by each country were calculated as a product of the country's total population and a face mask acceptance rate by the urban population [44]. The following equations were used to compute the total daily and monthly facemask usage:where, = the estimated population of the country, = the percentage of urban population of the country, = the percentage of face mask acceptance rate, = the average daily face masks per capita. The average number of days per month was estimated as 30 days. Then the plastic pollution was caused by nose holders from daily and monthly facemasks usage was calculated according to the following equations:where, An = average plastic waste produced from one nose holder. Twelve hundred used masks were gathered from various sources. These masks are subsequently sterilized in hot water at 40 °C [45]. Following the disinfection process, they are dried and separated into several manufacturer categories (see Fig. 2(a–c)). It has been found that there are thirteen different manufacturing firms. The mean value of these specimens was determined using a box plot since the weight of the plastic in these 13 various types of nose holders varies (see Fig. 3). Using a boxplot seems feasible because it provides a five-number summary of plastic waste generated by one nose holder analysis. It gives an overview of data collected on an interval scale. It is useful for figuring out if a distribution is skewed and if the data set contains any potential outliers. When there are several observations, a boxplot is remarkably effective [58]. It also provides a visual representation, which makes it very simple to visualize.

The methodology entails using a modified jute flyer-spinning machine to spin composite core yarn [46]. The sheath material was jute fiber, and the core substance was metal wire. Finally, the core yarn was covered with natural gum and dried to eliminate the hairiness caused by protruding fibers in the yarn. The jute fiber (properties mentioned in Table 1) was sprayed with an 18.5% jute batching oil-in-water emulsion (20% oil on the weight of the fiber) and fed through a jute softener machine to soften the bark and gummy raw jute. The raw jute fiber becomes soft, pile able, and suitable for carding due to this treatment. These fibers were then stored for 24 h under a heavy fabric for pilling and conditioning. The conditioned fibers were then fed through two carding machines (a breaker card and a finisher card) to transform the jute reeds into a uniform fibrous strand called sliver. The finisher card sliver (a continuous length of fiber fleece that looks like tape) was then processed through three commercial jute drawing machines. The drawn sliver from the third drawing machine was used to spin core yarn, with 0.27 mm copper wire as the core and jute as the wrapping material. In a conventional jute spinning machine, an extra attachment was added to guarantee the continuous feed of the core material, and the yarn was stored in a spool. Finally, to reduce the hairiness of the protruding fibers, the stored yarn was coated with a starch-based organic gum and dried.

The masks were manufactured in conventional surgical mask making machine. The conventional nose holder reel was replaced with the newly produced jute nose holder reel. 75GSM non-woven polypropylene fabric was used as the fabric material.

In this study, the required data was collected through the convenience sampling strategy, a non-probability sampling methodology in which samples are acquired based on their accessibility to the researcher. This method was chosen because it is easier, takes less time, and is less costly. A total of 900 samples were collected for this experiment. The questionnaires were given to people between the ages of 10 and 64 who resided in urban and suburban areas. Responses were obtained from people with a variety of educational and professional backgrounds, including textile workers, university academics and scholars, doctors, businessmen, engineers, corporate leaders, students, and others. The respondents were given a survey with 26 questions and a surgical mask to be studied. In various contexts, dichotomous, multiple-choice, and Likert scale questions are used. With the Likert scale, there were five options ranging from incredibly awful to very ecstatic, with 1 being the poorest and 5 being the most excellent. There are three sections to the questionnaire. The first step is to get some basic information about the respondents. The second section focuses on the respondents' health and surgical mask usage habits. The final section includes questions about the mask used in this study. The majority of participants (80%) were male and 20% were female who voluntarily participated in the survey. The age groups were as follows: 6% (10–17 years), 24.8% (18–25 years), 50% (26–35 years), 16.9% (36–55 years), and 2% (55–64 years), with an average age of 29.72 years and a standard deviation of 9.102. The first age group (10–17 years) was considered to demonstrate the product's acceptance among the young.

