Art 28 - Sostenibilidad

Sustainability Issues in Bioplastics
Shubh Agnihotri1 and Srishti Shukla1, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States and Indian Institute of Technology (BHU),
Varanasi, India
Srikanth Pilla, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States
r 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Introduction
The dawn of proliferating production and consumption of products has brought along with it increased exploitation of natural
resources and waste generation, which conspicuously reflects an increase in the rate of damage done to the environment. Apart
from rapid depletion of fossil fuels, development has left behind pollution, deforestation, loss of biodiversity and climate change.
A considerable contribution to environmental damage is inflicted by the global stock of plastics. While the utility and production
of plastics outclasses most other material systems, the exhaustive investment of fossil resources for their synthesis and the
aftermath associated with their disposal has rendered these multiutility materials subject to comprehensive environmental
scrutiny. In the first ever global analysis of commercial plastics, Geyer et al. (2017) estimated a total production of 8300 million
metric tons (MT) of virgin plastics by 2017, and generation of plastic waste amounting to 6300 million MT by 2015. Of the plastic
waste, it was estimated that 9% was recycled, 12% incinerated and a perturbing 79% was accumulated in landfills and other
dumping sites such as oceans. Following this, 12,000 million MT of plastic waste is expected to stockpile in natural sites by 2050.
In 2015, Jambeck et al. (2015) calculated that out of 275 million MT of plastic wastes generated in 192 tropical countries in 2010,
4.8–12.7 million MT eventually found its way into the ocean. While this might not appear significant compared to the afore-
mentioned global statistics, such annual influx of plastic debris has the potential to devastate the marine ecosystems.
Sought as a solution to the environmental crisis effectuated by commercial fossil-based plastics, bioplastics incorporate
plastics developed from renewable resources as well as those which are biodegradable. While biodegradability is an indis-
pensable requirement for any eco-friendly plastic, those obtained from renewable feedstock do not always meet it (Fig. 1).
Biobased plastics such as Nylon 11 derived from 11-aminoundecanoic acid present in castor oil and polyethylene synthesized
from bioethanol present in sugarcane and corn for instance are not biodegradable (Deanin, 1978; Tokiwa et al., 2009; Kuo et al.,
2006). Likewise, it is also not necessary for a biodegradable plastic to have biobased origins. Essentially biodegradation of any
plastic is a complex phenomenon depending on its molecular weight, hydrophobicity, and the nature of additives present in the
matrix and has been addressed in detail later in this text. Thus, bioplastic is a general term associated with any plastic that has at
least one eco-friendly facet.
It is necessary for the ensuing discussions that the term sustainable development is not misapprehended. It accounts for
evolution that answers to the requirements of the industry and the economy without inflicting damage upon the environment. For
instance, an extremely eco-friendly material with inferior properties that do not allow it to settle into industrial applications is not
sustainable. Naturally, no material or process can be perfect with respect to this idea of development. However, the closer they get
to it, the more they are preferred. Any material affects the environment in several stages throughout its life span. While finding
potential renewable materials for development of plastics and compostability of existing commercial plastics have been meti-
culously investigated and discussed in literature, the other aspects of the life-cycle of a plastic such as requirement and discharge of
toxic effluents and energy influx during the extraction of raw materials, production of plastic and disposal must also be scrutinized
to assess the overall impact on the environment. It is further imperative to consider these factors because the damage done to the
environment is not limited to waste accumulation and depletion of fossil reserves, rather pollution, global warming and depletion
of biodiversity are also pressing concerns. Along these lines, considering biobased or biodegradable plastics as the goal of
sustainable development is biased and flawed. A perfect bioplastic, while catering to the industrial requirements it is designed for,
must therefore cast the minimum deleterious impact on the environment through its entire life-cycle.
A comprehensive analysis of the sustainability concerns associated with the existing bioplastics is crucial for identification of
research gaps and subsequent development of methods for eliminating them. In this article, the possible detrimental impacts of
bioplastics on the environment and the established sustainability concerns associated with these have been delineated. The most
common commercial bioplastics were analyzed with respect to their life-cycle, and product-based case studies were provided.
Quantification of Sustainability
Consider the life cycle of a plastic product (Fig. 2). The consumption of fossil fuels is not limited to extraction of raw materials,
rather the energy consumed at each stage of the life cycle is either directly or indirectly derived from fossil resources. Moreover,
release of emissions and effluents as well as consumption of water also occurs at each stage. The overall environmental impact of a
bioplastic must depend on total resources (fossil, water and land) consumed, the total emissions and effluents released into the
environment as well as the toxicity of these. In a theoretical statistical analysis, minute components of the product life cycle such as
1
These authors contributed equally.
Encyclopedia of Renewable and Sustainable Materials doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-803581-8.10610-1 1

2 Sustainability Issues in Bioplastics
Fig. 1 The different categories of bioplastics represented by the first, second and fourth quadrants Reproduced from Tokiwa, Y., Calabia, B., Ugwu,
C., Aiba, S., 2009. Biodegradability of plastics. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 10 (9), 3722–3742; Rujnić-Sokele, M., Pilipović, A., 2017.
Challenges and opportunities of biodegradable plastics: A mini review. Waste Management & Research 35 (2), 132–140; Ach, A., 1993. Biodegradable
plastics based on cellulose acetate. Journal of Macromolecular Science, Part A: Pure and Applied Chemistry 30 (9–10), 733–740; Iwata, T., 2015.
Biodegradable and bio‐based polymers: Future prospects of eco‐friendly plastics. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 54 (11), 3210–3215; Deng,
L.M., Wang, Y.Z., Yang, K.K., et al., 2004. A new biodegradable copolyester poly (butylene succinate-co-ethylene succinate-co-ethylene terephthalate).
Acta Materialia 52 (20), 5871–5878; Zhao, X.Y., Wang, M.Z., Xing, A., Xiao, J.J., Xie, J., 2014. Design and synthesis of biodegradable copolyester
poly (ε-caprolactone‐co‐d, l‐lactide) with four pendent functional groups. Polymer Engineering & Science 54 (9),
2170–2176; Chen, Y., Tan, L., Chen, L., Yang, Y., Wang, X., 2008. Study on biodegradable aromatic/aliphatic copolyesters. Brazilian Journal of
Chemical Engineering 25 (2), 321–335.
Fig. 2 Block diagram representing the life cycle of a plastic product.
the amount of water used in irrigation of the crops which yield the monomer for the plastic are difficult to include, since a broad
analysis taking into account all such components of the study requires collection and analysis of an enormous amount of data. The
small environmental impacts associated with all such components of the life cycle cumulatively generate a significant environ-
mental impact. Thus, in order to develop a complete picture, databases as well as pre-defined standardized mathematical
approaches are required to obtain reliable and relevant conclusions. For this reason several sustainability measurement methods
have been developed. The most common methods, which assign quantitative indexes to the sustainability potential of bioplastics
and therefore make the associated environmental impacts easy to visualize have been discussed as follows.
Sustainability Issues in Bioplastics 3
Sustainability Metrics
Over years of environmental concerns, several methods and approaches have been developed to quantify the potential of processes
and products for sustainable development. One such approach is the evaluation of “Ecological Footprint” developed by
Wackernagel and Rees (1998), which is an approximation of the ecological capacity necessary to support a population or economy
based on statistics of consumption of natural resources and waste generation by a pre-defined unit. Subsequently comparisons are
made to juxtapose the required ecological capital with the available natural capital to evaluate the gap between the unit functions
and sustainability. Along similar lines the World Business Council for Sustainable development (WBCSD) has developed
approaches to amalgamate general business practises with sustainability and advocates accelerated transition to an ecologically
stable world (Sandberg et al., 2010; Lehni, 1998; World Business Council for Sustainable Development WBCSD, 2001). Other
common approaches include Circles of Sustainability (James, 2014), Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) (Esty et al., 2005),
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA). The latter two approaches have been
used specifically for analysis of products and manufacturing methodologies, especially in plastics, and have henceforth been
described.
Environmental impact assessment (EIA)

Environmental impact assessment constitutes one of the oldest tools for evaluation of the environmental footprint of a process,
project, material, policy or product. While several similar procedures have existed for years, the most standard and widely accepted
EIA process emerged from the US National Environmental Policy Act 1969 (NEPA), and has been expansively used for identifi-
cation, prediction and mitigation of ecological damage associated with development propositions. It is performed in sequential
stages including screening, scoping, baseline data collection, impact prediction, impact assessment, mitigation, formulation of
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), subsequent review and follow-up. While EIA forms an effective utility for analysis of
potential damage by plastic processing methodologies such as plastic injection molding (Pun et al., 2003), and lays the framework
for finding alternative approaches, there are numerous limitations associated with the formal and informal review generated post
EIA, along with the dispute on fulfillment of its objectives specified in NEPA (Petts, 2009). The approach has received criticism for
its limited scope and effect on the final decisions associated with proposals (Jay et al., 2007). For such reasons, it is not preferred
for the smaller, more specific domains.
Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA)

LCSA constitutes a comprehensive sustainability assessment, involving a thoroughgoing analysis of environmental, economic and
socio-economic impacts of a product throughout its life cycle (Fig 3):
The concept of using the three assessment techniques i.e., LCA, LCC and S-LCA together was first proposed by Kloepffer (2008)
and is now endorsed by United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and several other international organizations working
towards sustainable development. Since sustainable development is an amalgamation of environmental, social and economic
viability in development, simultaneous assessment of all the aspects of the unit under consideration are important. For example,
an eco-friendly product that is either very expensive or does not meet the requirements of the social backdrop will not broadly
supplant its less eco-friendly alternative.
Fig. 3 The concept of sustainable development.

