Resources, Conservation and Recycling

33 (2001) 267287

www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Life cycle assessment of biofibres replacing

glass fibres as reinforcement in plastics
T. Corbie`re-Nicollier a,*, B. Gfeller Laban a, L. Lundquist b,
Y. Leterrier b, J.-A.E. Manson b, O. Jolliet a
a

Laboratory of Ecosystem Management (GECOS-EPFL), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,

CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
b
Composite and Polymer Technology Laboratory, LTC-EPFL,
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne, EPFL, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
Received 8 December 2000; accepted 18 June 2001

Abstract
This article aims to determine the environmental performance of China reed fibre used as
a substitute for glass fibre as reinforcement in plastics and to identify key environmental
parameters. A life cycle assessment (LCA) is performed on these two materials for an
application to plastic transport pallets. Transport pallets reinforced with China reed fibre
prove to be ecologically advantageous if they have a minimal lifetime of 3 years compared
with the 5-year lifetime of the conventional pallet. The energy consumption and other
environmental impacts are strongly reduced by the use of raw renewable fibres, due to three
important factors: (a) the substitution of glass fibre production by the natural fibre
production; (b) the indirect reduction in the use of polypropylene linked to the higher
proportion of China reed fibre used and (c) the reduced pallet weight, which reduces fuel
consumption during transport. Considering the whole life cycle, the polypropylene production process and the transport cause the strongest environmental impacts during the use
phase of the life cycle. Since thermoplastic composites are hardly biodegradable, incineration
has to be preferred to discharge on landfills at the end of its useful life cycle. The potential
advantages of the renewable fibres will be effective only if a purer fibre extraction is obtained
to ensure an optimal material stiffness, a topic for further research. China reed biofibres are
finally compared with other usages of biomass, biomaterials, in general, can enable a three
to ten times more efficient valorisation of biomass than mere heat production or biofuels for
transport. 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +41-21-693-5768; fax: +41-21-693-3739.

E-mail address: tourane.corbiere@epfl.ch (T. Corbie`re-Nicollier).
0921-3449/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 1 - 3 4 4 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 8 9 - 1

268

T. Corbie`re-Nicollier et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 33 (2001) 267287

Keywords: Renewable raw materials; Biofibres; Biomaterials; Environmental life cycle assessment; Fibre
reinforced; Composites; Low-density materials; Transport pallets

1. Introduction
A life cycle assessment (LCA) is performed on two different plastic composite for
an application to plastic transport pallets. After a short introduction, the goal
definition and scooping, the inventory and the impact assessment, the results are
discussed.

1.1. Background
Towards development of sustainable biomass usage, one must first better understand the fundamental loops and processes of the material life cycle. The extraction,
use and disposal of materials indeed have substantial environmental and economic
implications. In many cases far more material is extracted and translocated than
what is actually used in the end product itself. An optimal material technology has,
therefore, to consider resource consumption and the amount and the quality of
waste material during the entire life cycle. Moreover, the sustainability of a specific
technology is determined to a large extent by the pollutant emissions to the
environment during the manufacture of a product, its use and the waste treatment
at the end of its useful life.
Most of the objects of every-day life have a much shorter lifetime than their
constituents. Through increased material efficiency and loop closing, resource
consumption and environmental emissions can be reduced. For that, Lundquist et
al. (1999) define three main possibilities:
Use of renewable resources.
Reuse of products and recycling of materials, including their energy content.
Increase in the product durability.
The use of China reed (Miscanthus sinensis) as the reinforcing fibre in plastics
instead of the more common glass fibre conforms to the first possibility. Moreover,
this replacement reduces the environmental impact of the product transport pallet
without using end-of-pipe technologies. This corresponds to what sustainable
development wants to achieve. The large number of criteria impinging on the
implementation of various kinds of loop-closing structures implies, however, tradeoffs between technological, environmental and socio-economic requirements. For
example, the addition of renewable resources can seriously limit the number of
times a material can be recycled. Furthermore, cultivation, extraction and treatment
of renewable materials are clearly not environmentally neutral, as they may involve
the use of hazardous chemicals in the form of fertilisers as well as refinery and
processing chemicals.
In order to provide optimal environmental solutions, Gutzwiller et al. (1998)
carried out a first comparison of the use of China reed instead of glass fibre in

T. Corbie`re-Nicollier et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 33 (2001) 267287

269

plastics, using estimated physical properties of China reed. Lundquist et al. (1999)
investigated further the technical feasibility of this replacement in plastic transport
pallet. The physical properties of China reed fibre being better known, a more
realistic analysis can be performed. Based on the results of these investigations, this
new study analyses if the use of China reed instead of glass fibre in plastics is
advantageous from an ecological point of view. It also identifies key environmental
parameters, production and use of each material. A plastic transport pallet is the
application used for the comparison of the two types of plastic composites, enabling
one to perform sensitivity analysis on the influence of the lifetime transport
distance.