This study aims to determine the overall experience of mask users with a new environmentally friendly product. The variables under consideration are the following: the reason for using the mask; the type of mask used; the number of daily masks used; the duration of daily mask usage; mask usage prior to the COVID-19 outbreak; interest in using masks after the COVID-19 outbreak; comfortability of the provided mask; identification of the distinction; nose holder difference, problems encountered while using, acceptance of the environmentally friendly material, the value of the mask, and overall evaluation of the provided mask.

Due to its affordability, efficacy in filtration, breathability, moisture resistance, and durability, polypropylene is used to make the nasal bridge and one of the layers of face masks, even if it doesn't dissolve for a hundred years. Instead of polypropylene, this study recommends using a jute-based biodegradable fiber for the nose bridge. Although removing the nasal bridge might seem like a minor aspect of the issue, this study demonstrates how even a modest alteration can have a large impact. Jute fibers were also included in this study's raw materials since they were inexpensive and widely accessible throughout the country. Jute can be replaced with other natural fibers, although further study is required. This research uses a limited number of specimens since collecting samples would be both time-consuming and costly. In addition to the questionnaire, respondents were given a surgical mask, which is extremely costly for gathering numerous samples. For similar reasons, reviews of responders were required to determine the mask's fit and acceptance rate. Given appropriate funding, it might be easier to overcome these obstacles and perform the work more efficiently.

The respondents were distributed a copy of the questionnaire along with a mask and they voluntarily answered the questions. A sensible consent letter was attached to the first section of the questionnaire in such a way that each participant had to read and agree to the terms first to participate in the survey, which contained information about the research intent, detailed confidentiality of information and right to withdraw the involvement without prior justification.

According to Benson et al. [47], because of the COVID-19 epidemic, roughly 3.4 billion single-use facemasks or face shields are thrown away every day. Where nose holders make 773 tons of plastic waste each day from these 3.4 billion masks. This enormous volume of mask usage could be explained, among other things, by the concept of “single-use.” According to the FDA, face, surgical, and respirator masks are classified as “single-use” disposable medical or respiratory protection equipment and should be thrown away in the garbage after use by placing them in a “plastic bag” [59]. Another factor contributing to the enormous number of surgical masks manufactured might be the fact that masks are necessary for almost every nation on earth. Table 2 demonstrates that a larger population has a significant impact on waste mask generation; for example, China (1.4 billion people), India (1.3 billion people), and the United States (331 million people) had a comparatively larger population than Thailand (69 million people), South Africa (59 million people), and Canada (37 million people) and produced nearly 7–24 times more discarded facemasks. Moreover, Benson et al. estimated that by the end of 2020, over 7.7 billion individuals would have created around 585 million tons of plastic waste from facemasks, with approximately 82% of that waste coming from the top 35 countries on the list [47]. China, India, the United States, Brazil, and Indonesia are responsible for 46.7% of global plastic pollution. The top 35 nations, as shown in Table 2, create almost 637 tons of waste plastic from nose holders of surgical masks each day. China, India, the United States, Brazil, and Indonesia produce around 56.47% of plastic trash from nose holders, which is much more than their respective percentages of overall plastic manufacturing. The mask's acceptance rate also has a substantial effect on the production of plastic waste. If the acceptance rate is 100%, China, India, the United States, Brazil, and Indonesia may produce 878 million, 483 million, 275 million, 187 million, and 153 million contaminated masks every day, respectively. As a result, pollution from nose holders will increase by around 25% in China, India, the United States, and Indonesia, and by approximately 33.33% in Brazil. Double masks are suggested by the CDC to reduce the spread of the coronavirus, which might be another reason for the rising mask volume. Accordingly, if 25% of people use double masks and the remaining 75% wear single masks, then China, India, the United States, Brazil, and Indonesia will each create at least 878, 483, 275, 175, and 153 million contaminated masks per day, respectively. As a result, pollution from nose holders will increase by 25% in China, India, the United States, Brazil, and Indonesia. It is possible to use sustainable raw materials that can be recycled using existing technology to meet the EU Single Plastic Directive's objective of maximizing the usage and proper management of bio-based plastics by 2025 [60]. Other materials may be used as raw materials for mask production rather than plastics, reducing pollution. One of the contemporary, environmentally friendly options for lowering the number of masks that produce plastic waste is a biodegradable mask [61]. The polypropylene in the mask can be swapped out for other organic and biodegradable materials with comparable mechanical, physical, and chemical properties. These materials include lightweight, high tensile strength, ecological safety, a reasonably low cost, and a positive biodegradability prospect [62].