Life cycle assessment (LCA)

Life Cycle Assessment is the most broadly accepted method for quantifying the environmental impacts associated with products. The
need for LCA stems from the requirement to consider the entire spectrum of environmental impacts that are connected to the life cycle
of any entity, which is not only lacking in other assessment routes, but also provides an all-encompassing assessment which generates
the overall perspective necessary to compare between alternatives and select the eco-friendliest option. LCA is performed either by
considering the complete life cycle which includes the extraction and processing of raw materials, manufacturing, transportation and
distribution, use reuse and maintenance, recycling and final disposal, in which case it is called a cradle to grave assessment, or by
evaluating only the part of life cycle involving production. The latter is called cradle to gate assessment and is usually used mostly by
firms producing the product. The input and output of energy and materials at each stage of product life is considered and analyzed.
Thereafter, indices are provided to estimate quantitatively the overall damage fostered in various aspects, each of which represents a facet
of pressing environmental concerns. A life cycle study can either be focused on assessment of an individual product or utilize the
collected data to compare between two products or processes, in which case it referred to as comparative LCA. In accordance with the
international standards accepted for LCA (ISO 14040 and ISO 14044), it is performed in four steps: goal and scope definition, life cycle
inventory, life cycle impact assessment and interpretation. These have been described briefly as follows:
(1) Goal and Scope Definition: A life cycle study is typically application specific and requires a framework for distinguishing and
filtrating relevant data from the countless data elements available. For quantification, data must be limited to a functional
unit and the circumference of the aspects related with the product or process to be considered must be established. Thus, in
this step, the following factors are defined to build the framework for the subsequent study:
(a) The requirement and purpose of the study (or the ‘Goal’) is defined, which makes the overall study concise and
compendious.
(b) System boundaries, such as technical and geographic limits on the subject as well time frame of analysis are specified.
The systems to be analyzed in the study are also delimited.
(c) Reference function (or Functional unit), which provides the baseline for calculation of input and output variables
through the life and the ensuing quantification of associated impact. For example, in a study of polyethylene bags, a
functional unit could be 100 bags manufactured in a particular region.
(d) The various assumptions associated with the study are demarcated, along with a description of the groups the study will
be addressed to (following the earlier example, the study could be addressed to academic, technical, and marketing
personnel, along with general public or legislative bodies).
(e) The standardized methods implemented in the study, and the specific impacts to be addressed in the study, along with
the weight assigned to each specific impact studied is defined.
(f) If the study is intended for public and academic reference, it is necessary to specify the need of a peer review.
(2) Life Cycle Impact Assessment: This step involves collection, description and verification of relevant data, which includes
emission and resource consumption values, along with intermediate chemicals and other unit processes which are likely to
yield an environmental impact. Data acquired can be of two types, based on its origin:
(a) Primary data includes data acquired directly from its source, such as in annual government or company reports,
interviews and other official articles. This data is considered more relevant and reliable from a scientific perspective.
(b) Secondary data is acquired from commercial and public LCA databases such as Ecoinvent and European Life Cycle
Database, and from previous published LCA studies. A very common approach towards contemporary life cycle studies
is use of LCA software database, of which two very broadly used softwares include SimaPro (PRé Sustainability) and
GaBi (Thinkstep). A few other LCA softwares such as OpenLCA (GreenDelta) and Umberto (Ifu Hamburg) are also used.
Based on the choice of processes to be included in the study, the product system is modeled and fed the amassed data. The step
produces a Life Cycle Inventory (LCI), which contains organized information related to the various input and output processes
between the product system and the environment.
(3) Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA): In this step, the raw data accumulated in LCI is used to evaluate the quantified con-
tribution of the product or process in consideration on impact categories, which represent environmental issues of concern
such as global warming, eutrophication, fossil depletion etc. It is concluded in five stages: Selection, classification, char-
acterization, normalization and grouping. Relevant impact categories are chosen based on the assumptions taken, the goal
and scope of the study, as well as based on the environmental impacts that need to be studied in reference to the subject. Post
characterization, the impact categories are normalized and assigned weights based on which environmental aspect is con-
sidered more critical with respect to the application being studied.
(4) Interpretation: This step involves analysis of the LCIA results to provide meaningful and comprehensible conclusions. Sen-
sitivity and uncertainty analysis are performed to check the reliability of the results of the study, based on which, it is inferred
whether the goal and scope of the study have been met.
Life cycle costing (LCC)

Life Cycle Costing (LCC) is an important economic evaluation employed in the selection of alternatives that impact both pending
and future costs. It combines and thereafter assess the costs related to the product over the span of its life i.e., production, use,
reuse, maintenance and disposal (Andrews, 2009). It is driven by the fact that the purchase price of the product does not reflect the
complete picture of all the costs that are caused by the product and thus takes into account all costs occurring during a product’s
life cycle irrespective of the party bearing them. Conventional LCC has existed since a long time but is quite different from the
concept of environmental LCC. It is performed to back the policy making process in the financial division to predict the
preliminary investment and subsidiary monetary flows on maintenance, disposal, etc., (Spierling et al., 2018). The focus of
conventional LCC is on net savings, benefits or savings-to-investment ratio (Kloepffer, 2008). Moreover, since the conventional
LCC lacks compatibility with LCA (Herrmann, 2009), therefore the LCI of both LCC and LCA are kept same and the boundary
conditions are kept equivalent so as to ensure the compatibility between two in order to carry out a meaningful analysis. In case of
biobased plastics, conventional LCC can be of interest especially when it comes to new production equipment.
Social life cycle assessment (S-LCA)

This technique is a collection of chronological procedures very similar to LCA which allow evaluation of the social impacts of
a product through its life-cycle. Analogous to how LCC establishes the economic feasibility of a product or process, SLCA
discusses the social feasibility based on the evaluated social impacts. It is based on the ISO 14040 framework and is related to
assessment of impacts that directly affect the stakeholders, the social circle the product or process is addressed to and
provided by.
Drawbacks
LCA constitutes one of the very few methods available for identification, quantification and analysis of sustainability issues
associated with bioplastics. It is therefore very necessary that the results obtained at the end of an LCA study are inclusive of all the
LCSA ¼ LCA þ LCC þ SLCA
possible environmental impacts of the bioplastic under consideration. However, in most LCA studies conducted, only few impact
categories are considered, due to which they fail to provide a wholesome picture. There are two very discernible reasons behind
this: the LCA methodology is complicated, which makes it difficult to analyze a plastic’s potential for each impact category and the
requirement of an enormous amount of data to ensure fair and accurate results in a study. Uncertainty in data is a major drawback
of the LCA method, due to which most LCA studies rely on assumptions, which may or may not materialize in all real-life
situations. The case study on sandwich composite panels discussed later exemplifies how unavailability of relevant data mandates
assumptions which might make the data unreliable or case-specific. Thus, a requirement for improvement in the quality as well as
the quantity of data available on databases is felt.
Another major drawback in LCA is the lack of standardization. For instance, if two bioplastics, each of which has been studied
via LCA individually need to be compared, the previous studies cannot be used to draw comparison, since it is unlikely that the
studies will be based on the same functional unit, or will have the same system boundaries. For any application specific analysis, a
fresh LCA study is required. This makes comprehensive evaluation of bioplastics a resource-intensive process, which is a potential
reason behind the lack of sufficient LCA studies. Due to the structure of LCA method, the results obtained are usually influenced by
the nature of assumptions and the application, and thus cannot be generalized.
Biodegradability
While the global bioplastic production capacity is expected to wax from 2.05 million MT in 2017 to 2.44 million MT in 2022,
biobased non-biodegradable plastics such as biobased polyethylene, biobased polyethylene terephthalate, and biobased poly-
amide currently constitute 56% (1.2 million MT) of global biobased production capacity (European Bioplastics, 2017). The
precipitous rise in the aggregate Municipal Solid Wastes (MSW) due to plastics has compelled many governments to impose
legislation to stem the plastic waste generation. Driven by such crucial requirement for waste management, and since it is the eco-
friendliest solution to the end of life for plastics, biodegradability has been studied extensively and mandates special emphasis
with respect to sustainability concerns. Composting is a special case of biodegradation. While biodegradation refers to the process
of decomposition of plastic to CO2, H2O, CH4 or elemental carbon, which can occur in soil or water in the presence of relevant
enzymes, composting refers to biodegradation in an environment of decaying organic matter. Thus, every compostable plastic is
biodegradable, however biodegradable plastics may or may not be compostable. For a plastic to be compostable, the following
criterion should be met, in reference to the nature of its degradation (Rujnić-Sokele and Pilipović, 2017):
• The product must be composed of a minimum of 50% organic matter and should not contain heavy metal content beyond a
certain allowable limit.
• The product must disintegrate to particles not visible to naked eye (o 2 mm in diameter) within 12 weeks and must
biodegrade by at least 90% within 6 months in controlled composting conditions.
• Upon degradation, the plastic should not release toxins or materials which cast a detrimental effect upon the ecosystem of soil
i.e., the residual compost should be non-toxic in nature (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4 Global production capacities of bioplastics in 2017. Adopted from European Bioplastics, 2017 Bioplastics: Facts and figures. Berlin.
Available at: https://www.european-bioplastics.org/market/.
In general, fragmentation of plastics in natural environments such as soil and marine follows exceedingly slow kinetics and is
projected to take centuries to exhibit any significant corrosion. Following decades of development in this sphere, the natural
degradation procedures available now for plastics are not limited to soil composting under readily available environments. Rather
several combinations of microorganisms and tailored environments for catalysing their activity, man-made enzymes and materials
to effect deterioration etc. have been formulated. Developed bioplastics with augmented rate of natural degradation are now
broadly used for manufacturing medical implants, carrier and waste bags, disposable cutlery, flexible films as well as rigid
containers and bottles, diapers, tyres, mulch films and multitudinous other commonplace commodities (Rujnić-Sokele and
Pilipović, 2017). Although there are sustainability concerns associated with degradable plastics, biodegradation still has the
potential to develop into a solution to several environmental concerns. In order to develop biodegradable plastics with few to no
concomitant sustainability issues, it is essential to understand the mechanism and methodologies of biodegradation.
Routes to Environmental Degradation of Plastics

Environmental degradation of plastics is a combination of several degradation mechanisms functioning simultaneously and
consecutively. Prior to molecular degradation, corrosion and subsequent weakening of material is essential, which is contributed
by a combination of mechanical, chemical, thermal and other abiotic factors operative in the outdoor environment. Usually these
factors initiate and sometimes accelerate the degradation process.
Degradation by microbial communities