1.2. General approach and existing studies

To this end a comparative LCA was carried out. The LCA method is an
environmental assessment method, which focuses on the entire life cycle of a
product from raw material acquisition to final product disposal ISO (1998). This
assessment is structured in four parts (see Fig. 1):
The goal definition, which defines the aim and the scope of the study as well as
the function and the functional unit of the studied product.
The inventory, which lists pollutant emissions and consumption of resources per
functional unit.
The impact assessment, which assesses the environmental impact of the pollutants emitted during the life cycle.
The interpretation, which allows one to interpret the results and to estimate the
uncertainties.
The present study relies on data and methods of various LCAs of renewable and
non-renewable materials, the LCA of biomaterials performed by Jolliet et al. (1994)
showed that environmental friendly is different from natural and that material
density mass of material satisfying service requirements is a key factor for both
technological and environmental optimisation, specially in case of long distance
transport. Within the European concerted action on harmonisation of environmen-

Fig. 1. General scheme for life cycle assessment.

270

T. Corbie`re-Nicollier et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 33 (2001) 267287

tal life cycle assessment for agriculture, Audsley et al. (1997) developed a systematic approach to LCA of agriculture production. Jolliet et al. (1997) and Wolfenberger et al. (1997) studied M. sinensis used for heat production compared with
other renewable materials. Landtechnik Weihenstephan (1995) and Dinkel et al.
(1996) developed LCA for different renewable materials.
For the plastic components of the transport pallet, Ko ppen et al. (1994)
performed an LCA of glass fibre for insulation purposes. Detailed LCA data for
plastics have recently been updated and published in the BUWAL database
(Haberstatter et al., 1998). Based on these earlier works, this paper develops the
specific case of M. sinensis biofibres and presents results according to the four
phases of LCA, finally comparing the obtained performances to earlier studies.

2. Goal definition and scoping

2.1. Goals
The present study concentrates on the comparison of China reed biofibres used
instead of glass fibre as reinforcement in plastics, with transport pallets as the end
product. It specifically aims:
To determine if the use of China reed instead of glass fibre as reinforcement in
plastics is advantageous from an ecological point of view.
To identify key environmental parameters and phases in the whole life cycle of
transport pallets.
To study various disposal scenarios of the transport pallets (incineration, discharge and recycling) in order to optimise environmentally this part of the life
cycle.
To investigate the sensitivity of the LCA results to different factors, such as
product lifetime, resin fibre content and total transport distance.

2.2. Functional unit and system boundaries

The functional unit is defined as a standard transport pallet satisfying service
requirements (transport of 1000 km per year) for 5 years.
It is useful to provide some specific information on M. sinensis. In Switzerland,
the production of China reed is mainly used for energy production, but some small
enterprises promote its use as reinforcement for compression and injection moulded
thermoplastic composites. China reed is a C4 perennial grass, which grows very
quickly due to a particularly efficient photosynthesis (Werner and Ko hler, 1994).
For this reason the plants grow to a height of approximately 4 m during five
summer months, producing 17 20 tonnes of biomass per ha per year. In the stem,
fibre rich bundles are distributed throughout the cross section, with a higher density
towards the surface. The China reed fibre is obtained through a simple grinding and
sieving process with a yield of 70%. The remaining 30% are grinding residues, which
are presently used as landfill.

T. Corbie`re-Nicollier et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 33 (2001) 267287

271

Fig. 2. System boundaries with primary non-renewable energy consumption (MJ).

The system boundaries are chosen in order to include all the processes necessary
for the realisation of the system function. All the processes related to manufacture,
use and disposal of each type of pallet are taken into account. The process tree is
depicted in Fig. 2. For the China reed reinforced pallet, the production of China
reed fibre is considered instead of the production of glass fibre. China reed is
cultivated and then transported to a depot, where it is ground. The unusable part
is put in a bioactive discharge; the fibre is used for the pallet production. During the
manufacture, it is necessary to use a compatibiliser to improve the interface
between polypropylene and natural fibres. The production of this compatibiliser

272

T. Corbie`re-Nicollier et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 33 (2001) 267287

(maleic anhydride) is also taken into account in the system. For the glass fibrereinforced pallet, the following processes are included in the system, production
of glass fibre, polypropylene production, pallet production, use (transporting)
and disposal of the pallets.
Detailed assumptions made in the environmental assessment are presented in
Appendix A.

2.3. Scenarios
The first type of transport pallet studied is composed of polypropylene and
glass fibre (GF pallet). Their lifetime is assumed to be 5 years. The second type
of pallet is composed of polypropylene and China reed fibre (CR pallet). For
this material, only the mechanical properties of its constituents (i.e. fibre and
matrix) are currently available.
A comparison of the two types of pallets requires that they meet the same
service requirements. Thus, they must have the same mechanical properties (in
this case stiffness characterised by the E-modulus). A GF pallet weighting 15 kg,
containing 42% by weight of glass fibre, which is representative for this application, was chosen as a basis for comparison (Lundquist et al., 1999). The fibre
weight fraction of a CR reinforced composite with equivalent stiffness was calculated using a simple law of mixtures, assuming an optimal contact between
matrix and fibre in order to determine the potential of these biofibres. This
pallet weighs 11.8 kg and contains 53% by weight of CR fibre. In practice,
remaining parenchyma residues lead to a poor contact between matrix and biofibres and thus to a strong decrease in the material stiffness. Further research is
presently carried out to enable a purer extraction of the renewable fibre to take
full advantage of their potential. Both pallets are assumed to be disposed by
incineration. This is the reference scenario.
Two alternatives to incineration are considered. On the one hand, a 20%
recycling of the GF pallet, on the other hand bioactive discharge. In addition,
three sensitivity studies have been performed, analysing variations in lifetime,
resin fibre content and use (transport distance), all three compared with the
reference scenario.