Jute is a natural fiber that can be utilized in a multitude of value-added commodities, including pulp and paper, home textiles, geotextiles, and composites, in addition to replacing synthetics. Jute was also regarded as a substance in manufacturing core-spun yarn, whether as a sheath fiber or a core [48]. To make an alternative to plastic nose holders, core-spun yarn was created with jute as the wrapping material and metal wire as the core material in this study. This natural alternative material made of jute performed its task as a nose holder in a mask admirably. However, the product had a flaw: it had hairy surface, possibly due to protruding fibers. The surface was coated with natural gum to smooth it out and eliminate the hairiness. Furthermore, since this alternate nose holding was placed inside the mask's protective layers, there is no risk of inhaling any projecting fibers while breathing. Jute, rather than cotton, hemp, or any other natural fiber, is used to construct nose holders because it has numerous benefits, including cheap rate, environmental friendliness, and moderate mechanical features, making them a superior alternative to synthetic fiber in a myriad of applications [49]. It is the second most significant organic and biodegradable fiber [50]. Jute products disintegrate in the soil after the end of the product life cycle [51]. Jute plants have a high carbon dioxide assimilation rate. They clean the air by absorbing significant amounts of carbon dioxide while also emitting oxygen into the environment, which is beneficial to living survival [51]. Jute plants' decomposing leaves and roots can boost soil fertility while lowering fertilizer expenditures [52]. According to a study, jute is more environmentally friendly and less expensive to society than its synthetic counterpart [53]. Despite all of these advantages, there are some drawbacks to utilizing jute. The retting procedure of jute is crucial to producing high-quality jute fiber [54]. Retting is a microbial and biochemical process involving steeping harvested jute bundles in water and then controlling the decomposition of pectins, hemicelluloses, gums, and mucilaginous compounds to separate fibers from non-fibrous tissues and stem [55]. As the jute decomposes, a pungent putrid odor spreads throughout the areas where microbial retting occurs. However, the materials generated during microbial retting of jute were proven to be completely biodegradable and non-toxic [56]. Another issue with jute is that, as a natural fiber, it is prone to unevenness in jute yarn diameter, even when the species is the same. Since plastic nose holders are not natural and are manufactured mechanically, unevenness does not occur in that case. Thus, two or more yarns can be plied to one to solve the problem of uneven diameter.