Polymeric materials have been shown to degrade in several natural and specifically defined artificial environments in the presence
of microorganisms. However, soil is the most suitable environment for biodegradation, owing to the diversity of microbial
communities that exist therein due to factors favouring survival. The microorganisms capable of degrading specific plastics are
many and the nature and extent of degradation is also defined by ambient temperature and availability of free oxygen (Nishide
et al., 1999). Suyama et al. identified and isolated 39 morphologically different species of soil bacteria that could degrade poly
(β-hydroxyalkanoate), poly(ε-caprolactone), poly(hexamethylene carbonate), and poly(tetramethylene succinate) (Suyama et al.,
1998). Biodegradation by microorganisms is a complex process, which follows three distinctive steps. An elaborate discussion of
these has been provided by Lucas et al. (2008), and the stages have been very briefly summarized as follows:
Biodeterioration
It is a surface-level degradation which alters the physical, mechanical and chemical properties of the plastic and prepares it for
ensuing break-down. This kind of degradation is usually an outcome of a combination biotic and aforementioned abiotic factors.
From the perspective of microbial activity, there are several biotic mechanisms associated with this stage:
• Microorganisms secrete a complex amalgam of polysaccharides, proteins and similar polymeric substances, which allows them
to adhere to the surface of the plastic. This material not only protects the microbes against unfavorable conditions, but also
weakens the plastic in general by percolating through the pores in the plastic and converting them to cracks.
• The extracellular polymers secreted by microbes provide a medium for exchanges between hydrophilic and hydrophobic
phases. This allows for easy permeation of bacterium into the plastic. It is also estimated that such secretions favor accumu-
lation of atmospheric pollutants and provides favorable conditions to growth of microorganisms, which in turn accelerates the
deterioration process.
• In thermoplastics, biodeterioration can either effect the bulk or the surface of the plastic. Bulk deterioration is usually
dominated by abiotic factors such as ambient radiation and eroding compounds such as acid, bases, radicals etc. This naturally
depends on the chemical characteristics of the plastic such as solubility and chemical resistance. Bulk deterioration results in
disintegration of large chunks of plastic and cleavage of bonds, which effects reduction in the molecular mass. Surface
deterioration is governed by enzymes secreted by microorganisms, which only cause loss of material and do not affect
the plastic on a molecular level. Enzymes are not capable of producing bulk deterioration due to their inability to penetrate the
polymer matrix, which is also why polymer molecules stay intact in surface deterioration.
• Certain species of bacterium, such as chemolithotrophic bacteria secrete inorganic acids and elements such as sulfur, hydrogen
sulfide, ammonia and nitrates as sources of ions, electrons and energy. Likewise, chemoorganotrophic bacteria produce organic
acids such as oxalic acid, fumaric acid etc. Such secretions can either react with and subsequently corrode the plastic or release
cations which form stable organometallic complexes, thereby oxidizing the plastic. While each microbial community utilizes
different secretions and mechanisms for biodeterioration, enzymatic action mostly only affects the surfaces exposed to them.
Biofragmentation
Cell membranes are impermeable to polymer molecules because of their large structure. Thus, prior to ingestion of molecules, they
are fragmented to constituting monomers and oligomers. Akin to biotic biodeterioration, microbes employ different mechanisms
for cleavage of bonds in polymer ranging from secretion of enzymes which reduce the activation energy of molecules and make
them susceptible to chemical reactions causing bond rupture to generation of free radicals. The chemical aspects of the process are
diverse and hence have not been covered in this text.
Assimilation
It occurs inside the cell and can be conveniently considered as the last catabolic stage of plastic digestion. The end products of
biofragmentation are transported inside the microbial cell by membrane carriers and are subjected to catabolism. Disintegration of
molecules into atoms yields the necessary nutrients required for the cell and produces Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP), which
provides the energy for cellular metabolism and reproduction. Although some monomer and oligomer molecules obtained post
fragmentation cannot permeate the cell membrane, they undergo bio-transformation reactions and subsequently assimilate inside
the cell.
Factors Affecting Biodegradability of Plastics

During natural degradation of plastics, ambient conditions such as temperature, the amount of moisture, light and oxygen present
as well as the pH of the soil or compost effect the rate and extent of degradation (Emadian et al., 2017). Some of these abiotic
factors and their contribution in biodegradation have been discussed in Table 1. Since biodegradation involves chemical inter-
actions between the plastic and microbial interface at every step, the molecular characteristics of plastics have a significant impact
on the viability and kinetics of enzymatic reactions, which in turn influence the rate and potential for biodegradation. Certain
modifications in the composition, such as including additives containing high concentration of soluble sugar might enhance the
biodegradability of the plastic (Emadian et al., 2017). Thus, in order to design bioplastics with high biodegradability, it is
necessary to have a comprehensive understanding of the factors that affect biodegradability. Andrady (2007) discussed the various
factors which have been shown to affect biodegradability of synthetic and biobased plastics. Molecular characteristics which more
prominently effect biodegradability have been summarized as follows:
Molecular weight
Molecular weight of a polymer molecule is a function of chain length and degree of polymerization, both of which have been
shown to affect biodegradability. Earlier studies conducted on polyethylene established that biodegradation becomes negligible
above a molecular weight of 4000 (Jen-hou, 1961). Later a more direct relationship was established in evaluation of degradation
of polycaprolactone films of different molecular weights using the mold P. Pullans by Fields et al. (1974). The behavior of
polycaprolactone was evidently similar to polyethylene, in that the degradation became negligible above a molecular weight of
15,000. A very sharp decline in the weight of plastic film recovered after 3 weeks in mold inoculated medium was observed in
grades with molecular weight increasing from 1000 to 5000, post which it was concluded that degradation was directly pro-
portional to low molecular weight.
Rivard et al. (1995) studied the effect of ester group chain length and the degree of substitution on anaerobic microbial
digestion of starch esters including acetate, propionate, butyrate, valerate and hexanoate groups. A sigmoidal decrease in biode-
gradability of starch esters was observed upon increasing the chain length as well as degree of acetylation. It was also concluded
that for maintaining a high biodegradation potential, with an increase in chain length, the degree of substitution should be
decreased, which was generalized for natural polymers.
Chemical structure
The enzymes released by microorganisms react with the relevant functional groups to cause cleavage of polymer bonds. Generally,
a plastic is acted upon by a colony of different microorganisms, each of which release different enzymes which collectively
Table 1 Types and mechanisms for abiotic degradation of plastics
Degradation type Mechanism
Catalytic degradation Catalysts such as zeolites, non-zeolites, platinum-cobalt and platinum molybdenum supported by SiO2, transition metal
catalysts supported by Al2O3 etc., which are present or artificially added in the soil or other degradation environments are
helpful in initiation or propagation of degradation. These catalysts reduce the temperature required for degradation, improve
the quality of residues left post-degradation and increase selectivity for the product under consideration.
In the initiation step, carbon-carbon bonds are cleaved to form free radical, which then leads to a chain propagation, where
the hydrocarbon free radicals are converted to lower hydrocarbons. Thereafter disproportionation or recombination of free
radicals then terminates the propagation step.
Ozone-induced Traces of ozone present in the atmosphere are known to increase the rate of polymer ageing. Ozone attacks the unsaturation
degradation present in the plastic and forms an ozone-olefin adduct known as primary ozonoid, which subsequently cleaves into
carbonyl oxide and carbonyl compounds. The electron deficient carbonyl oxide is subsequently attacked by oxy-anion.
Mechanochemical This occurs due to existing mechanical stress, or due to exposure to ultrasonic radiation. The mechanical stress or the
degradation ultrasonic radiation (if the polymer is present as a solution) causes breakage of polymer chains into free radicals. These free
radicals are generated by tearing of polymer chains, which generates fragments of chain carrying the free radical, thereby
reducing the molecular weight. If oxygen is present in the degradation environment, then the free radicals are converted to
peroxy radicals. This further leads to chain propagation.
However, it must be noted that the cleavage discussed in this degradation occurs only in the amorphous regions present in
between the crystalline regions.
Photo-oxidative Near UV radiation (290–400 nm) are responsible for degradation of plastics exposed to sunlight. The plastic undergoes loss
degradation of mechanical properties, yellowing and changes in molecular weight. At any given ambient condition, the rate of
degradation increases with the incoming flux of solar radiation. The plastic absorbs UV light, which generates free radicals.
In the propagation step, hydroperoxide radicals are generated, which cause backbone degradation, followed by beta
scission. The backbone degradation follows either the Norrish Type I or the Norrish Type II mechanism. Subsequently in the
termination step, the free radicals combine to form inert products.
Thermal degradation While photo-oxidative degradation affects only the surface of the plastic, thermal degradation affects the bulk of the plastic.
Usually either of Chain-end degradation or Random degradation mechanisms follow the application of heat, resulting
cleavage of polymer chains:
Chain-end mechanism initiates at terminal monomer unit in the chain and the monomers are stripped off the polymer chain
one by one.
In random degradation mechanism, the polymer randomly tears into two smaller molecules. Usually, both the reactions
contribute in chain initiation step. However, the chain propagation step follows chain-end mechanism. The termination step
follows either radical disproportionation or radical coupling reaction.
Note: Based on Singh, B., Sharma, N., 2008. Mechanistic implications of plastic degradation. Polymer Degradation and Stability 93 (3), 561–584
complete the many enzymatic steps involved in the degradation. A complex chemical structure with a large number of similar
functional groups must require high stoichiometric amounts of enzymes, and those with many different functional groups must
require many different enzymes for reaction and subsequent cleavage. Therefore, plastics with complex chemical structures usually
form poor substrates for biodegradation (Andrady, 2007). This was experimentally observed in the biodegradation of dialdehyde
starch and dialdehyde inulin (Van der Zee et al., 1995). A higher degree of oxidation in both the polymers resulted in a lower rate
of degradation. It was also observed that the oxidized grades of starch and inulin adopted different molecular conformations,
which further altered their susceptibility to microbial attack.
Interaction with water

Microbial degradation involves enzymatic interaction on the plastic-microbial interface. The enzymes released by microorganisms
sometimes require water a solvent medium. A hydrophobic plastic might restrict microbial growth on its surface (Fig. 5), which is
manifested in higher biodegradability exhibited by water soluble polymers such as polyethers, PAA (polyacrylic acid), and PVA
(polyvinyl alcohol) when compared with the water-insoluble polymers (Andrady, 2007). Likewise, in a study investigating the
biodegradation of polyethylene (Karlsson et al., 1988), which is hydrophobic in nature, it was observed that using a surfactant
along with polyethylene enhanced its biodegradability. It was thus concluded that hydrophilic polymers exhibit increased
accessibility for microorganisms. Presence of functional groups such as carbonyl can also increase the accessibility, and hence the
biodegradability of the plastic (Andrady, 2007; Karlsson et al., 1988).
Crystallinity
Crystallinity is known to hinder microbial degradation of plastics. A study conducted on the biodegradation of Polycaprolactone
(Benedict et al., 1983) suggested that crystallinity inhibited the fungal degradation of the plastic. In an analysis of degradation of
Polycaprolactone by Cook et al. (1981), it was observed that the bacteria exhibited preferential degradation of amorphous plastic.
In another study on the biodegradation of Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) (Nishida and Tokiwa, 1993), it was similarly observed that
occurrence of crystallinity suppressed biodegradation in PHB samples. The bacteria used in the inoculum preferentially coloni-
zation in and degraded the amorphous sites created in samples, whereas the crystalline sheets were left undegraded. This could be
Fig. 5 Bacterial interaction with hydrophobic polymers.
due to easy penetration of microbial enzymes in the less ordered amorphous plastic, which allows for homogenous enzymatic
action. Since the microorganism itself feeds on the plastic being degraded, higher degradation in an amorphous plastic must
release sufficient energy for more organisms to feed on and thus becomes a preferential colonization site. This in turn further
increases the enzymatic action in the region and must increases the rate of degradation, much like a chain reaction (Nishida and
Tokiwa, 1993).
General Concerns: Biodegradable Plastics and Biodegradability