Table 1
Pallet composition, reference scenario

PP weight (kg)
Fibre weight (kg)
Total weight (kg)

GF pallet

CR pallet

8.73
6.27
15

5.55
6.22
11.77

T. Corbie`re-Nicollier et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 33 (2001) 267287

273

3. Inventory

3.1. Method
The inventory is the quantitative description of all emissions and all resources
used during the life cycle of each pallet type. Inventory calculations were performed
based on Haberstatter et al. (1998) and Frischknecht et al. (1996). A detailed
description is given by Gfeller Laban et al. (1999). The emissions to air, water and
soil, as well as the renewable and non-renewable raw materials needed during the
entire life cycle, are taken into account. The primary non-renewable energy
consumption for each pallet is then calculated on the basis of the inventory, using
the energy contents proposed by Gaillard et al. (1997).

3.2. Allocation
Other valuable products than pallet use during the 5 years are generated in the
considered system. During incineration usable energy in the form of heat and
electricity can be recovered. It is possible to take account of these valuable products
by allocating them an environmental load. In this study, the allocation is avoided
by system extension: this means that the heat and the produced electricity replace
a quantity of heat and electricity which does not have to be manufactured in the
economic background system according to ISO Standards (ISO, 1998). In a
practical way, they will reduce energy consumption and environmental impacts.
Detailed assumptions are given in Appendix A.

Fig. 3. Energy consumption for the glass fibres (GF) and the China reed pallets (CR). The processes that
are not mentioned, GF incineration, PP incineration, pallet transport, pallet use (transport van),
compatibiliser manufacture, fibre grinding, fibre in bioactive discharge-are negligible.

274

T. Corbie`re-Nicollier et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 33 (2001) 267287

4. Results

4.1. Resource depletion

4.1.1. Primary non-renewable energy
Fig. 3 shows significantly lower primary non-renewable energy consumption for
the CR pallet. The strong primary non-renewable energy reduction is due to three
factors: (a) the substitution of energy requiring glass fibres by the low energy
natural fibre production; (b) the indirect reduction in the use of polypropylene
(Table 1) linked to the higher proportion of China reed fibres used and (c) the
reduced pallet weight, which reduces fuel consumption during transport.
The most significant contributions to the total primary non-renewable energy
consumption for the GF pallet are PP production, glass fibre production, pallet
manufacture and pallet use (transporting). For the CR pallet, the same processesexcept fibre production-play the most significant role. The natural fibre preparation,
transport from the depot to the factory and from the factory to the place of use, as
well as the compatibiliser production, are negligible from an energetic point of view
(see details in Fig. 2).
The recoverable primary non-renewable energy by incineration is nearly equal for
both scenarios and is presented in Fig. 3 as contributions to primary non-renewable
energy consumption (see Section 3.2), and has to be deducted from the positive one.
4.1.2. Land use
Land use plays a role in every process. Space requirement of the CR pallet is its
weak point. A surface of about 52 m2 of cultivated land is needed for the
production of one CR pallet.1
4.2. Air, water and soil emissions
The GF pallet life cycle emissions are generally higher than those of the CR
pallet (Table 2). In the case of CR pallet, only the agriculture specific pollutant
emissions dominate: N2O (nitrogen protoxide) and NH3 (ammonia), both coming
from the China reed culture. The following substances, maleic anhydride (compatibiliser), dimetenamide, glyphosate and pendimethaline (all three used during
culture), are specific to the CR pallet life cycle. Significant emissions of zinc and
vanadium linked to the polypropylene production are also noticeable. These heavy
metal emissions can have an influence on human health.
In water as well, the CR pallet globally emits less pollutants than the GF pallet
(Table 2). Only two substances, phosphate and nitrate are emitted in greater
amount during the CR life cycle. This is due to the cultivation stage. These
substances play an important role for surface water eutrophication.
The life cycle of the CR pallet causes higher emissions of heavy metals.

http://www.miscanthus.de/anbau.htm

T. Corbie`re-Nicollier et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 33 (2001) 267287

275

Table 2
Emissions of pollutants into air, soil and water for the glass fibre (GF) and the China reed (CR) pallets
Substance

Unit

GF pallet

CR pallet

Air emissions
Maleic anhydride
Benzo[a]pyrene
Cd
CO
CO2
Cr
Cu
Dimethenamide
Glyphosate
H2S
HCl
HF
Hg
Methane
Mn
N2O
NH3
Ni
NMHC
NOx
P
Particles
Pb
Pendimethaline
SOx
V
Zn

