Before the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a great need for United States’ restaurants to “go green” due to consumers’ habits of frequently eating out. Unfortunately, COVID-19 has caused this initiative to lose traction. While the amount of customers ordering takeout has increased, there is less emphasis on sustainability.<br/>Plastic is known for its harmful effects on the environment and the extreme length of time it takes to decompose. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), almost 8 million tons of plastic end up in the oceans at an annual rate, threatening not only the safety of marine species but also human health. Modern food packaging materials have included a blend of synthetic ingredients, trickling into our daily lives and polluting the air, water, and land. Single-use plastic items slowly degrade into microplastics and can take up to hundreds of years to biodegrade.<br/>Due to COVID-19, restaurants have switched to takeout and delivery options to adapt to the new business environment and guidelines enforced by the Center of Disease Control (CDC) mandated guidelines. Some of these guidelines include: notices encouraging social distancing and mask-wearing, mandated masks for employees, and easy access to sanitary supplies. This cultural shift is motivating restaurants to search for a quick, cheap, and easy fix to adapt to the increased demand of take-out and delivery methods. This increases their plastic consumption of items such as plastic bags/paper bags, styrofoam containers, and beverage cups. Plastic is the most popular takeout material because of its price and durability as well as allowing for limited contamination and easy disposability.<br/>Almost all food products come in packaging and this, more often than not, is single-use. Food is the largest market out of all the packaging industry, maintaining roughly two-thirds of material going to food. The US Environmental Protection Agency reports that almost half of all municipal solid waste is made up of food and food packaging materials. In 2014, over 162 million tons of packaging material waste was generated in the states. This typically contains toxic inks and dyes that leach into groundwater and soil. When degrading, pieces of plastic absorb toxins like PCBs and pesticides, and then each piece will, in turn, release toxic chemicals like Bisphenol-A. Even before being thrown away, it causes negative effects for the environment. The creation of packaging materials uses many resources such as petroleum and chemicals and then releases toxic byproducts. Such byproducts include sludge containing contaminants, greenhouse gases, and heavy metal and particulate matter emissions. Unlike many other industries, plastic manufacturing has actually increased production. Demand has increased and especially in the food industry to keep things sanitary. This increase in production is reflective of the increase in waste. <br/>Although restaurants have implemented their own sustainable initiatives to combat their carbon footprint, the pandemic has unfortunately forced restaurants to digress. For example, Just Salad, a fast-food restaurant chain, incentivized customers with discounted meals to use reusable bowls which saved over 75,000 pounds of plastic per year. However, when the pandemic hit, the company halted the program to pivot towards takeout and delivery. This effect is apparent on an international scale. Singapore was in lock-down for eight weeks and during that time, 1,470 tons of takeout and food delivery plastic waste was thrown out. In addition, the Hong Kong environmental group Greeners Action surveyed 2,000 people in April and the results showed that people are ordering out twice as much as last year, doubling the use of plastic.<br/>However, is this surge of plastic usage necessary in the food industry or are there methods that can be used to reduce the amount of waste production? The COVID-19 pandemic caused a fracture in the food system’s supply chain, involving food, factory, and farm. This thesis will strive to tackle such topics by analyzing the supply chains of the food industry and identify areas for sustainable opportunities. These recommendations will help to identify areas for green improvement.

In the United States, clinical testing is monitored by the federal and state governments, held to standards to ensure the safety and efficacy of these tests, as well as maintaining privacy for patients receiving a test. In order for the ABCTL to lawfully operate in the state of Arizona, it had to meet various legal criteria. These major legal considerations, in no particular order, are: Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments compliance; FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA); Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliance; state licensure; patient, state, and federal result reporting; and liability. <br/>In this paper, the EUA pathway will be examined and contextualized in relation to the ABCTL. This will include an examination of the FDA regulations and policies that affect the laboratory during its operations, as well as a look at the different authorization pathways for diagnostic tests present during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The ASU Biodesign Clinical Testing Laboratory began in March 2020 after the severe acute respiratory syndrome, coronavirus 2, began spreading throughout the world. ASU worked towards implementing  its own efficient way of testing for the virus, in order to assist the university but also keep the communities around it safe. By developing its own strategy for COVID-19 testing, ASU was on the forefront of research by developing new ways to test for the virus. This process began when research labs at ASU were quickly converted into clinical testing laboratories, which used saliva testing to develop swift COVID-19 diagnostic tests for the Arizona community. The lab developed more accurate and time efficient results, while also converting Nasopharyngeal tests to saliva tests. Not only did this allow for fewer amounts of resources required, but more individuals were able to get tested at faster rates. The ASU Biodesign Clinical Testing Laboratory (ABCTL) was able to accomplish this through the adaptation of previous machines and personnel to fit the testing needs of the community. In the future, the ABCTL will continue to adapt to the ever-changing needs of the community in regards to the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. The research collected throughout the past year following the breakout of the COVID-19 pandemic is a reflection of the impressive strategy ASU has created to keep its communities safe, while continuously working towards improving not only the testing sites and functions, but also the ways in which an institution approaches and manages an unfortunate impact on diverse communities.