Driven by the most common misconceptions about biodegradable plastics, which roughly equate the biodegradability of plastics
to that of general organic matter, they are frequently sought as a solution to the problem of plastic littering and landfills. In reality
however, biodegradable plastics degrade in very specific conditions, and these conditions must be provided as the end of life
scenario in order to reap the advantage of biodegradability at all. For example, PLA is highly biodegradable in soil and compost,
but is almost non-biodegradable, when placed in a marine environment (Haider et al., 2019). In such a situation, PLA that ends up
in the oceans forms marine debris. Most studies evaluate the biodegradability, or develop plastics degrading in laboratory
conditions, which do not materialize in the direct environment that the plastic is expected to encounter. Even if it then degrades in
its natural environment as well, the rate of degradation is usually very different from what is determined in the laboratory (Haider
et al., 2019). Thus, a perfectly biodegradable plastic is no better than a synthetic commodity plastic, so long as it is not provided
the degradation environment in which it degrades post usage.
Biodegradability of plastics has been exhaustively studied in literature and methods for enhancing the degradation of fun-
damentally non-biodegradable plastics by addition of materials, such as in oxo-degradation have also been developed. Despite
this the data published cannot be used for comparing two biodegradable plastics, unless they have been evaluated together in a
single study in the same test conditions. Even in a case where two biodegradable plastic are evaluated and compared together, the
results are specific to the test conditions and cannot be generalized to other environments (Andrady, 2007). Biodegradable plastics
are also difficult to recycle. Upon mixing with the recyclable waste, they tend to act as contaminants and are difficult to isolate
from the recycling stream (Kubowicz and Booth, 2017). These and several other factors raise the question of which out of recycling
and biodegradation is the eco-friendlier alternative. These and other sustainability concerns associated with biodegradable plastics
have been discussed as follows.
Ecotoxicity concerns in biodegradable plastics

Although the definition of biodegradation entails reduction of plastic to CO2, H2O and any free form of carbon, in most plastics
with enhanced biodegradability, other by-products are also released. Ecologically, it is fundamentally necessary that any such
released chemical is not harmful to the ambient biome. A study conducted on brackets made of polyoxymethylene (POM), which
a useful engineering polymer concluded that the primary degradation products released include Formaldehyde (Kusy and Whitley,
2005). Phytotoxicity tests on the rate of germination of radish seeds and Cytotoxicity tests on human epithelial cells using by-
products usually released in hydrolysis of polyester revealed toxicity. It was also observed that aromatic compounds are more
harmful than the aliphatic by-products (Kim et al., 2001). Even polyurethane sheets have been demonstrated to release MDA (4,4-
diamino diphenyl methane), into an activated vermiculite environment (Degli-Innocenti et al., 2001). While certain plastics such
as aliphatic-aromatic polyester Ecoflex® have been tested to degrade completely leaving behind no toxic residue (Witt et al., 2001),
there is huge number of commercial partially or fully biodegradable plastics which have not been evaluated with respect to the
nature of degradation by-products.
Where the rapid biodegradation of any plastic material would solve the problem of plastic waste accumulation, release of
toxins during degradation introduces the question of whether in case of mass utilization and disposal of such a plastic, the release
of the same toxin in bulk into the environment will create a bigger problem than waste generation. Ecotoxicological concerns
therefore form a viable part of the big picture which needs to be analyzed before a plastic walks the markets as a potential
biodegradable plastic.
Oxo-biodegradability
Oxo-biodegradability is the accelerated environmental degradation induced by incorporation of certain additives to the non-
biodegradable polymer matrix. This especially inspired interest in enhanced degradation of petroleum-based plastics such as
Polyethylene (PE) and other polyolefins (Chiellini et al., 2006; Vogt and Kleppe, 2009). The additives involved in this method,
known as prodegradants are metallic salts of carboxylic acids and dithiocarbamates, utilizing transition metals such as Cobalt,
Manganese, Copper, Iron, Nickel, Vanadium and others. These salts catalyse the breakdown of molecular chains, especially when
the polymer is subjected to heat, which results in embrittlement and subsequent fragmentation of the plastic. Usually, along with
prodegradants, antioxidants are also added in the plastic to avoid initiation of degradation while the plastic is serving its life.
Scott (1995) discussed the involvement of peroxide groups and free radicals in the cleavage of polymer chains in the presence
of heat and oxygen, which the initiative step in biodegradation (biodeterioration). Presence of transition metals triggers a redox
reaction with peroxides which yield rapid formation of free radicals. The molecular bonds are further severed by these free radicals.
It has however been realized over years that rapid fragmentation through oxo-biodegradation produces micron size particles called
microplastics, beyond which prodegradants can cause no further fragmentation. These microplastics are still resistant to complete
biodegradation and persist in the environment for long intervals of time (Kubowicz and Booth, 2017). Microplastics have several
detrimental impacts on the environment, especially concerning accumulation in marine ecosystem, wherein they collect hydro-
phobic pollutants and upon ingestion by fauna, pose the potential threat of transferring additives and pollutants to the marine
food cycle (Cole et al., 2011). Despite misleading advertisements portraying oxo-biodegradable plastics in the light of fully
biodegradable plastics, this is conspicuously not true. However there still exist multitudinous debates and deliberations on
whether the concept in general can be utilized for the greater good in plastic waste management.
Recycling versus biodegradation: Which is greener?

Plastic waste management has not been dealt with the responsibility and awareness that it deserves as a potential environmental
concern. In 2010, the gross plastic waste generated in the United States alone amounted to 31.04 million tons, which is roughly
12.4% of the total waste generated (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011). In 2015, the generated plastic waste increased
to 34.5 million tons (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2018). Over years, these figures have become further worse, which is
concerning given that most of this plastic ends up either in landfills or in water bodies as marine debris. In proportion to the
severity of this, several plastic recycling technologies have evolved and have been discussed in literature (Burillo et al., 2002;
Pickering, 2006; Garcia and Robertson, 2017; Ragaert et al., 2017). In broad practise, the recovery of a plastic is achieved through
either mechanical or chemical recycling. Mechanical recycling is constituted by collection, sorting, grinding and washing of
plastics, of which any sequence of steps can be used based on the material characteristics of the plastic. While mechanical recycling
does not affect the molecular composition of a plastic, in chemical recycling the plastic is depolymerized into smaller molecules,
which are subsequently polymerized to form the recycled plastic. Since recycling has had ample time to advance through
continuous research, it is very well-developed and ready to be implemented in most cases. Naturally, efficiently performed
recycling must serve as a solution to excessive plastic waste accumulation while simultaneously reducing the fossil fuel require-
ments for plastic manufacture. A study performed by Chen et al. (2011) simulated the implementation of Japanese plastic
recycling and energy recovery technologies in Shenyang, China, where out of the 3 million tons MSW generated, roughly 71%
waste was left in landfills in 2008. It was observed that when implemented, the recycling models reduced the Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) emissions by 1.66 kgCO2e/kg-plastic and fossil fuel consumption by 0.77 kgce/kg-plastic. Mechanical recycling was also
observed to have the maximum potential for reducing environmental impacts. This study gives a perspective of the amount of
environmental gain that can be achieved by implementation of advanced recycling methodologies globally. However, while
recycling thus represents a promising and viable solution for the plastic waste crisis in general, the global statistics for plastic
recovery and recycling are disappointing and thwart the hope of recycling saving the day. In 2012, only 9% of the plastic waste was
recycled in the United States, leaving 32 million tons of plastic waste in the national waste stream. The same year, in Europe, 38%
of post-consumer plastic was estimated to have ended up in landfills. The figures are worse for the other parts of the world
(Gourmelon, 2015).
There are many reasons behind the poor implementation of recycling. For recycling individual petroleum plastics, they need to
be separated from the general plastic garbage. Thus, plastic waste requires sorting and separation before recycling is initiated,
which is very labor intensive and requires a significant input of resources. Most plastic waste which comes from the food and
packaging industry is contaminated post disposal and requires cleaning before it is recycled (Kuruppalil, 2011). Even if the
resources required for establishment of recycling facilities for different commodity plastics are neglected, the continuous resource
input required for sorting, separating and pre-cleaning the plastic waste is high and this could make recycling unworkable for
weaker economies. Although this problem can be solved by labeling the plastic composition on the product and expecting
assortment of plastics during disposal, it is highly unreasonable to expect 100% responsibility from consumers.
Fig. 6 Case 1 – Hypothetical biodegradable plastic.
Against this backdrop, biodegradable plastics have surfaced as another solution for the plastic waste crisis. While it might seem
like biodegradable plastics offer an easy use and throw routine, it has been discussed earlier that most biodegradable plastics
disintegrate only in very specific environments. It must thus be observed that a plastic that degrades well in an industrial
composting facility, when thrown in a landfill in the natural environment is just as good as a non-biodegradable plastic that adds
to the litter. In fact, a study performed in Los Angeles observed that providing young individuals with biodegradable plastics for
usage increased the general littering behavior, since in accordance with the general misconception associated with biodegradable
plastics, consumers generally feel discharged from the responsibility of disposing waste off properly (United Nations Environment
Program, 2016). Thus, biodegradable plastics have an environmental gain to offer only when they are disposed in predefined
ways, such that they reach their respective degradation environments. Notably, 100% responsibility from the consumer is required
in disposing off biodegradable plastics as well, in which case it cannot be established that it is a better end of life scenario for a
plastic when compared with recycling. Moreover, since the known biodegradable plastics are few, in order to meet the performance
requirements of a broad range of products, usually blending or copolymerization is required. However, blending of biodegradable
and non-biodegradable plastics is not recommended since upon exposure to the necessary conditions, the biodegradable com-
ponent in the blend disintegrates, leaving behind small particles of the non-biodegradable component (Tokiwa et al., 2009;
Iwata, 2015). These small plastic fragments are difficult to manage and subsequently scatter in the environment causing plastic
pollution. Copolymerization with a non-biodegradable plastic on the other hand may or may not yield a biodegradable product at
the end (Álvarez-Chávez et al., 2012). Therefore, there in a lack of flexibility in easy modification of biodegradable plastics for
obtaining tailor-made properties for specific applications.
There are multitudinous other environmental concerns associated with biodegradable plastics. It was determined by
Detzel et al. (2012) that unlike decaying of organic matter, biodegradation of plastics does not benefit the quality or structure of
soil. In addition to this, upon degradation in landfills, biodegradable plastics release considerable quantities of methane and
carbon dioxide and thus contribute to global warming. If it is hypothetically assumed that all commodity plastics are replaced with
biodegradable plastics, the logical estimation of greenhouse gas emissions will be petrifying. It is thus required to simultaneously
capture the evolving methane and CO2, which can be further used for biogas production. However, it must be realized that
establishing facilities for capturing greenhouse gases from a large quantity of decaying plastic, such as industrial composting units
will require investment of resources, akin to recycling.
Conclusively, which out of a recyclable and a biodegradable plastic will have minimum environmental impact is subject to a
comprehensive analysis of several factors involved. It is thus required to mathematically compare between these for identifying
the eco-friendlier alternative with respect to the application being considered. There are several nuances associated with plastic
waste management, since it depends on factors such as public awareness and responsibility towards it, government initiative and
the extent to which corporate firms are willing to invest into recycling or expensive biodegradable plastics. These factors cannot be
taken into account in any statistical analysis to compare between recycling and biodegradation. Thus, to obtain a perspective of
why such an analysis is needed in the first place, a hypothetical ideal scenario has been discussed.
Consider two hypothetical plastics: a biodegradable plastic which is not recycled after its service life (Fig. 6), and a non-
biodegradable highly recyclable plastic (Fig. 7), both developed for a particular product which serves an average life of T
years. Such an example is chosen because cases of products made out of biodegradable plastics, recycled multiple times in
their life-span are rare. If the parameters are evaluated with respect to a unit product, to serve for 5T years, the biodegradable
product must be manufacture 5 times. If the amount of resources required for manufacturing one product is R1 and the
amount of waste generated per product is X, this will require 5R1 resources (Energy, water, land etc.) and generate 5X
degradable waste. In the case of the non-biodegradable, highly recyclable plastic, it can be manufactured once and reused for
4 times before being disposed of. This will require R2 + 4R3 amount of resources and generate X amount of non-biode-
gradable waste.
In between the two cases, which is a greener alternative is cannot be predicted without considering the specific application and
the regional parameters. However, which out of X amount of non-biodegradable waste and 5X amount of biodegradable waste is
favorable in reference to the application and the ecosystem it directly affects can be decided. Likewise, which out of 5R1 and
Fig. 7 Case 2 – Hypothetical non-biodegradable, highly recyclable plastic.
(R2 + 4R3) is more, and by how much, must determine which out of recycling and biodegradation consumes more fossil fuels, and
how much consumption is affordable from an environmental perspective. It is known that biodegradable plastics are in general
more expensive when compared with conventional commodity plastics (United Nations Environment Program, 2016), therefore
an analysis must be done to evaluate the cost involved in the two cases, as well as the technical and social feasibility of each. Thus,
these and such questions must be asked and relevant analyzes must be performed to evaluate the greener alternative between
recyclable and biodegradable plastics.
An example of such an analysis is the life cycle assessment performed by De Andrade et al. (2016) which compares the
environmental impact produced by three end of life scenarios for PLA: mechanical recycling, chemical recycling and biode-
gradation. The reference flow for this study was 1 kg of residual PLA and three impact categories were considered, namely climate
change, human toxicity and fossil depletion. It was observed that composting exhibited maximum potential for detrimental
impact in all the three categories, which was significantly higher than both mechanical and chemical recycling. The impact of
composting was unusually high because in the case of composting, the plastic must be manufactured again by means of the energy
intensive traditional processing for every time the plastic was recycled from residual PLA. Mechanical recycling exhibits
the lowest environmental impacts in all the three categories, however an associated disadvantage with mechanical recycling is that
the resulting product has inferior polymer properties (Piemonte et al., 2013; Żenkiewicz et al., 2009). This loss of properties is not
observed in chemical recycling, since repolymerization is involved, however it exhibits higher environmental impacts, since energy
is invested in the chemical reactions involved.
Sustainability Assessment of Biobased Plastics
Biobased plastics are developed from monomers found in renewable resources. These materials not only serve to limit the
requirement of fossil fuels for development of plastics, but also exploit the atmospheric carbon and solar energy for manu-
facturing the monomers through natural processes. Momani (2009) maintains that if all the existing plastics would be replaced
with biobased plastics, while assuming that the energy consumed in cultivation and manufacturing of plastic products is
derived from renewable resources, it would save approximately 3.49 million barrels of fossil fuel per day – which is
approximately 4% of the global fossil fuel usage. Some biobased plastics such as biobased PET allow for utilization of
agricultural and forestry wastes, which are otherwise mostly burnt. However, against the backdrop of depleting fossil reserves,
whilst the idea of biobased plastics thus presents an attractive solution, academics have been questioning the potential of
biobased plastics as more sustainable alternatives. In his contribution on green plastics, Mülhaupt (2013) asserted that the
actual carbon cycle followed by biobased plastics is in fact very different from the closed carbon cycle (Fig. 8) that ideal green
plastics are assumed to mimic.
There are several aspects to consider before a biobased plastic can be deemed fit to replace a conventional synthetic plastic. It is
not clear whether the biobased plastics developed so far are capable of emitting less carbon than their fossil-based alternatives,
since the overall carbon footprint is determined by processing as well. Moreover, since the very concept of sustainability potential
rests on environmental, economic as well as social impact of a material, it is necessary for any plastic, whether or not derived from
Fig. 8 The closed carbon cycle (left), The actual carbon cycle followed by bioplastics (right). Adopted from Mülhaupt, R., 2013. Green polymer
chemistry and bio‐based plastics: dreams and reality. Macromolecular Chemistry and Physics 214 (2), 159–174.
renewable resources to be favorable with respect to all the three criterions. For example, a biobased plastic that exhibits poor
thermomechanical performance, or one that is too expensive will fail to find its designated place in the industry.
Renewable Plastic ≠ Sustainable Plastic
General Concerns Related to Biobased Plastics