(mg)
(mg)
(mg)
(g)
(kg)
(mg)
(mg)
(mg)
(mg)
(mg)
(g)
(mg)
(mg)
(g)
(mg)
(g)
(g)
(mg)
(g)
(g)
(mg)
(g)
(mg)
(mg)
(g)
(g)
(mg)

x
84.1
32.7
74.3
73.1
8.53
45
x
x
80.6
4.48
506
1.48
150
36.6
1.96
0.123
142
497
513
5.19
57.5
195
x
289
1.16
512

5.88
57.8
26.8
54.6
42
4.92
28.6
36.9
38.7
28.3
3.65
201
0.68
79.4
24.3
2.2
11.3
88.6
318
349
2.27
35.1
56.2
34.6
163
0.731
375

Soil emissions
As
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Zn

(mg)
(mg)
(mg)
(mg)
(mg)
(g)
(mg)
(mg)
(mg)
(mg)
(mg)

447
33.9
6.94
5.61
0.128
2.24
3.54
44.8
0.192
46.9
18.1

264
324
268
5.97
22.5
1.32
274
26.4
3.04
34.2
110

Raw material
Energy

(kWh)

388

199

Water emissions
Ag
Al

(mg)
(g)

607
8.81

382
3.56

276

T. Corbie`re-Nicollier et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 33 (2001) 267287

Table 2 (Continued)
Substance

Unit

GF pallet

CR pallet

As
Ba
BOD
Cd
Chloride
Cl
Co
COD
Cr+3
Cr+6
Cu
Cyanide
F
Fe
Hg
Hydrocarbons
Mn
NH3
NH4+
Ni
Nitrate
Oil
Pb
Phenol
Phosphate
Se
Sulfide
TBT
Zn

(mg)
(g)
(mg)
(mg)
(g)
(mg)
(mg)
(g)
(mg)
(mg)
(mg)
(mg)
(mg)
(g)
(mg)
(mg)
(mg)
(g)
(kg)
(mg)
(g)
(g)
(mg)
(mg)
(g)
(mg)
(mg)
(mg)
(g)

18.1
3.09
414
123
702
119
17
10.7
670
16.3
133
6.55
326
13
166
2.96
257
1.53
x
46.1
1.72
18
135
132
0.587
44.6
31.3
1.01
1.86

7.54
1.78
266
80
443
120
6.87
6.81
406
6.48
77.9
4.29
203
5.08
101
1.11
111
0.947
0.00122
18.7
153
11.1
42.8
83
1.67
18.1
19.7
0.608
1.18

Particularly during the agronomic production, heavy metals, such as cadmium,

copper, mercury, nickel, zinc and cobalt, are emitted into the soil. Therefore, in
contrast to air and water, soil emissions are higher for the CR pallet than for the
GF pallet. These heavy metals have negative toxicological effects on the soil fauna
and flora.
The analysis of the inventory is not sufficient to rank the different alternatives.
An impact assessment is, therefore, needed.

5. Environmental impact assessment

5.1. General description

The environmental impact assessment enables one to evaluate the environmental
impact of the inventory emissions and extraction. It is composed of three parts, in

T. Corbie`re-Nicollier et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 33 (2001) 267287

277

the classification, the pollutant emissions are attributed to each impact category or
problem type (greenhouse effect, human toxicity, ecotoxicity, etc.). In the characterisation, the impact of the emissions are weighted and quantified within each
category. In the weightings, the relative damage to safeguard subjects generated by
each impact category is assessed. The main assessment method used in this work
was the Critical Surface-Time method (CST95) developed by Jolliet and Crettaz
(1997) because it enables to take into account the heavy metals in the soil. The
methods CML 92 (Heijungs et al., 1992), Ecopoints (Braunschweig and Mu llerWenk, 1993), and Eco-indicator 95 (Goedkoop, 1995) were also applied to check
the reliability of the results obtained with CST 95.

5.2. Characterisation results

5.2.1. Incineration scenarios
For the characterisation step, the CR pallet obtains slightly better results in most
of the impact categories, i.e.: human toxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity, aquatic ecotoxicity, global warming, ozone depletion, acidification and primary non-renewable
energy consumption. Only for eutrophication does the GF pallet have a better
result (Fig. 4).
The damage characterisation proposed by the CST95 method enables one to
group impacts relative to the same safeguards, i.e. human health, aquatic, terrestrial
ecotoxicity global warming and primary non-renewable energy use. Fig. 5 shows
that the CR pallet is better than the GF pallet in all categories.

Fig. 4. Characterisation of incinerated and discharged pallets (GF, glass fibre; CR, China reed),
according to CST95.

278

T. Corbie`re-Nicollier et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 33 (2001) 267287

Fig. 5. Results of the damage characterisation of glass fibre (GF) and China reed (CR) pallets, according
to CST95 for the incineration scenarios.

