The impact and effectiveness of the general public wearing masks to reduce the spread of pandemics in the UK: a multidisciplinary comparison of single-use masks versus reusable face masks

During the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the UK government mandated the use of face masks in various public settings and recommended the use of reusable masks to combat shortages of medically graded single-use masks in healthcare. To assist decision-making on the choice of masks for future pandemics, where shortages may not be a contributing factor, the University College London (UCL) Plastic Waste Innovation Hub has carried out a multidisciplinary comparison between single-use and reusable masks based on their anatomy, standalone effectiveness, behavioural considerations, environmental impact and costs. Although current single-use masks have a higher standalone effectiveness against bacteria and viruses, studies show that reusable masks have adequate performance in slowing infection rates of respiratory viruses. Material flow analysis (MFA), life cycle assessment (LCA) and cost comparison show that reusable masks have a lower environmental and economic impact than single-use masks. If every person in the UK uses one single-use mask each day for a year, it will create a total of 124,000 tonnes of waste, 66,000 tonnes of which would be unrecyclable contaminated plastic waste (the masks), with the rest being the recyclable packaging typically used for transportation and distribution of masks. Using reusable masks creates >85% less waste, generates 3.5 times lower impact on climate change and incurs 3.7 times lower costs. Further behavioural research is necessary to understand the extent and current practices of mask use; and how these practices affect mask effectiveness in reducing infection rates. Wearing single-use masks may be preferred over reusable masks due to perceptions of increased hygiene and convenience. Understanding behaviour towards the regular machine-washing of reusable masks for their effective reuse is key to maximise their public health benefits and minimise environmental and economic costs

Stimmensplitting und Koalitionswahl

Hat sich die Unabhängigkeitsstrategie der FDP bei der letzten Bundestagswahl ausgezahlt? Wäre die FDP erfolgreicher gewesen, wenn sie im Vorfeld klar signalisiert hätte, dass man eine Koalition mit der Union anstrebt? Wie war das bei den Grünen, die ja im Gegensatz zur FDP keine Zweifel aufkommen ließen? Natürlich können wir nicht wie in einer Simulation oder einem Experiment einfach den Wahlkampf wiederholen und noch einmal wählen lassen. Um eine befriedigende Antwort auf diese Frage zu finden, vergleichen wir den Kontext der Bundestagswahl 2002 mit den zurückliegenden Bundestagswahlen. Aus dem Längsschnittvergleich versuchen wir Rückschlüsse auf den substanziellen Einfluss von strategischem Stimmensplitting im Sinne einer Koalitionswahl auf das Wahlergebnis gerade der kleinen Parteien zu ziehen. Um unsere Forschungsfrage zu beantworten und substanzielle Schlüsse ziehen zu können, muss zuerst klar sein, in welcher Form und warum Stimmensplitting relevant sein kann, welche Rolle dabei Koalitionsabsprachen vor einer jeden Wahl spielen und, schließlich, welche alternativen Erklärungsmöglichkeiten die Literatur zum Thema Stimmensplitting und strategischem Wählen anzubieten hat. Nur wenn wir auch die Wirkung alternativer und zum Teil konkurrierender Hypothesen zulassen, können wir unserer Schlußfolgerungen sicher sein

An Integrated Biorefinery Concept for Conversion of Sugar Beet Pulp into Value-added Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Intermediates

Over 8 million tonnes of sugar beet are grown annually in the UK. Sugar beet pulp (SBP) is the main by-product of sugar beet processing which is currently dried and sold as a low value animal feed. SBP is a rich source of carbohydrates, mainly in the form of cellulose and pectin, including D-glucose (Glu), L-arabinose (Ara) and D-galacturonic acid (GalAc). This work describes the technical feasibility of an integrated biorefinery concept for fractionation of SBP and conversion of these monosaccharides into value-added products. SBP fractionation is initially carried out by steam explosion under mild conditions to yield soluble pectin and insoluble cellulose fractions. The cellulose is readily hydrolysed by cellulases to release Glu that can then be fermented by a commercial Yeast strain to produce bioethanol with a high yield. The pectin fraction can be either fully hydrolysed, using physico-chemical methods, or selectively hydrolysed, using cloned arabinases and galacturonases, to yield Ara-rich and GalAc-rich streams. These monomers can be separated using either Centrifugal Partition Chromatography (CPC) or ultrafiltration into streams suitable for subsequent enzymatic upgrading. Building on our previous experience with transketolase (TK) and transaminase (TAm) enzymes, the conversion of Ara and GalAc into higher value products was explored. In particular the conversion of Ara into L-gluco-heptulose (GluHep), that has potential therapeutic applications in hypoglycaemia and cancer, using a mutant TK is described. Preliminary studies with TAm also suggest GluHep can be selectively aminated to the corresponding chiral aminopolyol. Current work is addressing upgrading of the remaining SBP monomer, GalAc, and modelling of the biorefinery concept to enable economic and Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)