Environmental concerns
In general, the evolution of society has left behind adverse effects on several aspects of the environment. The process of sustainable
development is thus complicated, since where initiatives such as biobased plastics aim to ameliorate a particular environmental
problem (in this case, rapid depletion of fossil reserves), there is a possibility that these might serve to exacerbate a few other
environmental problems. If the complete picture of the contemporary scenario of global development and the concomitant
deleterious environmental impacts is considered, one reaches the conclusion that it is necessary to solve all these environmental
problems: solving any one, and making another worse might not be a wise choice in reference to the many-sided damage that has
been done to the environment. The International Life Cycle Data system (ILCD) implemented in LCA studies identifies 12 impact
categories at the mid-point level (European Commission-Joint Research Center, 2010), a detailed classification for which has been
provided in Fig. 9. It must be noted that fossil fuel depletion presents just one of the many potential damaging impacts of a
product or process, that require immediate attention. A hypothetical biobased plastic which allows for maximum conservation of
fossil reserves, but unfavorably affects any four out of the 12 impact categories might not be a very desirable material.
Another important aspect to consider is the market layout of biobased plastics, which has although exhibited rapid growth in
the past decade, yet most biobased plastics are produced in very small quantities when compared with commercial fossil-based
plastics. According to a report published in 2017 (Degnan, 2015), biobased plastics constitute merely 1% of the global plastic
production and require only 0.02% of the available arable land for the cultivation necessary to support the entire production. This
leads one to think about the amount of arable land that will be required, should the biobased plastics supplant the entire global
production of plastics. Land is a limited resource as well, albeit not as limited as fossil-fuels. Mass production of biobased plastics
to match the global production quantity of synthetic plastics will require an excess of arable land as well as exhaustive farming on
available land. Since land is also required for cultivation of food produce, it might lead to several major crises which have been
discussed as follows:
• Changes in utilization of land reflect on the economy as well as on the global environment (Turner et al., 2007). The present
state of global widespread hunger and rising food demands have created pressure on the existing land resources, such that the
available cultivable land itself is expanding, and the need for efficient utilization of available land to meet the food demand is
felt (Fischer et al., 2012). Approximately 11% of the total land available is utilized for production of crops to meet the food
requirements, which is slightly more than one third the portion of land that can be potentially used for cultivation (Bruinsma,
2017). It is however estimated that to feed an expected population of 9 billion people by 2050, the land used for food
production must be increased by nearly 70% (Fischer et al., 2012). It has further been established that climate change is
expected to adversely affect food security across the world (Schmidhuber and Tubiello, 2007). Thus, the state of food crisis,
along with the excessive global competition for cultivable land leaves very little room for allocating a major section of land for
cultivation of feedstock for production of biobased plastics. Mass production and commercialization of biobased plastics will
inevitably lead to competition with food production, in which case the latter will obviously earn preference.
Fig. 9 The classification of impact categories in accordance with ILCD. Redrawn from ILCD European Commission-Joint Research Center, 2010.
Institute for Environment and Sustainability: International Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook – Framework and Requirements for Life Cycle
Impact Assessment Models and Indicators. first ed. Ispra. European Commission, Joint Research Center, Institute for Environment and
Sustainability. Available at: https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/ILCD-Handbook-LCIA-Framework-Requirements-ONLINE-March-2010-ISBN-fin-
v1.0-EN.pdf.
• If the competition with food production must be dodged, it will require generation of arable land other than that being used,
or is expected to be used in the future for cultivation of food. Requirement of more arable land will result in deforestation and
grassland conversion for farming. It is well known that agriculture is one of the major causes of deforestation (Grau et al., 2005;
Benhin, 2006; Pimentel et al., 1986), which in turn is followed by a host of problems such as rapid increase in atmospheric
greenhouse gases, soil erosion, flooding, desertification etc. and constitutes one of the most major contributors to global
climate change. Likewise, conversion of any natural ecosystem to an agricultural ecosystem is known to leave a detrimental
impact on the existing water resources as well (Scanlon et al., 2007). Considering these aspects, it appears that generation of
excess land to support a completely biobased plastic driven industry might cost much more than its primary purpose to
conserve fossil reserves.
• While the scarcity of land puts pressure on the available land for generation of more biobased plastic per unit land available, a
prominent issue with enhancing the productivity of cultivable land is that it comes at a cost. This cost is either defrayed in terms
of excessive use of fertilizer, pesticides and fungicides, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), growth hormones and
antibiotics, each of which has its individual detrimental impact on the quality of soil and the natural microbial ecosystem of
the soil (Jaisankar et al., 2018; Savci, 2012; Kumar et al., 2005), or in the form of the extra expenditure invested in organic
farming. While utilizing organic resources to enhance soil productivity is a viable solution to the problem of soil deterioration
through the inorganic chemical usually used by farmers, the quantity of organic resources available is very limited and this
reflects in the cost of the produce as well, due to which the organic bioplastic might exceed the financial capacity of most
people. In both the cases, the feedstock grown for bioplastics suffers a major setback, which might affect its sustainability
potential.
• In the discussion of plastics which must be grown in farms, it is necessary to understand the perspective of the farmer as well.
Since biobased plastics are expensive, for commercial benefit, the farmer could prefer cultivation of plastics over cultivation of
food. This will lead to scarcity of food, especially in countries where the entire population is barely fed. In order to maximize
the profit, the farmer might be lured into practising unhealthy agricultural methods such as crop monoculture. Such practises
deplete the natural quality of soil, which in the long run is not only detrimental for the environment, but also in general for the
farmer. Mass production of plastics will thus require strict legislation, which optimizes the farmer’s profit, prevents competition
of plastics and food, generates sufficient raw material to sustain the biobased plastic industry and sufficient revenue to sustain
the bioeconomy. By visualizing a bioeconomy that involves mass production of all the biobased plastics, it can be understood
that it will be very delicate. In fact, such a bioeconomy which holistically replaces all commodity plastics with bioplastics
Fig. 10 Iceberg analogy – A comparison between the current and the prospective mass production scenarios of biobased plastics.
would be resting on the edge of a knife, and it will require enormous efforts and resources to keep it generally stable. Any bias
towards either the environmental, social or economic scenario would not only cripple its stability, but would also leave behind
impacts which will be hard to recover from.
• It is expected that mass production of biobased plastics will exhaustively employ Genetically modified microorganisms
(GMO), Genetically modified crops and transgenic plants in cultivation (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011).
Álvarez-Chávez et al. (2012) states that for improving the properties of starch and for maximizing production, the GMOs used
in the cultivation of PLA and starch are an ‘unknown health hazard’. This is because the effect of hybridization and genetic
modification of plants and organisms on the environment and other species is not known. There is a possibility of human
health hazards such as toxicity of the new gene developed, alteration of metabolic pathways and allergic reactions. While these
have undisputed agricultural benefits, these have multitudinous possible environmental impacts (Hails, 2000; Snow et al.,
2005), because of which these genetically modified organisms and crops are heavily debated on and generally discouraged.
While this discussion concludes in establishing that the available land resource is a crucial factor in analyzing the socio-
economic feasibility and overall environmental impact of any plant feedstock-based plastic, which includes most of the known
biobased plastics, due to challenges in the contemporary sustainability measurement methods (as discussed earlier), this aspect
remains beyond comprehensive analysis. Although it is mentioned as an impact category, it is usually not included in the analysis
in Life Cycle Assessment studies (Finkbeiner et al., 2014). In fact, there is no agreement on a standard method to assess the impact
of a biobased plastic on land use, and any method that is validated may be applied (Spierling et al., 2018). For this reason, the
many sustainability concerns that surround it, such as destruction of biodiversity, depletion of water resource, deforestation and
consequent increase in greenhouse gas emissions, loss of ecosystems and climate change are also not thoroughly evaluated. Thus,
it is difficult to assess even the overall environmental impact a biobased plastic is expected to have when it is mass produced.
Although there are concepts such as sustainable agriculture (Altieri, 2018), however mass production of biobased plastics will
require aggressive cultivation to meet the global plastic needs. To what extent this can be managed with the available state of the
art technology without inflicting significant damage upon the environment in terms of depletion of land resource is the question
that we need to ask, based on which the scientific community must bend its course to develop alternative solutions and
prospective technologies to solve the problem from either ends. In nutshell, the battle to save fossil reserves must not lead to
another battle for either saving another limited resource, or recovering any other significant environmental damage.
It further becomes obvious from this perspective that most concerns associated with biobased plastics remain beyond
observation because they are not mass produced like synthetic plastics. The issues discussed above and many such conditions,
which might present a potential threat to the ecosystem can be analyzed only by hypothetically simulating the mass production as
well as commercialization of a certain biobased plastic. This condition is in all aspects equivalent to an iceberg structure, an
analogy in reference to which has been presented in Fig. 10. It is therefore necessary to consider a biobased plastic in this light,
before the economy invests resources into it.
A study conducted on 7 fossil based plastics, 4 biobased plastics along with 1 plastic based on both fossil fuels and biomass by
Tabone et al. (2010) delineated the alignment of the green design principles such as the “12 principals of green chemistry” and the
“12 principles of green engineering” with the environmental impacts of the 12 aforementioned plastics found using Life Cycle
Assessment. It was observed that when broadly correlated, adherence to green design principles yielded reduction in environ-
mental impacts. However, when the environmental impacts of the individual plastics are observed in the same study, it can be
distinguished that both the grades of Polylactic acid used, namely PLA-G (obtained by a general process) and PLA-NW (obtained
from Nature-Works LLC) exhibited significantly negative impact on eutrophication and ozone depletion. Likewise, the general
grade Polyhydroxyalkanoate obtained from corn grain (PHA-G) exhibited significantly negative impact on acidification and ozone
depletion. It was also shown to not have a very significant contribution in conservation of fossil reserves. Simultaneously, the PVC
grade obtained from fossil fuel feedstock exhibited superior potential for conservation of fossil resources than the biobased plastic
PHA-G. While this study provides examples of bioplastics that consume less fossil fuels, yet contribute significant damage to the
environment in other impact categories, it also verifies that it is not necessary for a biobased plastic to save the amount of fossil
fuels it is intended to save. This must happen because the total consumption of fossil fuels in the entire life cycle of a plastic takes
into consideration both the amount of fossil fuels invested in obtaining the raw material for plastic as well as that utilized in
processing, since the energy used for commercial processing is chiefly derived from fossil-based feedstock. It must however be
observed that although this study gives a perspective of the sustainability concerns associated with biobased plastics, yet it
constitutes only a portion of the complete picture. This is because it neither includes the impact on land resources, and the
environmental problems that follow it, nor does it consider a hypothetical mass production and commercialization scenario in
which the concerned biobased plastics are as bulk-produced as the concerned fossil-based plastics.
Economic concerns
Biobased plastics constitute a relatively recent development when compared with the conventional synthetic plastics. Thus, the
cost of research and development associated with biobased plastics, as well the additional cost of production (Thakur et al.,
2018) makes them more expensive than fossil-based plastics per unit weight (Van den Oever et al., 2017). Furthermore, the
currently low price of oil makes conventional plastics cheaper, and the corresponding biobased plastics appear more expensive.
Studies have also shown that consumers are unwilling to pay an extra amount for an eco-friendlier option and tend to incline
towards synthetic plastics because of the difference in price. This however is not the case with companies (Degnan, 2015). Over
the past decade, more companies have adopted a sustainability-oriented approach and switched to biobased plastics, due to
which their market-price has undergone a slow decline. Also, the market price of petroleum is expected to rise in the future due
to an impending deficit, the high price of biobased plastics might balance the increasing price of petroleum-based plastics.
However, due to rapid progress in the development of non-conventional oil recovery processes from shale gas, it is expected
that there might be an intermittent stage where fossil fuels will be available at much cheaper prices before the aforesaid rise in
price commences (Iwata, 2015).
That we might witness a situation where the fossil-based and biobased plastics are equally expensive and consumers might
thus shift their preference towards the more ecological alternative is a possibility in the distant future. The present situation
calls for an assessment of each individual biobased plastic in reference to its life cycle, such that the factors responsible for the
excessive cost can be identified and attempts can be made to develop alternative processes or technology that could provide a
solution. Unfortunately, Life Cycle Costing studies have been conducted only on biofuels. Bioplastics have not been sub-
jected to such analyzes, and thus the economic aspect of biobased plastics, which is a significant factor in determining
whether the plastic will find a place in the market as well as in establishing its sustainability potential needs comprehensive
study in the future. It is also necessary to distinguish between the Life Cycle Costing analysis done on biobased plastics on the
basis of region, since it will depend on the local prices of petroleum and its products, which change drastically between
countries.
Most governments have initiated subsidies to promote biofuels over the conventional non-renewable fuels. However, in the
case of biobased plastics, such support from the government is received only in the Research and Development sector
(Philp, 2015). Although the immediate solution could be governments providing similar support for expanding the usage of
biobased plastics despite the high price, the relevance of this approach in the long run must be questioned. After a certain span of
time, once the subsidies are withdrawn, the bioplastic market might collapse. Thus, providing subsidies serves as merely a
temporary solution (Carus et al., 2011). In the long run, it is required to develop biobased plastics that settle smoothly into the
economy, which can be achieved only by an in-depth analysis of where the contemporary biobased plastics are going wrong.
Individual Analysis of Common Biobased Plastics
Polylactic Acid (PLA)