The polypropylene plays an important role in the life cycle of both pallet types
for primary non-renewable energy consumption and emissions, especially during
material production and incineration. A lower polypropylene content of the pallet
would thus be favourable from these points of view. The use (transporting) of
pallets plays an important role and increases directly with the transport distance.
Furthermore, the glass fibre production generates a significant part of the impacts
of the GF pallets.
For CR pallets, the cultivation has a dominant role for the categories human
toxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity, and eutrophication. This is due to heavy metal
emissions to soil and to phosphate emissions to water originating from manure and
fertiliser use during China reed cultivation. In this application, applied herbicides
(dimetenamide, glyphosate and pendimethaline) have very little influence. A crucial
point is the crop rotation. It was assumed here that edible crops followed China
reed, which means that a significant fraction of the heavy metals will enter human
diet. This fraction is null if other long-term non-edible crops followed China reed.
Table 3
Results with CML
Unit
Human toxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Aquatic ecotoxicity
Greenhouse effect
Ozone formation
Acidification
Eutrophication
Energy

kg 1,4
dichleq./pal.
kg 1,4
dichleq./pal.
kg 1,4
dichleq./pal.
kg CO2eq./pal.
kg
ethyleneeq./pal.
kg SO2eq./pal.
kg PO4eq./pal.
MJ/pal.

GF pallet

CR pallet

21.2

9.04

5250

4480

CR pallet (% GF pallet)
43
85

1.09

0.665

61

75.3
0.208

40.4
0.133

54
64

0.653
0.0682
1400

0.432
0.0628
717

66
92
51

T. Corbie`re-Nicollier et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 33 (2001) 267287

279

Table 4
Results with Ecoindicateurs 95

Carcinogenic
substances
Heavy metals
Winter smog
Greenhouse effect
Ozone formation
Acidification
Eutrophication
Energy

Unit

GF pallet

CR pallet

CR pallet (% GF pallet)

kg PAHeq./pal.

7.11107

4.48107

63

kg Pbeq./pal.
kg SO2eq./pal.
kg CO2eq./pal.
kg ethyleneeq./pal.
kg SO2eq./pal.
kg PO4eq./pal.
MJ/pal.

2.43103
0.289
75.3
1.05103
0.653
0.0682
1400

1.72103
0.163
40.4
5.56104
0.411
0.0632
717

71
56
54
53
63
93
51

The methods CML (Table 3) and Eco-indicator 95 (Tables 4 and 5) generally

confirm the results obtained with CST95, except for the eutrophication category
(Gfeller Laban et al., 1999). These methods give a better score to the CR pallet also
in this category, because they consider that NOx emissions contribute to eutrophication, whereas CST95 considers that only phosphate emissions contribute to
eutrophication in Europe (European lakes are generally P-limited). These NOx
emissions originate from PP production and from the use phase (transporting),
which are higher for the GF pallet. The Ecopoints method provides a total
ecological load expressed in Ecopoints. The improvement with the CR pallet is
clear and reaches 30%.
Table 5
Comparison of potential energy savings obtained by different uses per ha of biomass production
Raw renewable materials

Substituted
product

Potential for energy

savings (GJ/ha)

Source

China reed, transport

pallet 100 000 km
China reed, transport
pallet 5000 km
Starch based polymers foils

2500

Present study

1200
300750

Present study and Gfeller

Laban et al. (1999)
Dinkel et al. (1996)

China reed for packing

chips
China reed for heat
production

Glass fibre
pallet
Glass fibre
pallet
(LDPE)
polyethylene
foils
Polystyrene
chips
Oil for heat
production

600700

Wolfenberger et al. (1997)

200240

Rapes biofuel

Diesel fuel

Rapes biofuel+heat
production for straw

Diesel fuel+oil

Wolfenberger et al. (1997),

Landtechnik Weihenstephan
(1995)
Landtechnik Weihenstephan
(1995)
Wolfenberger et al. (1997)

4060
110120

280

T. Corbie`re-Nicollier et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 33 (2001) 267287

5.2.2. Comparison between discharge and incineration

Fig. 4 also presents the comparison of the different end-of-life scenarios:
Bioactive discharge obtains a better score for human toxicity and terrestrial
ecotoxicity, because it emits fewer heavy metals to the atmosphere compared
with incineration. The polypropylene incineration is the main source of heavy
metal emission. As the pallets are hardly biodegradable in the case of bioactive
discharge, the heavy metals are mobilised in the soil. For the greenhouse effect,
bioactive discharge apparently emits less CO2 than incineration, since waste
decomposition in bioactive discharge in the considered interval (Haberstatter et
al., 1998) is incompleteless than 5% degradation in a 150-year-period. Once an
infinite period of time is considered, the CO2 emissions would be comparable.
The greenhouse effect would be even higher if CH4 is emitted instead of CO2.
For all other categories the score is better for incineration. Especially for aquatic
ecotoxicity, bioactive discharge has a high impact. On the one hand, for the
emission of cadmium, which is soluble and toxic in water (Haberstatter et al.,
1998). On the other hand, incineration contributes to energy production and thus
to a reduction in the emissions of the mean European Grid.
The impact category land use is not considered in detail in this work. This
category would be unfavourable to bioactive discharge, since it would occupy a
larger surface than incineration.
In summary, disposal of the pallets by bioactive discharge is not a better solution
than incineration. The problem of air pollutants in incineration is just delayed. In
addition pollution of the water ecosystem increases.
5.2.3. Recycling
Recycling of pallets offers several advantages, it avoids emissions due to pallet
disposal and reduces emissions during component production. In practice, the

Fig. 6. Energy consumption as a function of the recycling rate for the glass fibre (GF) and the China
reed (CR) pallets.

