The diffusion of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) impacted the whole world, changing the life habits of billions of people. These changes caused an abundant increase in personal protective equipment (PPE, e.g., masks and gloves) use by the general population, which can become a concerning issue of plastic pollution. This study aims to evaluate the negative effects of the abundant PPE use following the COVID-19 diffusion using the test site of the Lombardy region, an area highly affected by the pandemic. Population data were retrieved from national databases, and the COVID-19 national guidelines were considered to estimate the total use of PPEs during 2020. Then, the quantity of waste derived from their use was evaluated based on the weight of PPEs. As well, possible scenarios for 2021 were proposed based on 2020 estimations. The results suggested different negative effects of the diffusion of PPEs both on waste management and on the environment: The abundant increase in PPEs-derived waste caused an increase in terms of costs for management, and the potential direct spreading in the environment of these materials (especially masks) poses a serious threat for an increase in microplastics in water bodies. Following this evaluation, a careful choice regarding COVID-19 measures of containment should be performed especially by the general population, avoiding contagion diffusion and reducing the possible environmental impact derived from disposable PPE use. Full article

We reviewed studies linking COVID-19 cases and deaths with the environment, focusing on relationships with air pollution. We found both short- and long-term observational relationships with a range of regulated pollutants, although only two studies considered both cases (i.e., infections) and deaths within a common analytical framework. Most of these studies were limited to a few months of the pandemic period. Statistically significant relationships were found more often for PM_2.5 and NO₂ than for other regulated pollutants, but no rationale was suggested for such short-term relationships; latency was seldom considered for long-term relationships. It was also unclear whether confounding had been adequately controlled in either type of study. Studies of air quality improvement following lockdowns found more robust relationships with local (CO, NO₂) rather than regional (PM_2.5, O₃) pollutants, but meteorological confounding was seldom considered. Only one of seven studies of airborne virus transmission reported actual measurements. Overall, we found the existing body of literature to be more suggestive than definitive. Due to these various deficiencies, we assembled a new state-level database of cumulative COVID-19 cases and deaths through March 2021 with a range of potential predictor variables and performed linear regression analyses on various combinations. As single predictors, we found significant (p < 0.05) relationships between cumulative cases and household crowding (+), education (−), face-mask usage (−), or voting Republican (+). For cumulative deaths, we found significant relationships with education (−), black race (+), or previous levels of PM_2.5 (+). NO_x (+), and elemental carbon (EC, +). We found no relationships between long-term air quality and cumulative COVID-19 cases. Our associations linking air pollution with COVID-19 mortality were not statistically different from those for all-cause mortality in previous studies. In multiple mortality regressions combining air pollution, race, and education, NO_x and EC remained significant but PM_2.5 did not. We concluded that the current worldwide emphasis on PM_2.5 is misplaced. We predicted air pollutant effects of a few percentage points, but individual differences between races, political identification, and post-graduate education were of the order of factors of 2 to 4. In general, the factors predicting infection were personal and related to COVID-19 exposure, while those predicting subsequent mortality tended to be more situational and related to geography. Overall, we concluded that how you live is more important than where you live. Full article