PLA is a biobased and biodegradable plastic, which has been widely implemented in the packaging industry. It also finds
application in textile industry, paper-coating and disposable service-ware (Yates and Barlow, 2013). The basic raw material for PLA
is starch, which can be obtained from corn, sugarcane, sugar-beet, rice, sweet potato, wheat, cassava etc (Vink et al., 2003).
Enzymatic hydrolysis of starch yields dextrose, which is subsequently fermented to obtain Lactic acid. Lactic acid then undergoes
either direct condensation polymerization or ring opening polymerization to produce PLA (Vink et al., 2003). The mechanical
properties of PLA are better than Polystyrene and comparable to Polyethylene Terephthalate, which makes it an ideal industrial
replacement for both (Yates and Barlow, 2013). Due to its numerous existing and prospective applications and material char-
acteristics, PLA is a promising bioplastic and consequently several life cycle studies have focused on evaluating the environmental
impacts that PLA is expected to have in its life cycle. Three primary case studies and their results have been discussed as follows:
(1) In a cradle to gate life cycle assessment performed by Groot and Borén (2010), the environmental impacts of sugarcane based
PDLA (Poly-D-lactic acid, developed from D-lactide) and PLLA (Poly-L-lactic acid, developed from L-lactide) were evaluated
and compared with standard petroleum-based commodity plastics, polypropylene, polystyrene and PET, LDPE and HDPE.
The functional unit for this study was 1 tonne of plastic at the factory gate in Thailand. It was observed that in comparison
with all the fossil-based plastics, non-renewable energy consumption, GHG emissions and material resource usage was less
for PLA. However, PLA exhibited higher potential for acidification, eutrophication, farmland usage and photochemical ozone
creation.
(2) A life cycle study performed by Vink et al. (2003) investigated the sustainability of the corn based PLA, manufactured and
marketed by NatureWorks®. Two grades of PLA were considered for evaluation, PLA1, the general grade and PLA B/WP, an
environmentally superior grade which utilized wind power, energy saved from crop residues from corn and other and process
optimization. The two bioplastics were compared with Nylon 66, Nylon 6, Polycarbonate (PC), High Impact Polystyrene
(HIPS), cellophane, General Purpose Polystyrene (GPPS), LDPE, PET (Solid State Polymerization – bottle grade), PET
(Amorphous – fiber and film grade) and polypropylene. Both the bioplastics exhibit less gross fossil resource consumption
when compared with the other synthetic plastics. However, between the two grades, the gross fossil energy use in the
processing decreased from 54.1 MJ/kg in PLA1 to 7.4 MJ/kg in PLA B/WP, which evidences the superiority of PLA B/WP.
Interestingly, while all the fossil-based plastics exhibit detrimental impact in terms GHG emissions, the PLA B/WP grade has a
positive impact on GHG emissions, since it utilizes renewable power during the entire cradle to gate life. In terms of water
use, PLA 1 and PLA B/WP perform equivalent to the plastics that exhibit the lowest impact.
It was however observed by Yates and Barlow (2013) that the two aforementioned studies draw comparisons between PLA
and other synthetic plastics on the basis of weight, which is not appropriate because different material properties needed for
specific applications might require different mass of the plastics, since the material characteristics of plastics vary significantly.
It is thus required that LCA studies consider the specific application and its performance requirements to draw an unbiased
comparison. The study discussed henceforth evaluates and compares the bioplastics taking the reference of a unit product:
(3) A cradle to consumer gate LCA study performed by Suwanmanee et al. (2013) compared polystyrene, corn based PLA and
cassava starch based PLA/starch blends. The functional unit is 10,000 units of thermoform boxes and the impact categories
considered include global warming potential, photochemical ozone formation and acidification potential. This study
revealed that the polystyrene thermoform boxes, in the overall assessment of environmental impacts performed better than
both PLA and PLA/starch blends. Amongst the several cases considered, each encompassing different manufacturing meth-
odologies used for plastic production in Thailand and a few other assumptions, a hypothetical case in which Land Use
Change (LUC) was not included in the evaluation and both the bioplastics were manufactured by Thai Integrated Gasifi-
cation Combined Cycle (TIGCC) is especially interesting. In this case both the bioplastics exhibited the lowest environmental
impacts amongst all the considered cases, however even in this case the overall normalized impact of PLA and PLA/starch
blends was 1.59 and 1.09 times that of polystyrene respectively. Although the performance of PLA was poor in this study, it
must be realized that this study does not include the end of life scenario. Since PLA and starch are both biodegradable, the
effect of greenhouse gases released at the end of life, which results in an approximate carbon neutrality has not been included
here.
Nevertheless, since the first cradle to gate study compared between PS and PLA and arrived at totally different conclusions, this
study provides a perspective of the how the sustainability issues associated with bioplastics surface in a product unit based
comparison. It also demonstrates how a slight difference in assumptions might lead to biased results.
Biobased Polyethylene (Bio PE)