T. Corbie`re-Nicollier et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 33 (2001) 267287

281

recycling level for thermoplastic composites amounts approximately, to 20%

(Lundquist et al., 1999). As the technical feasibility of recycling is presently
unknown for the composite containing China reed fibre, this material has been
considered with and without recycling.
For all categories but human toxicity, a recycling level of 20% was not sufficient
for the GF pallets to match the low environmental impact of the CR pallets
without recycling. Fig. 6 shows tendencies. The recycling level should be significantly higher than 40% (Gfeller Laban et al., 1999) to reach the break-even point,
level that is not reachable in present practice.
If both the GF pallet and the CR pallet are recycled, the difference between the
two pallets decreases as the recycling rate increases.

6. Interpretation

6.1. Sensiti6ity analysis

6.1.1. Pallet life time
There is presently little information concerning the durability of natural fibre
reinforced composites. For this study, it was assumed that the CR pallet lifetime
was the same as the GF lifetime (5 years). If this lifetime was much shorter than 5
years, the number of pallets required to meet the product function (transport of
1000 km per year during 5 years) would increase and CR pallets could lose their
environmental advantages. Therefore, variations in the primary non-renewable
energy consumption and in the environmental impact were analysed as a function
of the lifetime of the CR pallet. Fig. 7 shows that for the primary non-renewable
energy consumption, the minimal lifetime necessary for the CR pallet to match the
score of the GF pallet amounts to 2.2 years.
As far as the environmental impacts are considered, the minimal lifetime necessary for the CR pallet to have an environmental impact lower than or equal to that
of the GF pallet was found to be approximately 3 years (Gfeller Laban et al., 1999).

Fig. 7. Relation between the CR pallet lifetime and primary non-renewable energy consumption.

282

T. Corbie`re-Nicollier et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 33 (2001) 267287

Fig. 8. Relation between primary non-renewable energy consumption and Youngs moduli for the glass
fibre and the China reed pallets.

6.1.2. Plastic composition

This part of the study considers the changes in the LCA results, considering three
different fibre contents. This sensitivity analysis is especially useful to extrapolate
the results to technical applications other than the transport pallet.
The primary non-renewable energy assessment is more favourable for plastics
with a larger fibre fraction (both for glass fibre or natural fibrem, Fig. 8). The
largest contribution to the primary non-renewable energy consumption comes, as
mentioned earlier, from the polypropylene production. Thus, replacement of
polypropylene with filler is favourable regardless of it being glass fibre or China
reed. In the case of transport over longer distances than 5000 km, the substitution
of polypropylene by glass fibre would be unfavourable, because of the higher
weight of glass fibre (section below). These results are confirmed in the other impact
categories and for all three disposal strategies, the impact being reduced with a
higher fraction of reinforcing fibres (Gfeller Laban et al., 1999).
6.1.3. Use/transport distance
In the reference scenario, the considered use phase was restricted to 5000 km in
5 years with a 40 T truck. Fig. 9 represents the variation in primary non-renewable
energy consumption with an increasing transport distance. The relation between the
primary non-renewable energy consumption and the transport distance is considered to be linear. Impacts of the use (transport) phase dominate from 27 000 km
onwards for the CR pallet, and from 38 000 km for the GF pallet.
China reed fibres reduce the pallet weight and, therefore, reduce fuel consumption during transport. Compared with glass fibre, China reed fibre leads to a
reduction in primary non-renewable energy consumption of 2300 MJ at 200 000 km
to 660 MJ for the reference scenario of 5000 km.

T. Corbie`re-Nicollier et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 33 (2001) 267287

283

Fig. 9. Primary non-renewable energy consumption as a function of transport distance.

For a GF pallet with a long use distance (over 38 000 km in 5 years), an increase
of the glass fibre content is environmentally unfavourable. The glass fibre has a
three times higher density than the PP. They are heavier and a larger amount of
primary non-renewable energy is needed to transport them.

6.2. Source of uncertainties

To perform an LCA, the life cycle of the considered product has to be modelled.
Only the most significant processes of the life cycle are taken into account. The
other processes are left aside. To improve this study, the natural fibre pallet
manufacturing process should be considered in more detail. Secondly, the data, on
which this life cycle analysis is based, come from various sources and thus have
been estimated differently. They do not have the same precision. To increase the
precision of this work, it would be useful to improve the quality of data with a
potentially relevant influence on outcomes. Moreover, for some processes, since
data were not available, it was necessary to use similar products as an approximation. For example, the values for the glass fibre manufacture were estimated with
data for glass wool manufacture.

