In this study, the estimated amounts of discarded face masks due to COVID 19 were investigated. In this context, the amount of waste face masks was determined separately according to the mask types used (nonwoven, meltblown, and 3-ply, pleated) and the importance of waste face masks was revealed. According to obtained data, the estimated total daily face mask use in Turkey is 72,351,638. The highest amounts of nonwoven, meltblown, and 3-ply face mask waste were determined as 26.88, 36.29, and 43.68 tonnes/day for İstanbul city, respectively. Total amounts of nonwoven, meltblown and 3-ply face mask waste in Turkey were calculated as 144.7, 195.35, and 235.14 tonnes/day, respectively. The top 5 provinces with the highest amount of waste masks are listed as follows; İstanbul (nonwoven=26.88, meltblown=36.29, 3ply=43.68 tonnes/day), Ankara (nonwoven=9.91, meltblown=13.38, 3ply=16.11 tonnes/day), İzmir (nonwoven=7.76, meltblown=10.47, 3ply=12.61 tonnes/day), Bursa (nonwoven=5.40, meltblown=7.29, 3ply=8.78 tonnes/day), and Antalya (nonwoven=4.45, meltblown=6.01, 3ply=7.23 tonnes/day), respectively. In Turkey, 91.3% of medical waste collected in health institutions in 2019 (90,920 tonnes) was sterilized and disposed of in storage areas (83,010 tonnes). 8.7% of medical waste was sent to incineration facilities and disposed (7,910 tonnes). Considering these values, 132, 178.35, and 214.7 tonnes/day of nonwoven, meltblown, and 3-ply face mask wastes can be disposed by sterilization and the remaining 12.7, 17, and 20.44 tonnes/day by incineration, respectively.

Water is one of the most crucial substances for life. In order to maintain their public health, each and every country has defined standards of drinking water quality, beyond which the water is considered harmful for human health. The current study compares physical, chemical, and biological standards of drinking water quality for the USA, EU, Japan, India, and Bangladesh, considering 4 physical parameters (namely, color, odor, taste, and turbidity), 35 chemical parameters (such as Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg), Phosphate (PO43-), Sodium (Na), Phenolic compounds, Nitrite (NO2-), Arsenic (As), Aluminum (Al), etc.) and 2 biological parameters (i.e., Coliform (Fecal) and Coliform (Total)). The data has been collected from several secondary sources and since processes of data collection for water quality differ from one another, this aspect has been ignored. No variation has been found in biological water quality standards along with physical quality standards of the considered regions. In order to find out the differences in chemical parameters, standard ANOVA and pair-wise F-test have been conducted. There was no disparity among chemical parameters in ANOVA test. Moreover, thanks to the few excessive values of the standards (as in case of Bangladesh), the COD value is 4 mg/L, whereas in other countries this parameter is much less. However, the chemical parameters of water quality standards in Bangladesh vary significantly from other countries. Besides, there has been no variation among the standards of other countries, even though they are located in different continents. Most interestingly, despite being neighbors, Bangladesh and India differ significantly in this regard.