Biobased polyethylene or Bio-PE is a biobased non-biodegradable plastic manufactured by polymerization of the ethylene
obtained by intramolecular dehydration of bioethanol. Bioethanol used for bio-PE production is usually derived from either
sugar-beet or starch, which can be obtained from wood, wheat, maize, corn etc. In contrast to this, ethylene obtained from steam
cracking of naphtha, heavy oil, ethane and propane is used for manufacturing fossil-based PE. Interestingly, the level of con-
taminants present in both the aforementioned biobased and fossil-based ethylene grades is same (Kikuchi et al., 2013). Thus, the
resulting material properties and characteristics of bio-PE and fossil-PE are equivalent, which is not usually observed in biobased
counterparts of synthetic plastics. It also implies that only the equipment used for manufacturing ethylene requires substitution,
should a firm invest in replacing fossil-based PE with biobased PE.
A life cycle study performed by Kikuchi et al. (2013) compared the GHG emissions resulting from bio-HDPE and fossil-based
HDPE. Since the molding of product, use and waste collection are identical for PE and bio-PE, these stages of the life cycle have not
been included in the system studied in this LCA. Incineration has been chosen as the end of life scenario and its effect has been
included in the evaluation of GHG emissions since this study assumes carbon neutrality in the biobased plastic. The effect of CO2
thus evolved in the incineration of bio-PE is negated. The functional unit for this study is 1 kg of HDPE in Japan. It was observed
that all the considered scenarios bio-PE exhibited fairly less potential for GHG emissions when compared with synthetic PE. This is
due to the utilization of bagasse and energy generated during production of bioethanol, the negative effect of which is considered
on the GHG potential of bio-PE. Moreover, cracking of naphtha is extremely energy intensive and contributes more than twice the
amount of GHG emissions than dehydration of bioethanol.
Another study performed by Bos et al. (2012) evaluated and compared the Non-Renewable Energy Use (NERU) potential of
LDPE, bio-LDPE and PLA. The functional unit for the LCA was 1 metric tonne of product. This study evaluates grades of bio-PE
developed from wheat, maize, sugar-beet, sugarcane as well as miscanthus. It was observed that all the grades of bio-PE exhibited
significantly lower non-renewable energy requirement than synthetic PE in accordance with today’s agricultural practises. It must
however be noted that wheat and sugar-beet require maximum and minimum arable land respectively, which must affect their
individual potential for other impact categories. Since the amount of arable land is limited resource and it varies between the
plastics evaluated, this study introduces the idea of NERU avoided per unit hectare of land, which in this study is maximum for
sugarcane-based PE. This idea is of relevance to future studies, since it optimizes the results obtained in two different but very
prominent impact categories to identify the most suitable bioplastic, and such approaches can be actively used in LCA in situations
where more than one impact category is sensitive. Although these results favor bio-PE, this study reveals that the NERU avoided
per unit hectare of land in PLA is significantly higher than bio-PE because cultivation for a fixed quantity of plastic requires nearly
3 times as much land in each grade of bio-PE than PLA, which implies that land resource consumption might arise as an issue in
mass production of bio-PE.
LCA studies are further required to evaluate the potential of bio-PE for other environmental impact categories. However, given
that bio-PE does not lack in properties and produces lower environmental impacts than synthetic PE, it still emerges a promising
bioplastic. Since PE is one of the most exhaustively used plastics, supplanting it with bio-PE will conserve a large amount fossil
resource, however since bio-PE is itself non-biodegradable, it will hardly be a solution for the plastic waste generation. Therefore,
options such PLA, which are biobased and biodegradable must also be simultaneously considered.
Product Based Case-Studies
Sandwich Composite Panel

A comparative cradle to gate Life Cycle Assessment study was conducted by La Rosa et al. (2014) to evaluate the environmental
impacts of a sandwiched composite structure based on a partially biobased epoxy relative to that based on a fossil-based epoxy.
Super Sap 100 (Resin) and Super Sap 1000 (Hardener), a material system with approximately 50% biobased content was
reinforced with hemp fiber to develop the outer-skin, which was sandwiched with a panel made of granulated cork to develop the
eco-sandwich panels. The traditional sandwich panel was developed from a Polyurethane based epoxy, Prime 20LV which was
reinforced with glass fiber to develop the outer skin, with a core panel made out of Polyurethane foam. The chosen functional unit
for this study was a block of the eco-sandwich panel of specified dimensions, however for the purpose of a fair comparison
between two structures intended for the same application, the thermal insulation property of both the panels was made equal by
varying the thickness of the insulating material used in the traditional sandwich panel (PU foam).
Based on the production inventory of granulated cork panels, the heat for required for boiling the raw cork as well binding of
cork was obtained from burning of cork dust, in order to minimize the electricity used in the process, since electricity is obtained
from fossil-energy. The water used in the process was obtained from a well and it was recycled several times to further minimize
the environmental impact. Abiotic depletion was thus minimized for this study, however the same cannot be assumed for all
industrial processes. A comparison was subsequently drawn between the two plastics, the two fibers used for reinforcement as well
as the overall structure, however for the purpose of this discussion, only the comparison between the plastics is considered and
analyzed.
In comparison with the petroleum-based epoxy, the biobased epoxy exhibited significantly reduced potential for abiotic
depletion and moderately reduced potential for acidification, global warming, cumulative energy demand, ozone layer
depletion, and freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity. However, the biobased plastic simultaneously exhibited a moderately
increased potential for eutrophication and human toxicity along with an eight-fold increase in the terrestrial ecotoxicity
potential. Although terrestrial ecotoxicity has a critical effect on ecosystems, the study concludes that the biomass-based
plastic used in this analysis has an overall reduced carbon footprint and does not compete with food sources. It must however
be observed that the relative importance of the different impact categories changes with geographical and local ecological
parameters. For example, in a region where the terrestrial ecosystem is damaged or sustains a very delicate balance, the
increased terrestrial ecotoxicity might present a very significant threat, and thus the relevance of this biobased plastic could be
negated in this particular region. Apart from this, the ozone depletion potential for the partially biobased plastic Super
100/1000 is calculated to be zero, which is a very surprising result considering the fact that the petroleum-based plastic used
in the study (LV20 Epoxy) exhibits negative impact on ozone depletion and that there is approximately 50% petroleum-
based content in this partially biobased plastic as well.
The most limiting aspect of this study is that due lack of availability of primary data for both Super Sap 100/1000 and LV20
Epoxy system in LCA databases, comparison was made by assuming a standard petroleum-based epoxy in place of the used
epoxies in both the developed sandwich composite panels. In this reference, the results obtained in this study might change
drastically if the original data for both the epoxy systems is used in place of the assumed standard commercial epoxy. However,
this study still provides a perspective of the sustainability potential that can be achieved in biobased plastics and that a complete
mathematical evaluation might unearth hidden detrimental impacts on the environment which the bioplastics can have. Con-
sidering that this study was conducted in 2014, another concern that surfaces is that the contemporary LCA databases are deficient
in the data necessary for a much-needed critical analysis of all bioplastics. A possible reason for this is that many local LCA studies
which are conducted to evaluate the region-specific impacts of bioplastics cannot be generalized. Thus, the produced data
uncertainty, a major drawback of the LCA method reduces the legitimacy of many studies conducted under similar assumptions. It
is therefore necessary to take relevant steps for enriching and updating the existing databases.
Water Bottles
The global statistics for plastic consumption in the form of water bottles are alarming. In 2007, Unites States alone produced two
million plastic bottles every 5 min (Palliser, 2010). Since most plastic bottles around the world are made from Polyethylene
Terephthalate (PET), which is a fossil-based plastic, this quantity of production implies significant consumption of oil. In 2006, to
meet the demand for plastic bottles in the packaged drinks industry, approximately 17 million barrels of oil were used
(Palliser, 2010). It is reasonable to assume that since PET is highly recyclable, most of the waste generated from plastic bottles must
be recycled to reduce the amount of fossil fuel needed in making fresh batches of bottles, however in reality only 20%–30% of
plastic bottles are recycled (Palliser, 2010). It has thus been very necessary to find biobased alternatives to solve this problem. So
far, biobased PET and PLA have surfaced as suitable alternatives, and the industry is willing to adopt them on a large scale. In fact,
the Coca-Cola company, which is one of the largest manufacturers of bottled beverages introduced 30% biobased Dasani water
bottles in 2009. This company has been further planning to replace the fossil based plastic bottles with 100% biobased PET bottles
(Chen et al., 2016). On the other hand, due to lower fossil fuel consumption in its manufacturing as well as its biodegradability,
PLA is being studied as a prospective biobased plastic for bottle production (Papong et al., 2014; Gironi and Piemonte, 2011). In
this section, three conducted Life Cycle Assessment studies have been discussed which evaluate the sustainability issues that might
be associated with these two alternative biobased plastics in reference to water bottle production.
Fossil-based PET versus 100% biobased PET