7. Biofibres compared with other uses of biomass

To verify and extend the results of the present study, it is interesting to compare
it with other uses of raw renewable materials, including heat production. Studies
based on the same database of Frischknecht et al. (1996) were selected for this
comparison. Table 3 shows that the use of China reed biofibres as a replacement for
glass fibres (substitution of 12002500 GJ/ha) enables a four to ten times higher
valorisation than a direct combustion of China reed for heat production (substitution of 200 240 GJ/ha). The glass fibre substitution is also more efficient than the
substitution of polypropylene chips (600 700 GJ/ha). Generally speaking, China

284

T. Corbie`re-Nicollier et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 33 (2001) 267287

reed is more efficient than starch based biomaterials, as China reeds are a low
energy requiring and efficient C4 plants. More generally, Table 3 confirms that
biomaterials have a much higher substitution potential than the use of biomass
for direct heat production or the production of biofuels for transport. Moreover,
the manufacturing of biomaterials can also be combined with heat production at
the materials end-of-life.

8. Conclusions
The use of China reed fibre as reinforcement in plastics proves to be advantageous from an ecological point of view, provided that the CR pallet has a
minimum lifetime of 3 years. Generally, and this applies to both pallet types, an
optimisation of the polypropylene production process would bring great advantages from both a primary non-renewable energy and an emissions point of view.
A reduction of these emissions to the atmosphere, for example due to better
exhaust gas treatment, would have a very positive influence on the environmental
impacts of both pallet types. Another possible solution would be to replace the
matrix material with a natural and biodegradable material.
It is also important to pay attention to the process of pallet disposal. The
environmental assessment of the discharge shows that the soluble and toxic
heavy metal emission (cadmium) in seepage is the major problem of this disposal
method. An improvement of the incineration plants exhaust gas treatment efficiency, especially the reduction of the heavy metal emissions, would be very
advantageous for this type of disposal.
As far as the basic recycling scenario is concerned, it was observed that
recycling has a positive effect, but that a recycling level of 20% was not sufficient for the GF pallets to match the lower environmental impact of the CR
pallets. To obtain comparable results, it would be necessary to go to extremely
high recycling rates, which may be difficult from a technological and logistic
point of view.
The results of this study could be used as a starting point for the environmental study of other plastics made up of polypropylene and China reed fibre or
polypropylene and glass fibre in order to develop other technical applications.
Furthermore, the comparison with other uses of biomass shows that biomaterials
have a much higher substitution potential than the use of biomass for direct
heat production or the production of biofuels for transport. Higher priority in
research about the use of biomass should, therefore, be given to biomaterials.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Genossenshaft Biomasse Technologie,
Switzerland for supplying the China Reed used in this study. Pharmacia and
Upjohn, Sweden, financially supported this work.

T. Corbie`re-Nicollier et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 33 (2001) 267287

285

Appendix A. Assumptions

Name of process
Cultivation of China
reed

Assumptions

Swiss average rate of

mechanization application
of fertilisers according to
the (FAT, LBL)
recommendations,
probably over-estimated
Transport of China reed Distance: 50 km. Type of
lorry: 16 t. Charging rate:
40%
Grinding of China reed
Consumption of
electricity: 50 kWh/t
(0.01494 MJ/kg). Loss
during that stage: 30%.
Land fill of 30%
Transport of China reed Distance: 100 km. Lorry
fibres
type: 40 t. Charging rate:
50%
Compatibiliser
Quantity: 0.0005
gMAH/kgPalett
Fabrication of the palett Ignoring additives.
(injection)
Consume of energy: 800
kWh/t (2.88 MJ/kg)
Transport from the
Distance: 100 km. Lorry
fabric to the user
type: 40 t. Charging rate:
50%
Use (transporting) of the Two types of transport:
palett
Van: Distance: 10 km per
year. Type of van: B3.5
t. Chargingrate: 30%.
Lorry: Distance: 1000 km
per year. Type of lorry:
40 t. Charging rate: 50%
Transport between the
Same distance as from the
place of use and that
fabric to the user:
of recycling
Distance: 100 km. Lorry
type: 40 t. Charging rate:
50%
Incineration of pallets

Source
Gutzwiller et al. (1998)

Gutzwiller et al. (1998)

Gutzwiller et al. (1998),

Lundquist et al. (1999)

Gutzwiller et al. (1998)

Lundquist et al. (1999)

Haberstatter et al. (1998)

Gutzwiller et al. (1998)

Gutzwiller et al. (1998)

286

T. Corbie`re-Nicollier et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 33 (2001) 267287

Consumption of energy of
the UIOM: Heat: 0.24
MJtherm/kg. Electricity:
0.36 MJelect/kg
ESU (1996)
Bonus of incineration PP Energy recovery:
(PCIPP = 30.5 MJ/kg).
Heat: 26%. Electricity:
10%
Bonus of incineration
Energy recovery:
reed
(PCICR = 14 MJ/kg).
Heat: 26%. Electricity:
10%

ESU (1996)

Wolfenberger et al.
(1997)

Transports which are not explicitly mentioned in this table (for example: transport of glass fibres from production to pallet manufacture) are not taken into
account in this study as they are negligible from an environmental point of view
compared to the transport studied above.

