INNOVATION & DESIGN

MATERIALITY

SUSTAINABILITY

ACCESSIBILITY

About

Within the context of a pandemic ridden world, demand for single use PPE has increased by over 7900%. For many outside the hemisphere of the health-care environment, the relevance of PPE extends to single use face masks. These popular single use face masks are not designed for disassembly and therefore, recyclability. Additionally, although individually, each mask contributes little to the plastic waste problem, when considered at a larger scale, the amount of waste drastically increases. The majority of these products end up in landfills, in our oceans or on the street as litter. Through a redesign of the existing single use facemask, this project reimagines the sustainability narrative and addresses everyday usage parameters without creating accessibility limitations.

RESEARCH:

Plastic, an invention highlighted as the alternative to scarce natural resources such as ivory, quickly exploded in popularity during World War II. It was especially prevalent in the aftermath of the war as consumer purchasing power increased and plastic goods quickly surpassed conventional material goods (such as steel and wood). Plastic can be found in every industry due to its physical composition and the possibilities it brings forth.[1] As a byproduct of consumer culture, society turned a blind eye to the environmental impacts that come from plastic waste. The 1990s ushered in an age where sustainability became a facet of design, yet why does our world remain polluted with plastic waste? [2]

My exploration into waste began within the medical industry. My research extended into examining how hospitals handle biohazardous and recyclable consumer-grade waste. Due to differing standards within hospitals globally, there is confusion around what can and cannot be recycled. Consumer-grade waste is being placed into bio-hazardous containers as a result of misinformation.

In a study done by Mayo Clinic, of 524 participant, 57% of hospital staff reported not knowing which items from the operating room were recyclable and 39% reported sometimes or never recycling within the operating room.[3] I interviewed C. Melendez, a nurse at Cornell NewYork-Presbyterian / Weill Cornell Medical Center, to learn about her experience with hospital waste. She corroborates the study, highlighting her own experience saying,

“We do not sort any of our waste.”

In an attempt to intervene in this space, I conducted expert interviews within the health and wellness environment. During this interview process, I made two key discoveries:

• As a result of the COVID pandemic, single use PPE (plastic protective equipment) has drastically increased in usage in school and hospital environments

• Due to the material complexity, plastic PPE are not recycled within waste management facilities

In conjunction with the typical volume of waste in these hospital ecosystems, the COVID pandemic is significantly increasing their waste streams. 8.4 million tons of plastic waste was estimated to have come about as a result of this pandemic.[4] In particular, plastic PPE has increased in usage by more than 8,000% since the start of the virus outbreak.[5] This is inclusive of PPE used by both civilians and healthcare workers. Of the typical PPE typologies, face masks continue to rise in usage as compared to the declining usage of gloves and sanitary wipes. Unfortunately, this preventative technology was not designed for recyclability and will eventually end up in landfills, incinerators, or floating in our ocean. According to Teale Phelps Bondaroff, the director of research at OceansAsia, roughly 1.5 billion face masks are floating in our oceans as of 2020.[6]

The most significant barrier to recycling face masks is their multi-materiality. When taken apart, medical grade face mask components can be individually processed and reused. Waste and recycling facilities around the world, however, are not set up to handle individual separation due to the cost and specialized machinery required.[7] Individuals within the hospital space and at home are not spending the effort to take masks apart before discarding them. This phenomenon is also spurred by our throwaway culture – popularized in the 1950’s as a lifestyle choice.

WHAT IS THE IMPACT?

INITIAL IDEATION:

Drawing inspiration from existing market products, I developed a series of design criteria to identify key opportunities for change. These criteria are as follows:

• Sustainability

• Ease of Use

• Fit Seal

• Accessability

• Comfortability

Using the set of criteria previously defined, over 100 different ideation concepts were developed. Each of these concepts were compared against each other using a five-star rating system defined by the criteria. Of these concepts, several were selected for peer review.

These rough concepts were presented in a case study of 24 participants. In this case study, the participants were asked to pick their favorite features of the proposed face masks, their favorite features of existing face masks, and their biggest points of discomfort when wearing traditional face masks. From this study, 33.3% reported ear pain as their biggest discomfort, followed by skin concerns (25%) and then improper fit (16.7%). Additionally, 41.7% of the participants reported their favorite feature for a face mask would be proper fit. Interestingly, the results from questions around favorite features and points of discomfort highlight the importance of fit and strengthen certain parameters from the criteria set previously defined.

PROTOTYPING:

Initial prototypes of these concepts were produced using on-hand materials to develop a better understanding of mechanical functionalities. During this process, sustainability was a particularly strong focus point — mono-materiality, modularity, and materiality were explored in concert with the design criteria.

USER TESTING: