Rioux 1

The Life-Cycle of Plastics: How to Think About

Sustainability
Fiona Rioux
Independent Research G/T
June 7, 2019

Advisor: Kelley Van Houten

 Rioux 2

Abstract

Oil-based plastics are a well-known contributor to environmental problems. Bioplastics

are derived from renewable source materials and are popularly represented as being better for the
environment than plastics derived from petrochemicals. This paper seeks to understand how to
evaluate the impact of a bioplastic on the environment in comparison to a traditional plastic
made out of petrochemicals (petro plastic). A literature search is performed to understand the
current state of bioplastics and the environment. Four study papers are selected and a meta-
analysis is performed to develop a set of criteria for environmentalists to use in thinking through
the plastics lifecycle stages and judging their impact on the environment. Relationships between
the data collected from the four studies and conclusions they reach are analyzed. Assessment
criteria are synthesized for judging the impact of a plastic on the environment. By thinking
through the assessment criteria in the context of the plastics lifecycle, environmentalists can
better inform themselves about the considerations that go into protecting the environment from
the negative effects of plastics.
 Rioux 3

Introduction

The negative impact of plastics on the environment is a well-known problem. For

example, the accumulation of large islands of plastic waste in the oceans shows the extent of the

plastics issue, that there is enough to collect in large amounts, and that it has become a

worldwide issue. People are eager for solutions. One possible solution is to supplement petro

plastic use with bioplastic use. Bioplastics are plastics that are made from biological matter, like

plants. The prefix “bio” in the name and the description “bio-degradable” can make bioplastics

seem more environmentally friendly than plastics made from petroleum products. But there is

much more to understanding how environmentally friendly a bioplastic is than just what the

source material is. Scientists use a life cycle assessment (LCA) to perform a quantitative

assessment of the impact of a specific plastic on the environment. Environmentalists who are

interested in knowing how to reduce the impact of plastic on the environment will not normally

be able to perform an LCA, but they can benefit from structured thinking that is associated with

an LCA and what aspects of plastics affect the environment in what ways. This study collects

data and performs a meta-analysis to develop a set of criteria for environmentalists to use in

thinking through the plastics lifecycle and judging their impact on the environment. The paper

will review the data collected from four studies and analyze relationships between the

conclusions they reach. The paper will then explain the synthesis of the assessment criteria for

judging the impact of a plastic on the environment.

Literature Review

Plastics are a widely-used used substance of modern life. They are a group of very

versatile substances, and can be created in many different types and forms, according to

Andrady. The range of properties, from chemical and light resistance to being able to be melted
 Rioux 4

down and reshaped, in the case of thermoplastics, and the fact that they are cheap to make, are

why plastics have increased in demand worldwide, and why there has been an increase in

production so much in terms of worldwide production. Plastics have many functional uses, such

as in sanitation and medical devices, as well as in transportation and packaging, all things that

contribute to public health (2009). The widespread manufacturing, as well as the cheapness and

functionality of plastics, has contributed to its growth as a commodity. Parker corroborates the

evidence that plastics have eased life for people, reduced pollution because of being lightweight

in transportation, have many functions, and even saved wildlife in the form of, in the case of the

first thermoplastics, saving elephants from being hunted for their ivory for the making of billiard

balls. Plastics also save humans’ lives, in an early application, by being used in parachutes in

World War II (2018). Plastics have many benefits, are versatile, and apply to many situations.

They have contributed to health and convenience, as well, which is why they have become so

incorporated into modern life.

However, not all plastic is good. Most plastic benefits the people who use them, more

than the environment they end up in once they are no longer useful. Plastics “are [mostly] not

biodegradable”, and are “extremely durable, and therefore the majority [...] manufactured today

will persist for at least decades, if not centuries” (Hopewell, Dvorak, & Koisor, 2009), meaning

that most is disposed of in the trash, where it will be buried and remain there since it does not

biodegrade. Some of the resulting plastic trash ends up entering the environment. In terms of

plastics production, “More than eighteen trillion pounds of plastic have been produced to date,

and eighteen billion pounds of plastic flows into the ocean every year.” (Gibbens 2018). Since

most plastics do not biodegrade, they accumulate and can enter the oceans, meaning that there is

a lot more than eighteen billion pounds of plastic in the oceans currently. These plastics spread
 Rioux 5

through the oceans during water circulation. Evidence for this is reported by Cózar et al., where

plastics have been transported through the ocean currents and have been found in high

concentrations in the northern and eastern parts of the Greenland and Barents seas (2017). The

implications of these findings are that the amount of plastic that is dumped into the ocean is not

staying in expected areas, and is capable of traveling to areas thought to be untouched, as

opposed to remaining in known collection areas, such as subtropical ocean gyres, because they

do not biodegrade and can remain in the environment for “hundreds or even thousands of years”

(Shamsuddin et al., 2017). Since they do not biodegrade quickly, plastics have time to ride the

ocean currents to a diversity of remote areas, as they are slowly broken down into small pieces.

Some plastic is being recycled, though, as Parker mentions, that “[g]lobally, 18% of plastic is

recycled, up from nearly zero in 1980” (2018). The fraction, while an improvement, is not

enough to reduce the rate of the amount of plastic entering the environment very much. Some

plastics are easier to recycle than others. Single-polymer rigid containers that are made of one

type of plastic are easier to recycle than multi-component and layer packaging (Hopewell,

Dvorak, & Koisor, 2009). There are many different types of plastic that are produced, and, with

some being made of composites, not all are recyclable easily. The limits of recycling the

composite plastics lead to a greater amount of those types being thrown away, meaning that more

plastic enters the environment than if the composites had the possibility of being easier recycled.

The wide range of plastics that are produced have such a wide range of properties that it is hard

to establish a singular way of disposing of the plastics, which means that some get into the

environment. Therefore, the environment is widely affected by plastics, which are able to

traverse to far reaches and remote places because some are not easily recycled, and most do not

biodegrade quickly.
 Rioux 6

The plastics that enter the environment, and the ones that are recycled and landfilled, are

mostly made of one substance. “...[P]lastics [are] made from the same stuff that giv[es] us

abundant, cheap energy: petroleum.” (Parker ⅓ of way through 2018), meaning that they rely on

the same source as our energy system does. The use of petroleum for making plastic takes away

from its other uses, as an energy source, meaning that more petroleum in general is demanded

each year to serve both purposes. According to Shamsuddin et al, oil-based plastics use around

“four percent of the world’s oil production”, plus a little more for their processing into usable

substances each year, which produces greenhouse gases, and depletes non-renewable resources

in the form of oil. (Bioplastics as better Alternatives 2017) Hopewell, Dvorak, and Kosior can

corroborate this evidence, and also concludes that the amount of energy required for processing

the oil into plastics is similar to the amount of oil feedstock needed to create them, since plastics

are primarily made of oil (2009). Those amounts combined would mean that around eight

percent of the world’s annual oil production is used for producing plastics. If an effective way to

produce plastics from renewable resources can be achieved, it will lessen the pressure on using

non-renewable petrochemicals. Producing plastics from renewable sources, which include

bioplastics, would not reduce the amount of petroleum needed to produce and transport the

bioplastics, but would reduce the amount of petroleum used as a feedstock, which would help in

reducing the amount of overall oil being used per year in the plastics industry.

Biodegradable plastics are an alternative to oil-based plastics, that uses less petroleum

products to produce. This provides a benefit in that it saves a valuable resource, petroleum, and

avoids diverting valuable resources to their production that could instead be used for more

practical purposes. Bioplastics are made in whole or in part of polymers produced from

biological sources. (Shamsuddin et al. 2017) Since biodegradable plastics are made of
 Rioux 7

renewable biological products, they would not affect the environment as much as if they were

made of petroleum products because they do not deplete natural resources, such as oil, in terms

of a feedstock as much, since they are made of oil. They would not affect the environment in as

negative a way as if they were dispersed into the environment and the oceans, where they would,

according to Gibbens, trap marine creatures, and enter fish and human systems (2018), because

they have the opportunity to biodegrade. Though biodegradable plastics are still in development,

some are working towards using Some plan to use “plant waste” to make plastics as a “[l]onger

term [...] goal” (Biello 2010). By using plant waste, one can have a reliable source of materials

for creating the biodegradable plastic, as well as not have such a big of a toll on the environment,

in that the biodegradable plastic does not use extra land or resources to produce the raw

materials, as it would for producing plastics based off of food crops.

Biodegradable plastics are currently made from biological sources, so they would have a

lesser amount of carbon emissions upon degradation than oil-based plastics. Gibbens describes

that, when oil-based plastic degrades, it releases carbon previously trapped in the Earth in the

form of oil into the atmosphere, while bio-based plastic returns the carbon that the plants sucked

up while growing to the atmosphere (2018). Bio-based plastics do not actively contribute to

carbon emission issues, because they return the carbon from the atmosphere to the atmosphere

upon degradation, while oil-based plastics actively contribute to carbon emission issues because

they bring up carbon that was originally being stored within the Earth to the atmosphere. Another

advantage of biodegradable plastics is that some types (PLA specifically) can be chemically

recycled into new feedstock with the right recovery and processing to make new plastic, which

could trap carbon in a process of PLA production, that would negate the related carbon emissions

(Vink, Rábago, Glassner, & Gruber, 2003). Having biodegradable plastics that can close carbon
 Rioux 8

in a loop through the plastic being able to be recycled into new plastic, as well as able to

biodegrade, helps to prevent more carbon from entering the atmosphere and will also help to

decrease carbon emissions.

One thing to keep in mind when making biodegradable plastics, especially PLA, is that

carbon emissions used in production can come from energy needed for manufacturing the plastic,

and equipment for harvesting the plant crops (Vink et al. 2003). While this is an important

consideration, it is important to note that PLA production can produce less carbon dioxide than

most other polymers (Vink et al. 2003). The lesser production would bring greater benefit in

terms of carbon emissions reduction. While biodegradable plastics can produce less carbon

dioxide when they are being made, the energy efficiency of production is not taken into account.

Biodegradable plastics now can be more energy intensive when it comes to manufacturing than

oil-based plastics (Schulze, Juraschek, Herrmann, & Thiede 2017). So, though the manufacturing

process may produce less carbon dioxide, the manufacturing process takes more energy to

produce biodegradable plastics. The tradeoff of lower carbon dioxide emissions versus using

more energy to produce must be taken into account when considering the advantages and

disadvantages of producing biodegradable plastics. Most bioplastics production has yet another

challenge: they are expensive as a result of their feedstocks being agricultural raw materials,

which can get expensive (Xu & Yang, 2012). These expenses do not create much of an incentive

to implement biodegradable plastics, as the materials are agricultural raw materials. The

agricultural raw materials include plants. Having plant-based plastics does impose some

complications, as diverting land and energy to producing plants for making plastics would

detract from the production of food (Biello, 2010). The competition between using the land and

energy for producing food and the plastic is what would drive up the price of the plastics.
 Rioux 9

Gibbens can corroborate the evidence that environmental issues involved with producing

biodegradable plastics include diverting land from food production, and fertilizer pollution

(2018). The biodegradable plastics that are made of food crops are not ideal because the amount

of resources that need to be put into them are costly. Knowing the costs and resource limitations

of current bioplastics is crucial to knowing how effective they really are.

Another challenge to the bioplastics industry is that not all bioplastics are degraded in the

same way. There are many different standards for how plastics should be able to degrade in

different conditions, and how different biodegradable products are being created for those

different scenarios. The results of a study by Greene show that, in varying environments,

including industrial and commercial composting facilities, soil burial, marine, and anaerobic

digestion, biodegradable plastics do not biodegrade in all environments in a reasonable amount

of time. Some biodegrade in some environments, but not others (2017). The varying results of

composting different plastics are a result of different standards being met when the plastic is

being developed. Different plastics are developed to different standards, such as plastics

developed for degrading in marine environments, as opposed to ones being developed to degrade

in the soil. As seen in Greene’s study, not all biodegradable plastics biodegrade in all

environments (2017), meaning that if some were to be left in an environment where they were

not designed to biodegrade, they might not biodegrade at all, which would mean that it would be

like placing a petroplastic in those environments, which would negate the reason for producing

the bioplastics in the first place. It is crucial to take all of these factors into account when

researching whether a bioplastic measures up to its petroplastic counterparts.

One method of comparing bioplastics and petroplastics quantitatively is through a Life

Cycle Analysis (LCA). The LCA is a tool used to quantify impacts on the environment of a
 Rioux 10

product over its life cycle. This would include the resources used to create it, and its

environmental impact after use. Life cycles have four main stages, according to the Society of

the Bioplastics Industry Bioplastics Council, the Definition of Goal and Scope, the Life-Cycle

Inventory, the Life-Cycle Impact Assessment, and the Interpretation. The Definition of Goal and

Scope is where the reason for carrying out the study, how the results will be used, and the

intended audience for the study is established. The Life-Cycle Inventory is where the data used

in the analysis is collected, and various tests are given. The data can focus on Resources,

Ecosystem, and Human Health. The third part, the Life Cycle Impact Assessment, is where the

data is transformed into quantified data that fits into the impact categories established in the

Definition of Goal and Scope part of the LCA. The interpretation phase is where the results of

the LCA are reviewed to see if the goals were met. A third-party reviewer would review the LCA

to show that it meets standards, as well as if there are any gaps in the knowledge, or uncertainties

and assumptions (2009). A LCA is an involved process, and requires an in-depth analysis of all

components of the product’s, in this case plastic’s, life cycle. Though the LCA may take time to

complete, it is the best option when it comes to looking at the overall impact of a new

biodegradable plastic product on the environment, as compared to those currently in use.

LCAs have been put into use in many instances when evaluating a plastic’s effect on the

environment. Various conclusions have been reached when comparing biodegradable plastics to

conventional ones. Yates and Barlow cite that the results of the assessments “can be very

disparate”, because Life-Cycle Analyses are not always focused on the same goal (2013).

Various scopes of assessments can be made based off of the different goals of the assessments

established. Hottle, Bilec, and Landis find that many studies vary in the scope of their

assessments (2013). The focus of a Life-Cycle Analysis depends on the goals established in the
 Rioux 11

Goal and Scope Definition phase (Society of Bioplastics Industry Bioplastics Council, 2009).

Goals can vary among individual Life-Cycle Analyses. The study by Yates and Barlow finds that

studies that focus on the consumption of non-renewable energy tend to conclude that

biodegradable plastics are better, while the conclusion is more ambiguous when considering

other categories, including regional and product-specific categories (2013). The LCA can be

defined in many different ways when considering factors impacting biodegradable plastics. They

also require testing in the Life-Cycle Inventory part of the assessment (Society of the Bioplastics

Industry Bioplastics Council, 2009). The LCAs performed by Wäger and Hischier involved

“extensive [...] test[ing] with sensitivity analyses” (2015), meaning that LCAs can become very

long and drawn-out processes. The length and depth that an LCA requires to be taken, and the

complexity of having different goals in mind while taking them, is not beneficial to most

environmentalists, who do not have a use for the extensive information. But, the structured

thinking of the LCA can be beneficial to environmentalists, so that they can be informed of the

different kinds of biodegradable plastic products available, and assess which benefit the

environment the most, in order to make more well-informed decisions about which plastic

products are the best for the environment over their entire life cycle.

Data Collection

Rationale

The research question for this study is “What is the best way to solve the negative impact

of plastics on the environment? The effort to answer this question led to collecting data on the

topic of bioplastics. The data collected support the idea that bioplastics have some good qualities

that can help solve problems with plastics in the environment, but there are also many problems

yet to be solved in creating the best bioplastics. A limitation of the data collection method is that
 Rioux 12

bioplastics is a large and very deep topic. There are many researchers and scientists working on

this problem, and some of their work is very technical in nature, making it hard to understand.

The necessary research to compare biodegradable plastics would ideally be an experiment over

many years that tests the negative impact of plastics on the environment. Such as experiment is

not feasible in the research setting, so the most appropriate method to study various products and

their impact on the environment is meta-analysis: selecting four current studies and synthesizing

their conclusions to illustrate key factors that go into defining the quality of a bioplastic.

The following table presents the data analysis carried out for this paper. There are four

rows of text. Each row represents one of the four studies that were used in the data analysis. The

last column pulls together findings and conclusions of all four studies that are relevant to judging

the impact of bioplastics versus petro plastics on the environment. Areas of agreement are

identified and described in the fourth column. Findings and conclusions of a study that are in

contrast to or complementary to the findings of another study are also identified and described in

column four. After the table is a narrative of the analysis. This provides a more readable version

of the analysis that indicates how the conclusions in the fourth column of the table can be applied

to considering the impacts of plastics on the environment.

 Rioux 13

Name of Study, What was Analyzed Conclusions of Study Comparison and

Authors Conclusions Across All

4 Studies
 Rioux 14

Bioplastics and Comparison “The true advantage of Gironi and Piemonte,

Petroleum-based between bioplastics bioplastics is Momani, and Song,

Plastics: and conventional represented by their use Murphy, Narayan, and

Strengths and plastics through use of renewable resources, Davies all indicate that

Weaknesses, F. of a Life Cycle but the benefit is paid the cost of producing

Gironi, V. Assessment in environmental terms bioplastic in the early

Piemonte 2011 methodology. due to the impact on lifecycle stage is

ecosystem quality normally higher than

caused by the use of that of petro plastics.

pesticides and

fertilizers and by the The Gironi and

consumption of land Piemonte study

and water.” discusses how

bioplastics from

The development of agricultural sources

bioplastics are consume land and

hampered by higher water resources.

costs of production of Momani points out that

these materials as bioplastics made from

opposed to traditional human food sources

plastics. compete with the

human food supply and

 Rioux 15

From an environmental can drive food prices

point of view, up.

composting is the most

favorable way of In the disposal phase,

disposing of Gironi and Piemonte,

bioplastics. But Momani, and Song et

variables such as al. agree that

temperature, humidity, biodegradability and

oxygen, must be strictly composting are key

controlled to get potential strengths of

optimal results. bioplastics.

In the disposal phase, in

The Gironi and
terms of overall
Piemonte study, and the
environmental impact,
Momani study indicate
recycling petro plastics
that recycling petro
is superior to
plastics is an
composting bioplastic.
environmentally

Processes for recycling desirable means of

bioplastics are not yet disposing of them. Both

well developed, in studies also indicate

contrast with systems in that processes for

recycling for bioplastics

 Rioux 16

place for conventional is not yet well

plastics. developed.

Additives in bioplastic
Gironi and Piemonte,
plastics to improve
and Song et al.
their performance can
highlight the value of
degrade or eliminate
incineration with
their compostability,
energy recovery for
invalidating the
plastics that have a
advantage of a
high-energy content.
bioplastic in the first
But this is not as
place.
favorable for

bioplastics as it is for
Incineration with
petro plastics because
energy recovery is not
of the lower energy
as favorable for
content of the
bioplastics as it can be
bioplastic.
for petroplastic because

of the lower energy

content of the

bioplastic.
 Rioux 17

Life Cycle Assessment

shows that bioplastics

have some factors of

environmental impact

in their favor, while

petroplastic may have

other factors in their

favor. For this reason, it

is important to create a

systematic overall view

of factors that impact

the environment, where

all the factors can be

judged against each

other so that a balanced

conclusion can be

reached.
 Rioux 18

Assessment of the Study conducts an Bioplastics production Momani finds that

Impacts of analysis of consumes fewer fossil producing bioplastics

Bioplastics: bioplastics with fuel resources than may consume more

Energy Usage, regard to a number petroleum based energy than producing

Fossil Fuel Usage, of different plastics because no petro plastics.

Pollution, Health considerations. fossil fuel feedstocks

Effects, Effects on These include are used. Momani emphasizes

the Food Supply, energy efficiency, how current bioplastics

and Economic petroleum Bioplastics cost more lack robust physical

Effects Compared consumption, than petroleum-based properties, and this

to Petroleum Based carbon emissions, plastics, although, the prevents them from

Plastics, Brian pollution, effects on price difference replacing petro plastics

Momani 2009 the food supply, cost between petro plastics in many applications.

and applicability to and bioplastics can

a variety of uses. largely be attributed to Items below indicate

the immaturity of the Momani findings that

bioplastics industry. are in common with

Lower prices for other studies:

bioplastics are expected

in the near future. Gironi and Piemonte,

Momani, and Song et

Bioplastics production al. all indicate that the

is often more energy cost of producing

 Rioux 19

intensive than bioplastic in the early

petroplastic production lifecycle stage is

due in large part to the normally higher than

need for agricultural that for petro plastics.

inputs in addition to the

actual plastic Gironi and Piemonte

processing. discusses how

bioplastics from

Bioplastics can agricultural sources

compete with the consume land and

human food supply, water resources.

resulting in cost Momani points out that

increases for feeding bioplastics made from

people. human food sources

compete with the

Bioplastics have the human food supply and

mechanical can drive food prices

characteristics to up.

replace few plastics.

Even if all bioplastics In the disposal phase,

comparisons to plastics Gironi and Piemonte,

were favorable their Momani, and Song,

lack of necessary Murphy, Narayan, and

 Rioux 20

physical properties Davies agree that

would severely limit biodegradability and

their use. This is the composting are key

key point that most of potential strengths of

the media overlooks. bioplastics.

All the benefits in the

world are irrelevant if Gironi and Piemonte,

the product cannot be and Momani indicate

used. that recycling petro

plastics is an

Bioplastics are environmentally

generally compostable. desirable means of

Widespread recycling disposing of them. Both

operations do not exist studies also indicate

yet for bioplastics. that processes for

Mixing bioplastics into recycling for bioplastics

other plastics when is not yet well

recycling can lead to developed.

unusable products. This

is a concern because

recycling is the most

energetically and

environmentally
 Rioux 21

favorable option for

making plastic based

products.

The mainstream media

generally paints a

greatly optimistic

picture of the use of

biomaterials in plastics.

Replacing a significant

portion of plastics with

bioplastics is not a

viable option at this

time. Bioplastics are a

technology in their

infancy, even though

they may not currently

be feasible, they could

hold much promise for

the future.
 Rioux 22

Biodegradable and Analyzes potential The costs of bioplastic Gironi and Piemonte,

compostable impacts of polymers are generally Momani, and Song,

alternatives to biodegradable still much higher than Murphy, Narayan, and

conventional packaging materials that of their traditional Davies all indicate that

plastics, J. H. and their waste plastic counterparts. the cost of producing

Song, R. J. management, bioplastic in the early

Murphy, R. particularly via Not all bio-based lifecycle stage is

Narayan, and G. B. composting polymer materials are normally higher than

H. Davies 2009 biodegradable and vice that for petro plastics.

versa. Attributes like

biodegradability of a In the disposal phase,

given polymer need to Gironi and Piemonte,

be effectively coupled Momani, and Song,

with appropriate waste Murphy, Narayan, and

management in order to Davies agree that

capture maximum biodegradability and

environmental benefit. composting are key

It is difficult to regulate potential strengths of

home composting and bioplastics.

make sure that

temperatures and

oxygen conditions are

 Rioux 23

maintained for effective

biodegradation.

The landfill of

biodegradable materials

including bioplastic

polymers presents a

particular problem in

that methane, a

greenhouse gas with 25

times the effect of CO2,

may be produced under

anaerobic conditions.

Most commodity

plastics have chemical

energy comparable to

or higher than coal.

Incineration with

energy recovery is a

potentially good option

after all recyclable

elements have been

 Rioux 24

removed. It is argued

that petrochemical

carbon, which has

already had one high

value use, when used

again as a fuel in

incineration can be a

more eco-efficient

option than burning oil

directly.

The diversity of

biodegradable materials

and varying properties

makes it difficult to

make generic

assessments such as

biodegradable products

are ‘good’ or

petrochemical-based

products are ‘bad’.

 Rioux 25

Bioplastic Based Research and Important Agustin, Ahmmad,

on Starch and development into considerations at the Alonzo, and Patriana

Cellulose method of making beginning of the provides a real world

Nanocrystals from bioplastic based on lifecycle for a example of research

Rice Straw, starch as the matrix bioplastic are high into making a bioplastic

Melissa B Agustin, and cellulose abundance of the out of local agricultural

Bashir Ahmmad, nanocrystals (CNC) biological source waste. With research

Shanna Marie M from rice straw as material, low cost, and and development of this

Alonzo reinforcing filler renewability. nature, it may be that

and Famille M Rice straw agricultural the cost of producing

Patriana 2014 waste exemplifies these bioplastics can be

criteria. This research reduced in the future.

reinforces the This provides a

importance of counterpoint to the

considering agricultural other three papers

chemicals, land and above that agree that

water use, and currently the cost of

competition with food producing bioplastic is

production in bioplastic normally higher than

life cycle analysis. that for petro plastics.

An agricultural waste Gironi and Piemonte,

(rice straw) to create a and Momani highlight

 Rioux 26

bioplastic that requires how bioplastics can

no new additional compete with human

investment of resources food production.

to produce the raw Agustin, Ahmmad,

materials. Alonzo, and Patriana

document research with

The concern of respect to how to make

competition with bioplastic from rice

human food production straw discarded after

is not a problem, the rice harvest. This

because the rice straw shows that future

is already a byproduct development might lead

of human food to plastics that do not

production compete with food

production, but rather

make the most of waste

products after harvest.

Momani emphasizes

how current bioplastics

lack robust physical

properties, and this

prevents them from

 Rioux 27

replacing petro plastics

in many applications.

Future research may

improve future

bioplastics, as

evidenced by Agustin,

Ahmmad, Alonzo, and

Patriana. Their paper

shows how the

experimental bioplastic

made of rice straw

gained improved

strength, stiffness and

resistance to water.

However, it was not

heat resistant, which

will take more research

to address.
 Rioux 28

Data Analysis

Bioplastics

Bioplastics are attractive because they can replace source materials used to produce them

from non-renewable petroleum to renewable biological sources. Examples of these biological

based sources include starch, cellulose, wood, and sugar. Bioplastic is commonly represented as

a path towards reducing nonrenewable energy consumption. However, when one looks into the

details of bioplastics and how they compare to traditional petro plastics in impact on the

environment, it is difficult to make decisive statements about whether a bioplastic is superior to a

petro plastic in an application. Oftentimes it takes a scientific analysis of the details of the

particular situation and measurements of the complex factors involved.

A powerful tool for evaluating the environmental impact of a bioplastic versus a petro

plastic is a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) that considers a plastic and its environmental impacts

over the entire lifecycle of a plastic product – from creation, to use in its intended function, to

disposal at the end of its useful life. The considerations involved can be so complex that it is

often best to limit the LCA to a comparison between one particular bioplastic material applied to

one particular product, and compare it to a petro plastic material that has commercially proven

itself in the application to that same product. For example, the LCA conducted by Gironi and

Piemonte compared the environmental impact of shopping bags made out of starch-based

bioplastic with a shopping bag made out of a petro plastic (in this case, polyethylene.) With

respect to the product disposal phase of the life cycle, the assessment found the overall impact of

recycling the conventional petro plastic to be more beneficial for the environment than

composting the bioplastic (2011). The result is contrary to public belief, and proves that all parts
 Rioux 29

of the life cycle should be taken into account when analyzing a new plastic based off of the life-

cycle assessment.

LCA normally requires laboratory analysis or scientific experimentation to gather data

necessary to quantify the effects of the plastic on the environment. However, many people who

are not scientists are interested in environmental issues. Environmentalists need to know about

LCA as an authoritative means for judging the environmental impact of bioplastics versus petro

plastics. Most environmentalists will not be able to conduct an LCA to determine if a bioplastic

is better than a petro plastic for the environment. However, they can use the structured thinking

associated with an LCA to form their opinions about how plastics affect the environment. This

paper pulls together the structured thinking of an LCA and applies it to bioplastics so that

environmentalists can better appreciate and make judgements about the role of bioplastics in

protecting the environment. Without quantitative scientific data and an LCA it can be difficult to

objectively judge the superiority of a bioplastic over a petro plastic or vice versa. Oftentimes the

answer turns out to be “it depends.” This paper provides some considerations over the plastics

lifecycle for environmentalists to think through as they grapple with trying to find out if a

bioplastic is superior to a petro plastic.

Gironi and Piemonte found that the outcome of LCAs typically show that in some ways

bioplastics have less environmental impact than petro plastics, while in other ways have more

environmental impact than petro plastics. Depending on the amount of emphasis given to the

various aspects of environmental impact, one could arrive at a preference for bioplastics or petro

plastics. That is why it is important for an LCA to create a set of environmental impact

evaluation criteria that encompass the particular bioplastic and petro plastic under consideration

and ensure that they can be judged against each other in a balanced, unbiased fashion (2011).
 Rioux 30

The LCA allows for a more accurate comparison of petroplastics and bioplastics, which is a good

idea to use if one is thinking about biodegradable plastics technology.

Thinking About Plastics with an LCA Frame of Mind

A plastic’s LCA stretches from the creation of the plastic at the beginning of the life cycle, to the

use of the plastic in a product in the middle of the life cycle, and then to the disposal of the

plastic at the end of the life cycle. Discussion of the life cycle stages and some criteria for

consideration in an LCA follows.

Beginning of Lifecycle - Creation of the Plastic

It is objectively clear that bioplastics do not draw from non-renewable fossil petroleum

sources and this is a factor in their favor. However, the value of this feature can be counteracted

by other considerations over the lifecycle of the bioplastic. Bioplastics have serious shortfalls,

some of which are noted below.

Costs

Three of the reference papers for this study indicated that bioplastics tend to cost more to

produce than traditional petro plastics (Gironi & Piemonte, 2011; Momani, 2009; Song, Murphy,

Narayan, & Davies 2009). This often puts products made with bioplastics at a price

disadvantage compared to those made with petro plastics. The fourth reference paper (Agustin,

Ahmmad, Alonzo, & Patriana, 2014) stated that one of the driving goals for its research was to

use a known cheap, renewable source material (rice straw) for making a petro plastic. This points

to the idea that research and development into bioplastics may find ways of reducing their cost to

produce. Another consideration is that the bioplastics industry is at an early stage in its

development. It is reasonable to think that as the bioplastics industry grows, production costs will

come down based on the savings associated with larger scales of production.
 Rioux 31

Energy Consumption

Depending on the specifics, making a product out of bioplastic may consume more

energy than making it out of petro plastic. A significant factor may be the agricultural resources

that may need to go into the production of the bioplastic that would not be needed for the petro

plastic. Examples of agricultural resources include fuel for farm equipment, pesticides, and

fertilizers. Momani points out that in some analyses where the energy content of the petroleum

resources used for the petro plastic are included, the bioplastic may take less energy to produce

(2009). This is an example of why it is important for a scientific LCA to identify a clear and

balanced set of criteria that is applied equally to the items under study.

Competition with Human Food Supply

Bioplastics may be made out of agricultural products that are also used for human food.

In this case, bioplastics could become a source of competition for human food products in the

marketplace, and drive up the costs of feeding people. Bioplastics that are made out of biological

materials that do not compete with human consumption avoid this problem. Further on in this

paper an example is discussed of research into using rice straw to make a bioplastic. The rice

straw is left over after the rice for human consumption has been harvested. This provides an

example that it is possible for human food production and production of raw materials for

bioplastics to work together side by side while taking advantage of the same land, water, and fuel

resources.

Middle of Lifecycle - Use of the Plastic

The production of petro plastics is a huge industry. There is a wide variety of applications

for products made out of petro plastics. By comparison, the market for products made out of

biopastics is relatively small. This is because the physical properties of bioplastics are usually
 Rioux 32

inferior to those of petro plastics, and there are fewer products that can be made out of petro

plastics. “Even if all bioplastics comparisons to plastics were favorable, their lack of necessary

physical properties would severely limit their use. This is the key point that most of the media

overlooks. All the benefits in the world are irrelevant if the product cannot be used.” (Momani,

2009). Though the current applications for bioplastics is limited, it does not mean that these

limitations cannot be overcome in the future with research and technology development. Near

the end of this paper, a glimpse into bioplastics research is provided.

End of Lifecycle - Disposal of the Plastic

Recycling

Recycling has significant advantages as a disposal strategy for petro plastics. It is

beneficial from both an energy and material standpoint. New products created from recycled

plastics avoid the energy use and costs associated with creating new petro plastics from new

petrochemicals pulled from the ground. Recycling petro plastics is also good for the

environment. Recycling keeps plastics that have been disposed from taking up space in a landfill

or from being released into the environment as litter. Momani indicates that recycling is not

currently a beneficial disposal method for bioplastics. Recycling programs for bioplastics are not

currently common. Bioplastics are not compatible with petro plastic recycling streams, and can

lead to a recycling mix that cannot be used effectively (2009). By developing more bioplastics

and testing them with a life-cycle analysis, scientists can develop a more recyclable product that

is verified by the life-cycle analysis.

Landfill

A widely used method for disposing of municipal waste is in a landfill. There was a time

when landfills were an easy and cheap solution to waste disposal, but land availability and
 Rioux 33

environmental concerns have exposed the weaknesses of this approach. Nevertheless, landfills

are still a significant feature at the end of the plastic life cycle. In general, bioplastics should not

be casually disposed of in a landfill. If a bioplastic is placed in a landfill, it is possible that it will

decompose under anaerobic conditions and generate methane gas. Song, Murphy, Narayan, and

Davies point out that methane is a gas that has negative consequences for the atmosphere that are

twenty five times worse than the effect of carbon dioxide (2009). Understanding the current

limitations of bioplastics can help scientists develop more suitable products for the future.

Biodegradability

The biodegradability of plastics is an active area of research, and the American Society

for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has a number of standards relating to biodegradability of

materials and products. These standards are good for setting expectations for what should happen

when a biodegradable plastic is disposed of at the end of its life by composting.

To make full use of the biodegradability of a bioplastic, careful thought must be put into the

disposal phase of the plastic and ensuring that the chemistry of the plastic is compatible with it.

Gironi and Piemonte discuss that additives are often used in the manufacture of bioplastics to

improve their mechanical performance characteristics. Unfortunately, these additives may reduce

the biodegradability of the plastic, maybe even to the point where the bioplastic can no longer be

composted. A significant advantage of a bioplastic is its potential for being composted at the end

of its life, so additives can have a major detrimental effect on the life cycle of a bioplastic (2011).

The biodegradability, as well as the additives in the plastic, must be taken account of in the life-

cycle analysis in order to develop a full understanding of the way the bioplastic affects the

environment.

Composting
 Rioux 34

Composting is a disposal method that has great potential for being well suited to the

disposal of biodegradable bioplastics. Conventional petro plastics cannot be effectively

composted at the end of their useful life. Bioplastics have the potential to be compostable back

into more primitive materials like carbon dioxide, water and inorganic compounds. The process

of composting may require particular attention to temperature, moisture and oxygen conditions

to ensure that the microorganisms that break down the plastic work in the most effective way

possible. Industrial process controls would be normally expected at a commercial composting

facility, but home composting processes are not easily regulated or controlled since they involve

a large variety of people with a variety of individual composting systems. A good deal of

education of the public is necessary to make home composting work properly and take full

advantage of the potential environmental benefits of compostable bioplastics.

Incineration with Energy Recovery

Many commercial petro plastics have chemical energy content that is similar to coal. For

these type of plastics, incineration and recovering the energy can be a good option for end of life

disposal. Processing is necessary to separate the waste plastic stream into burnable and

recyclable content. However, some analyses suggest that burning a petrochemical with high-

energy content may be more efficient for the environment than directly burning new

petrochemicals pulled from the ground. A key idea is that the petrochemical used to make the

plastic already has already served as a valued product, and then is used again as an energy

source.

The Future of Bioplastics

Bioplastics are the subject of ongoing research, and it is reasonable to expect that the

limitations of today’s bioplastics might be overcome in the future through technology

 Rioux 35

development. Conclusions about bioplastic that we reach today may need to be revisited in the

future as research makes technological progress.

The study by Agustin, Ahmmad, Alonzo and Patriana documents research into ways to

process rice straw into cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) for use in the synthesis of new bioplastics.

Rice straw is a convenient focus of the study because it is a waste product from the production of

rice. Rice straw has the attractive features of being cheap, abundant and renewable. The research

in the study seeks to take advantage of this opportunity and find ways of applying discarded rice

straw as a source material for bioplastics. The research found that both the strength and stiffness

of the bioplastic increased by adding CNC, while the elasticity decreased. Resistance to moisture

is normally a weak point for a starch-based bioplastic. The bioplastic reinforced with CNC had

improved resistance to moisture. Thermal stability is an important characteristic bioplastics that

impacts usability in high temperature applications. Unfortunately, when CNC was added to the

bioplastic, thermal stability was found to decrease. This represents an area that needs additional

development and research to find ways to make the bioplastic more tolerant to heat and usable in

higher temperature applications (2014). By continuing to develop new biodegradable products as

a solution to the plastics issue, and using life-cycle analyses to evaluate those products as

compared to other plastics products in the industry, scientists can forward progress into a more

sustainable future, as the technology develops. Currently, environmentalists can apply the

structured thinking of the life-cycle analysis to biodegradable plastic products in order to

evaluate for themselves which is the best product currently for the environment.

Conclusion

The data collection performed in this paper was based on information gained from four

separate scientific study papers. These papers involve in-depth scientific analysis,
 Rioux 36

experimentation and discussion that is deeper and more comprehensive than what one normally

finds in media articles on an environmental topic. The data analysis pulled information from

these papers together and synthesized it into principles and criteria that non-scientists interested

in the environment can use when forming judgements about bioplastics. The criteria and

considerations in the data analysis systematically span the lifecycle of a plastic – early, middle

and end of life. An environmentalist can use these criteria to think critically about a bioplastic

versus a petro plastic, form discerning questions, and be better informed about the considerations

that go into protecting the environment from negative effects of plastics.

The comparisons between bioplastics and petro plastics and their impacts on the

environment are not simple. People should think about plastics from a life cycle assessment

perspective, and be aware of the considerations and intricacies involved. Oftentimes scientific

research is needed to answer tough questions. It is important for people to approach the subject

of bioplastics and the environment with healthy skepticism. This puts them in the position to ask

insightful questions that can lead to a well-rounded understanding of the complexities involved.

Bioplastics currently have a number of shortcomings that can apply throughout their lifecycle.

But bioplastic is still a relatively new technology that is still in its early stages. With continuing

research and development, bioplastics can hold significant promise for the future.

Works Cited

Agustin, M. B., Ahmmad, B, Alonzo, S. M. M., Patriana, F. M. (5 November 2014). Bioplastic based on

starch and cellulose nanocrystals from rice straw. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and

Composites, 33(24), 2205–2213. doi:10.1177/0731684414558325

 Rioux 37

Andrady, A. L., and Neal, M. A. (27 July 2009). Applications and societal benefits of plastics.

Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B, 364, 1977-1984. doi:

10.1098/rstb.2008.0304

Cózar, A., Martí, E., Duarte, C. M., García-de-Lomas, J., Sebille, E. V., Ballatore, T. J., . . . Irigoien, X.

(19 April 2017). The Arctic Ocean as a dead end for floating plastics in the North Atlantic

branch of the Thermohaline Circulation. Science Advances, 3(4). doi:10.1126/sciadv.1600582

Biello, D. (26 October 2010). Plastic from Plants: Is It an Environmental Boon or Bane?. Retrieved from

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-plastic-from-plants-good-for-the-environment-or-

bad/

Gibbens, S. (15 November 2018). What you need to know about plant-based plastics. Retrieved from

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/are-bioplastics-made-from-plants-

better-for-environment-ocean-plastic/

Gironi, F. & Piemonte, V. (2011). Bioplastics and Petroleum-based Plastics: Strengths and Weaknesses.

Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 33, 1949-1959.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030903436830

Greene, J. (13 November 2017). A Review of biodegradation of biodegradable plastics under industrial

compost, marine, soil, and anaerobic digestion. Retrieved 30 May 2019, from

https://www.omicsonline.org/proceedings/a-review-of-biodegradation-of-biodegradable-plastics-

under-industrial-compost-marine-soil-and-anaerobic-digestion-77148.html

Hopewell, J., Dvorak, R., & Kosior, E. (2009). Plastics recycling: challenges and opportunities.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364(1526), 2115-2126.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0311
 Rioux 38

Hottle, T. A., Bilec, M. M., & Landis, A. E. (2013, June 22). Sustainability assessments of bio-based

polymers. Polymer Degradation and Stability, 98(9), 1898-1907.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2013.06.016

Ibrahim Muhammad Shamsuddin, Jafar Ahmad Jafar, Abubakar Sadiq Abdulrahman Shawai, Saleh

Yusuf, Mahmud Lateefah, Ibrahim Aminu. Bioplastics as Better Alternative to Petroplastics and

Their Role in National Sustainability: A Review. Advances in Bioscience and Bioengineering.

Vol. 5, No. 4, 2017, pp. 63-70. doi: 10.11648/j.abb.20170504.13

Life Cycle Analysis Primer What, Why and How. (2012, February). Retrieved May 29, 2019, from

https://www.plasticsindustry.org/sites/default/files/Life Cycle Analysis White Paper - 0212 Date

- FINAL.pdf

Momani, Brian. (6 March 2009). Assessment of the Impacts of Bioplastics: Energy Usage, Fossil Fuel

Usage, Pollution, Health Effects, Effects on the Food Supply, and Economic Effects Compared

to Petroleum Based Plastics [PDF file]. Retrieved from https://web.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-

project/Available/E-project-031609.../bioplastics.pdf

Parker, Laura. (2018). We Made Plastic. We Depend On It. Now We’re Drowning In It. National

Geographic, 233 (6). Retrieved from

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/06/plastic-planet-waste-pollution-trash-

crisis/

Schulze, C., Juraschek, M., Herrmann, C., & Thiede, S. (2017). Energy Analysis of Bioplastics

Processing. Procedia CIRP, 61, 600-605. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.181

Song, J. H., Murphy, R. J., Narayan, R., and Davies, G. B. H. (2009). Biodegradable and compostable

alternatives to conventional plastics. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B, 364,

2127-2139. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0289
 Rioux 39

Vink, E. T., Rábago, K. R., Glassner, D. A., & Gruber, P. R. (2003). Applications of life cycle

assessment to NatureWorks™ polylactide (PLA) production. Polymer Degradation and

Stability,80(3), 403-419. doi:10.1016/s0141-3910(02)00372-5

Wäger, P. A., & Hischier, R. (2015, May 25). Life cycle assessment of post-consumer plastics

production from waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) treatment residues in a

Central European plastics recycling plant. Science of the Total Environment, 529, 158-167.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.05.043

Xu, H., & Yang, Y. (2012). Bioplastics from Waste Materials and Low-Value Byproducts. ACS

Symposium Series Degradable Polymers and Materials: Principles and Practice (2nd

Edition),1114, 113-140. doi:10.1021/bk-2012-1114.ch008