References
Audsley, A, Alber, S, Clift, R, Cowell, S, Crettaz, P, Gaillard, G, Hausheer, J, Jolliet, O, Kleijn, R,
Mortensen, B, Pearce, D, Roger, E, Teulon, H, Weidema, B and van Zeijts, H. Harmonisation of
Environmental Life Cycle Assessment for Agriculture. Final Report for Concerted Action AIR3CT94-2028. (EPFL contributions: allocation, toxicological impacts and global evaluation). June
1997. p. 53.
Braunschweig, A, et Mu ller-Wenk, R. Oekobilanzen fu r Unternehmungen. Eine Wegleitung fu r die
PraxisVerlag Paul Haupt, Bern, 1993 p. 224. Updated version by BUWAL, 1998.
Dinkel, F, Pohl, Ch, Ros, M Waldeck B. O8 kobilanz sta rkehaltiger Kunststoffe Band I. Schriftenreihe
Umwelt NR 271/I, BUWAL, Bern, 1986. p. 188.
ESU. Doka G, Huber F, Labhart A, Me nard M, Zimmermann P, Oekoinventare von EntsorgungsprozessenGrundlage zur Integration der Entsorgung in Oekobilanzen, ESU-Reihe1/96, Institut fu r Energietechnik, Gruppe Energie-Stoffe-Umwelt, ETH-Zu rich, Schweiz. Teil B, Seite 96, 1996.
Frischknecht R, Hoffstetter P, Knoepfel I, Me nard M. O8 koinventare von Energiesystemen; Gruppe
Energie-Stoff-Umwelt ETHZ, 1996. p. 1800.
Gaillard, Crettaz, Hausheer J. O8 koinventare fu r Landwirtchaftliche Inputs, Rapport FAT 46, CH-8356
Ta nikon, 1997.
Gfeller Laban B, Nicollier T, Jolliet O Crettaz P. Analyse du cycle de vie, Jonc de Chine comme fibres
de renforcement dans des plastiques, Application aux palettes de transport. Travail de diplo me,
IATE-HYDRAM, EPFL, Lausanne, 1999.
Goedkoop M. Eco-indicator 95, weighting method for environmental effects that damage ecosystems or
human health on a European scale, Final report, RIVM, 1995.
Gutzwiller C, Crettaz P, Jolliet O. Impact environnemental de mate riaux renouvelables; Application au
cas de palettes de transport, Travail de diplo me, IATE-HYDRAM, EPFL, Lausanne, 1998.

T. Corbie`re-Nicollier et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 33 (2001) 267287

287

Haberstatter K, Fecker I et al. Inventaires e cologiques relatifs aux emballages, Volume I et II, BUWAL,
Office fe de ral de lenvironnement, des fore ts et du paysage, Cahier de lenvironnement No.250,
Berne, 1998.
Heijungs R, Guine e JB, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Udo de Haes HA, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Ansems
AMM, Eggels PG, van Duin R, Goede HP. Environmental Life Cycle Assesment of products,
Background and Guide. NL-2300 RA, Leiden: Centre of Environmental Science (CML), 1992.
Jolliet O, Crettaz P. Critical Surface-Time 95-A life cycle impact assessment methodology including fate
and exposure, IATE HYDRAM, EPFL, Lausanne, 1997.
Jolliet O, Farago S, Cotting K, Drexler C. Life cycle analysis of biodegradable packing materials: the
case of popcorn. In: Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, vol. 49. Amsterdam: Elsevier,
1994:25366.
Jolliet O, Silauri A, Hartmann H. Life cycle assessment of Miscanthus chinensis, biomass used as
renewable energy source compared to oil heating. Internal report IATE-EPFL, 1997.
Ko ppen H, Jolliet O, Baracchini P. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Glass Wool Processing: Application of different Impact Assessment Methods (II). SETAC-Europe symposium of case studies,
Brussels, Belgium, 1 December 1994.
Landtechnik Weihenstephan. Die Stellung der Biomasse im Vergleich zu anderen erneuerbaren Energietra gern aus o kologischer, o konomischer und technischer Sicht, Schriftenreihe Nachwachsende
Rohstoffe, Landwirtschaftsverlag GmbH, 48165 Mu nster, 1995.
Lundquist L, Leterrier Y, Manson J-A E, Gutzwiller C, Crettaz P, Jolliet O. Life cycle engineering of
plastics: a study of resource management, in proceedings of R99, February 2 5 1999 Geneva,
Switzerland, 1999.
ISO 14040 Environmental Management-Life cycle analysis-Principles and framework; ISO 14041 Goal
and scope definition and inventory analysis; ISO 14042 life cycle impact assessment ISO/CD 14043
Life cycle interpretation.
Werner D, Ko hler E. Pflanzenfasern im Verbund-das Beispiel Chinaschilf. Spektrum der Wissenschaft
1994;6:102 5.
Wolfenberger U, Dinkel F, Gaillard G et al. Beurteilung nachwachsender Rohstoffe in der Schweiz in
den Jahren 1993 1996, FAT, Carbotech, Ta nikon, Schweiz, 1997.