Since the start of the COVID 19 pandemic there has undoubtedly been an increase in social distancing orders, isolation, and overall general stress. The current outbreak has been proven to have a heavy impact on issues involving mental health. Social distancing mandates contributed to isolation, which in turn caused a surge in psychiatric disorders, either newly onset or exacerbating preexisting conditions (Torales, et al, 2020). Due to significant alterations in daily life, an increase in physical inactivity has already been proven to lead to deterioration of cardiovascular health (Pecanha et al, 2020). Stay at home orders have prevented otherwise healthy people from keeping up their daily exercise and eating habits, contributing to a heightened amount of mental health and hypertensive related issues.<br/>In addition to these health concerns, the pandemic has put stress upon pharmaceutical management practices. Drug utilization surges have led to an impact on patient care and management which requires careful measures to be taken to reduce the inflow of sick patients (Badreldin and Atallah, 2020). A global drug shortage has been a result of these drug utilizations. Understanding the alterations in the usage of specific medications such as prescription psychotropics, antihypertensive drugs, and antidiabetic agents can aid in population management and drug shortages.

This thesis project is part of a larger collaboration documenting the history of the ASU Biodesign Clinical Testing Laboratory (ABCTL). There are many different aspects that need to be considered when transforming to a clinical testing laboratory. This includes the different types of tests performed in the laboratory. In addition to the diagnostic polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that is performed detecting the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), antibody testing is also performed in clinical laboratories. Antibody testing is used to detect a previous infection. Antibodies are produced as part of the immune response against SARS-CoV-2. There are many different forms of antibody tests and their sensitives and specificities have been examined and reviewed in the literature. Antibody testing can be used to determine the seroprevalence of the disease which can inform policy decisions regarding public health strategies. The results from antibody testing can also be used for creating new therapeutics like vaccines. The ABCTL recognizes the shifting need of the community to begin testing for previous infections of SARS-CoV-2 and is developing new forms of antibody testing that can meet them.

As the return to normality in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic enters its early stages, the necessity for accurate, quick, and community-wide surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 has been emphasized. Wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) has been used across the world as a tool for monitoring the pandemic, but studies of its efficacy in comparison to the best-known method for surveillance, randomly selected COVID-19 testing, has limited research. This study evaluated the trends and correlations present between SARS-CoV-2 in the effluent wastewater of a large university campus and random COVID-19 testing results published by the university. A moderately strong positive correlation was found between the random testing and WBE surveillance methods (r = 0.63), and this correlation was strengthened when accommodating for lost samples during the experiment (r = 0.74).

In this thesis paper, the mental health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic are discussed. Chapter 1 discusses what inspired me to write this thesis and follows with a discussion of social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Chapter 2 takes a step back and discusses biological effects of social isolation in general. Chapter 3 discusses the psychological effects of social isolation. Finally, this thesis concludes with a discussion of what can be done to help those experiencing social isolation during the pandemic.

In mid-March of 2020, Arizona State University transformed one of its research labs into ASU Biodesign Clinical Testing Laboratory (ABCTL) to meet the testing needs of the surrounding community during the COVID-19 pandemic. The lab uses RT-qPCR, or reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, to match the components of a biosample to a portion of the SARS-CoV-2 genome. The ABCTL uses the TaqPath™ COVID-19 Combo Kit, which has undergone many different types of efficacy and efficiency tests and can successfully denote saliva samples as positive even when an individual is infected with various emerging strains of the SARS-CoV-2. Samples are collected by volunteers at testing sites with stringent biosafety precautions and processed in the lab using specific guidelines. As the pandemic eventually becomes less demanding, the ABCTL plans to utilize the Devil’s Drop-off program at various school districts around Arizona to increase testing availability, transfer to the SalivaDirect method, and provide other forms of pathogen testing to distinguish COVID-19 from other types of infections in the ASU community.

The present study explored the relationship between desired purchasing behavior and individual differences using two nationally-representative, longitudinal samples of the U.S. population early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Past research has shown that individual differences provide information about how one might respond to threat. Therefore, we predicted changes in desired purchasing behavior across different sociodemographic variables that might reflect those differences. Specifically, we investigated hypotheses related to political orientation, age, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and whether or not the participant had children. We measured participants’ reported desired purchasing behavior across eleven categories of goods and investigated the connection between specific demographic variables and desired purchasing behavior. We found that conservatives desired to purchase more basic protection goods (guns/ammunition, cash, gas) and that older people desired to purchase more cleaning supplies and toiletries. These findings illustrate possible explanations for purchasing behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic and reveal directions for marketing designed to influence purchasing behavior.

Telehealth is the use of information and communications technology by healthcare professionals to provide care to patients. When this technology is being used specifically for genetic services, it is called telegenetics. Previous studies that examine the small-scale use of telegenetics for the field of genetic counseling have shown that the technology may provide a way to address the problem of patient access to genetic counseling services, assuming its efficacy. Patients are satisfied with telegenetics, but genetic counselors hold more reservations. Because of this and the many regulatory barriers in its way, telegenetics was only slowly being adopted when the coronavirus was declared a pandemic in March 2020. The pandemic forced a switch to telegenetics at a scale never seen before. This study begins with a literature review to assess the situation of telegenetics before and during the pandemic. It then surveys practicing genetic counselors in Arizona in order to reveal what they think about telegenetics when it is the encouraged, and sometimes only, modality. Since the literature review revealed that genetic counselors, not patients, are the ones with concerns, it is important to hear their points of view. This study reveals that genetic counselors want telegenetics as an option but not as a replacement for in-person appointments. All respondents agreed that increased patient access is the main benefit of telegenetics. There are reported challenges that must be overcome, but genetic counselors in Arizona overwhelming believe that telegenetics use will be continued in the future.