900 participants were chosen at random for this experiment, given the JNHM, and asked to rate their experiences. This survey is significant because it enables researchers to gather customer feedback to assess whether their discoveries can be commercialized. Industrial production of the product won't begin until user evaluation is satisfactory. Researchers also alter their products in response to client feedback to improve user-friendliness. According to the analysis, before COVID-19, almost 50% (36.7% regular, 13.2% frequent) of people used surgical masks, indicating that there has always been a market for surgical masks. During COVID-19, practically everyone wore a mask (98.7%, according to the report). According to the poll, around 87% of respondents are interested in using masks following COVID-19, an increase of approximately 37% from the pre-COVID-19 era, suggesting that masks will be more in demand in the future. Average mask usage duration increases along with the growth of users. Fig. 4 shows a sharp increase in the hourly usage of masks. While average usage for the first 2 h has decreased by around 80.63%, usage for the next two to 5 h and more than 5 h has increased by about 115% and 163%, correspondingly. Fig. 4 reveals that around 45% of those surveyed wore the JNHM for more than 5 h, whereas 36% wore the provided mask for 2–5 h, representing an increase of 127% and 125%, respectively, prior to COVID-19. So, it is confirmed that the JNHM is utilized for a sufficient amount of time to produce an unbiased and accurate evaluation. The survey found that 72.4% of respondents could tell the difference between JNHM and standard masks. 74.4% of individuals can tell the difference between a conventional mask and a JNHM nose holder. It is a positive indicator that more people are noticing the difference. When someone discovers a difference between a conventional and innovative product in a particular spot, they begin to compare them. They try to determine if the new product is better than the previous one or if it has the same faults as the old one. For example, five reviews state that they wear glasses and that their glasses blur with a regular surgical mask but not with JNHM. Although further study is needed to determine the specific facts, it provides insight into how customers compare old and new products. The remaining 16.3% who could not see any difference and 11.2% who were unclear about the overall difference saw the JNHM as a conventional surgical mask and would use it exactly like the old one without knowing there had been an alteration. The same is true for the 16.1% of people who cannot identify any change, notably in the nose holder, and the 9.4% who are confused about whether there is a difference. They will treat the newer mask like the old one, unaware that the nose holder is made of a different material. Of the reviewers, 85.65% people said that the JNHM was more comfortable than the regular one. Around 80% of the respondents rated this given mask above average as shown in Fig. 5, which implies a vast acceptance of it.

Sustainable methods in the textile business include consuming less water, toxic chemicals, pesticides, and fertilizers, embracing eco-friendly production techniques, using less energy for production activities, and adopting the 3 Rs—Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle [57]. JNHM reduces the usage of plastic materials by replacing the plastic in nose holders with natural fiber. Most respondents (58.8%) could not find that jute was used instead of traditional plastic. However, 83% of consumers were eager to buy after learning that such environmentally friendly materials were used to create the mask. Even with the increase in mask price (1 $ for every 90 Masks), just 13.3 individuals responded “no” outright, while 62.8% said “yes” explicitly, and the rest were indecisive. The above suggests that customers are willing to pay a higher price for a mask made of environmentally friendly materials.

From the nose holder of surgical masks, daily seven hundred and seventy-three tons of plastic pollution occurs in the world, which, if visualized, will cover roughly 20 to 25 football grounds. To reduce this massive amount of plastic pollution from surgical masks, plastic nose holder was replaced with jute. Jute was used to construct nose holders because of its cheap rate, biodegradability, and numerous environmental benefits. Moreover, the spinning technique that was used to manufacture the nose holder, has already being used in spinning mills to produce yarns commercially, and because of it, this process is efficient and cost effective. In fact, no additional steps were required to produce JNHM, that is why no extra training was required and these masks can be produced in the conventional machine without impeding production. The JNHM was provided to nine hundred people to know about their opinion. The main factor of the survey was to know if the users feel comfortable with the given mask, and also to understand what they really want and need. Survey report reveals that the JNHM is proved to be an alternative to traditional ones in terms of comfort, sustainability, and environment friendliness. Surveyed people were also interested in using the JNHM when they came to know environment friendly material was used in this mask, despite they need to pay slightly more, showing a good potential to industrial scale production.

Conceived and designed the experiments; Md. Ehsanur Rashid, Raihan Ul Haque. Performed the experiments; Md. Atikul Islam, Towfik Aziz Kanon, Washique Tonmoy. Analyzed and interpreted the data; Zahidul Islam Khan, Md. Rubel Khan, Md. Bashar Uddin. Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Md. Atikul Islam, Towfik Aziz Kanon, Washique Tonmoy, Md. Rubel Khan, Md. Bashar Uddin. Wrote the paper: Md. Ehsanur Rashid, Raihan Ul Haque, Zahidul Islam Khan.

This research received no external funding.

Data included in article/supp. material/referenced in article.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.