This comparative cradle to gate LCA study performed by Chen et al. (2016) focuses on evaluating the sustainability potential of a
biobased PET bottle relative to that of a fossil-based PET bottle. It is interesting that the processing of both the fossil-based and
biobased grades of PET differs only in the origin of raw materials. Polyethylene Terephthalate is manufactured by polymerizing a
mixture of 30% Ethylene Glycol and 70% purified Terephthalic Acid (PTA). In the case of fossil-based PET, Ethylene Glycol is
obtained by hydration and oxidation of ethylene, which is extracted from natural gas and Paraxylene extracted from Xylene
mixture in petroleum is oxidized to obtain PTA. On the other hand, for manufacturing biobased PET, the ethylene obtained from
bioethanol is hydrated and oxidized to obtain Ethylene Glycol and Isobutanol extracted from biomass is subjected to pre-
treatment, enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation to obtain Paraxylene, which is further oxidized to obtain PTA. The processing
steps following the production of Ethylene Glycol and PTA include polymerization into amorphous grade PET granulate, which
are then processed into bottle grade granulate by solid state polycondensation. These bottle grade granulate are then converted to
bottles via injection blow molding. These steps are the same for both fossil-based PET and biobased PET, and consequently the
nature of both plastics is the same. The usage and the end of life scenario is thus the same for either and does not need evaluation
in the Life Cycle study.
The functional unit for this study is 1 kg of PET bottle. Corn, switchgrass, wheat straw and fossil feedstock were used to
manufacture 4 different grades of Ethylene Glycol, while forest residue, corn stover and fossil feedstock were used as raw material
for 3 grades of PTA. Thus, 12 grades of PET, from a combination of each grade of EG and PTA were produced and analyzed. Out of
all the developed grades of PET, the grades which utilized PTA generated from forest residue exhibited overall lowest environ-
mental impact when compared with those that utilized PTA developed from corn stover and fossil resources. Considering the
results obtained for all the 12 grades together, it was concluded that extraction of biomass feedstock and pre-processing to obtain
Isobutanol in the case of fully and partially biobased grades produced much more emissions than processing of fossil-based
feedstock. This is because a significantly large amount of energy is spent in agricultural operations and subsequent manufacturing
of immediate chemical products. The global warming potential of the forest residue-based PET grades was 27% and 21% lower
than that of corn stover and fossil-based PET grades. The group of PET grades that utilized corn stover PTA had the maximum
potential for acidification, whereas the fossil-based PET grades had minimum acidification potential.
In this study, it has been assumed that the biobased feedstock has been obtained by collecting the forest residue, which is
otherwise not fit for trading and is burnt. This process is known as slash pile burning and is a major contributor of emissions
due to incomplete combustion of biomass. The negative impact of slash pile burning, which was avoided by exploiting the
concerned biomass in production of biobased PET grades has been subtracted from the overall environmental impact
observed in the PET grades. It is observed that if the effect of avoiding slash pile burning and other similar impacts were
ignored, the biobased PET grades would perform poorly in the LCA study. Moreover, uncertainty in the impacts due to
Isobutanol production and slash pile burning have rendered a significant influence on the final environmental impact
obtained at the end of the study.
Since a large range of PET grades from fully biobased to fully fossil-based were analyzed in this study, mixed results were
obtained in general. However, in several aspects, the fossil-based grades were observed to have lower environmental impacts than
the biobased grades. It is certain that biobased grades save a certain amount of fossil fuel due to their origin, however the
subsequent processing and its impacts largely govern the overall environmental impact. Thus, this study clearly demonstrates that
just being biobased does not qualify a plastic as the more sustainable option.
Fossil-based PET versus PLA

This comparative cradle to grave LCA study performed by Papong et al. (2014) considers and evaluates the potential of PLA as
suitable alternative for water bottles relative to the fossil-based PET. Lactides can be conveniently mass produced by fermentation
of biomass-based substances containing carbohydrates such as starch. Thus, for an application like plastic bottles, which requires
production in bulk quantity to meet the global needs, PLA might be able to provide for the mass production. It is also well known
in literature that PLA consumes lower fossil energy as compared to Polypropylene, Polystyrene, and fossil-based PET (Madival
et al., 2009; Vink et al., 2007; Uihlein et al., 2008). For these reasons, a PLA grade developed from Cassava starch was chosen for
this comparative analysis. The functional unit for this study is 1000 units of 250 ml bottles.
The global warming potential as well as the total consumption of fossil energy for PLA was found to be less than PET. In fact,
when compared with PLA derived from corn, the cassava starch-based PLA exhibited lower fossil consumption, since despite use of
inorganic fertilizers and pesticides, the yield of corn is usually less. However, PLA evidences significantly approximately 5 times the
impact in eutrophication and moderately higher impact in acidification than fossil-based PET. This study also evaluates
the performance of PLA while assuming that energy conservation methods such combined heating and power generation systems
are adopted for an eco-friendlier processing of PLA. Despite this, the calculated eutrophication potential for PLA is more than twice
that of PET, which clearly indicates that eutrophication might be a serious implication of PLA processing. It must therefore be
observed, that in PLA processing, additional measures be opted to counterbalance the eutrophication effect that a PLA plant is
expected to produce.
As discussed earlier, PET is manufactured by polymerizing Ethylene Glycol and purified Phthalic Acid. This process is extremely
emission intensive, and consequently PET exhibits more than 8 times the potential for human toxicity than PLA. For the end of life
case, four scenarios are considered and analyzed for the produced environmental impacts: Landfill, incineration, recycling and
composting. It is concluded that for PLA, incineration is the eco-friendliest alternative, followed by recycling and composting. As
far as recycling is concerned, PLA is blended with other polymers for most of its applications, which makes recycling expensive and
technically complicated, in comparison to which PET is very easy to recycle. Although in conclusion this study favors PLA, this
conclusion is based mostly on the Green House Gas emissions observed in both cases. In reality many more fundamental aspects
need consideration such as which impact category requires the most attention for particular applications, as suggested by Gironi
and Piemonte (2011) in another comparative LCA between the same systems i.e., PLA and fossil-based PET.
This study calculates the environmental impacts of PLA derived from corn in comparison with PET. The cradle to gate analysis
establishes that while PLA conserves fossil resources, it causes substantial damage to the ecosystem quality and human health.
Considering the weightage assigned to macro-impact categories by the LCA Suisse group (40% ecosystem quality, 40% human
health and 20% resources), both PLA and PET perform equally. In the cradle to grave analysis, PLA fares better than PET when
recycling is assumed to be the end of life scenario, however apart from the above-mentioned nuances associated with the recycling
of PLA, it also depends on plastic waste sorting systems, which are not very well developed and practiced, which makes recycling of
PLA further difficult.
Diapers
Diapers have been subject to meticulous evaluation since these not only directly affect the sanitation and health of children, but
are also a potential consumer of fossil resources and a source of significant waste generation, owing to the rise in global population
which leads to increase in the demand for diaper. LCA studies conducted on reusable cloth diapers have revealed that raw material
production and manufacturing require attention with respect to the environmental aspects. For disposable diapers however, the
same studies assign maximum importance to the end of life scenario (Aumonier and Collins, 2005). Although composting
appears to be the most suitable method for getting rid of used wet diapers, presence of non-biodegradable plastics and com-
ponents in disposable diapers prevents complete biodegradation. Several eco-friendlier alternatives to the conventional disposable
diaper have been developed and numerous analyzes have been performed to understand the sustainability potential of the various
types of diapers available today. One such study established that ‘glue-less’ diapers are both 7%–170% eco-friendlier and 11%
cheaper than the conventional product (Mendoza et al., 2019). It is however necessary to take into consideration that since diaper
has a critical effect on child health, it is not possible to convince a majority of consumers to switch to an option that is widely
socially accepted and trusted. Any new development thus also requires a study to evaluate and establish the effect and compat-
ibility of the used plastics with the skin as well as an in-depth S-LCA study to determine whether it is social acceptance can displace
the conventional diaper.
A cradle to gate LCA study performed by Mirabella et al. (2013) considers disposable diapers manufactured and marketed by
WIP S.p.A., in which the plastics used in a conventional diaper are replaced with biobased and biodegradable plastics. The
disposable diaper consists of three layers made of Polypropylene (PP), Polyethylene (PE), Superabsorbent Polymer (SAP) along
with an Acquisition and Distribution Layer (ADL). The eco-friendly diaper analyzed in this study includes replacement of
Polypropylene with Polylactic acid (PLA), SAP with fluff made of organic Totally Chlorine Free (TCF) pulp certified by PEFC
(Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification), Polyethylene with Mater-Bi® and the ADL is made out of 50% PP and 50%
PLA. The functional unit for this LCA is one diaper. Since the data for composting supply chain is not available on databases, the
end of life scenarios for the WIP S.p.A diapers could not be analyzed.
The environmental effect in reference to 18 impact categories in investigated. It is observed that out of the four layers of the diaper as
well as the transportation and packaging processes, the TCF pulp contributes the maximum detrimental impact in 7 out of 18 categories.
Amongst the 7 impact categories it contributes more than 60% impact in agricultural and urban land occupation, natural land
transformation, water depletion. Although the replacement of SAP with TCF pulp leaves behind a very small quantity of SAP in the eco-
friendly diaper, it is still the second most major contributor to the environmental impacts overall, which implies that SAP replacement is
indeed environmentally a very smart choice. While PLA shows extremely promising results in the potential for ozone depletion, human
toxicity, ionizing radiation, marine ecotoxicity, fresh water eutrophication and agricultural land consumption, it exhibits detrimental
impact on fossil resource consumption, terrestrial ecotoxicity and particulate matter formation. It is to be noted that a biobased plastic,
PLA contributes approximately 30% of the total fossil resource consumption amongst all the components, including transportation and
packaging. Amongst all the bioplastics employed in the diaper, the contribution of Mater Bi is not more than 15% in any impact
category, and thus it presents a very promising bioplastic for this application.
When a comparison was drawn with the LCA results of the conventional disposable diaper, the eco-friendly diaper surprisingly
performed better only in 7 out of the 18 impact categories. It was also observed that the bioplastic-based diaper has more severe
environmental impact in categories related to land resource consumption and transformation, eutrophication and water deple-
tion. Upon normalizing the results of all the impact categories, both the diapers overall exhibited significant potential for human
toxicity, marine ecotoxicity, freshwater eutrophication and natural land transformation. However, when the normalized results of
the eco-friendly diaper were compared with the conventional diaper, the former performed better in 3 out of the 4 aforementioned
categories. It is therefore concluded that since the eco-friendly diaper fares better than the conventional diaper in most of the
categories in which any kind of diaper is expected to yield maximum detrimental impact, it solves its purpose of reducing
environmental impact and must be preferred.
Notably, if the land resource consumption was not studied along with the other impact categories, the effect of the diaper on
water depletion could have been less since a large quantity of water resource is invested in irrigation. Considering the performance
of the bioplastic-based diaper in all the categories together, there is a possibility that the results for this eco-friendly diaper would
have been very promising if the land resource consumption was not evaluated, since its performance declines significantly only in
this and its related categories. In this light, the other LCA studies which do not include evaluation of the land resource category and
conclude in the favor of the bioplastic appear incomplete and biased. It is evidenced in this study that land resource consumption
has a drastic impact on the overall sustainability potential, and it is possible that upon evaluation, this impact category would alter
the results of other LCA studies as well.
Future Outlook
A future that enjoys harmony between the environment and the human population can only be realized by means of
sustainable development, the goal of which is to strike a balance between environmental, social and economic impacts of a
process. This balance is delicate because compromising with any of these three pillars might not seem like a significant
damage but will eventually add up to the situation where sustainable development will not be feasible anymore. In this light
the most ideal material system for sustainable development should be one that optimizes environmental impacts, economic
feasibility and social acceptance. The question of whether the contemporary bioplastics in any way come close to such a
material system still needs to be answered. Due to the shortcomings of LCA studies performed on bioplastics and lack of
S-LCA and LCC studies, it is impossible to see the complete picture. What can be concluded from LCA studies are fragments of
the overall evaluation that cannot be extrapolated to concrete conclusions. However, an analysis of the performed sus-
tainability measurements establishes that the bioplastics do have detrimental environmental impacts, which remain beyond
sight unless they are explicitly evaluated.
Even if the solution is sought in bioplastics and the forthcoming century must witness supplanting synthetic commodity
plastics, the realized and unrealized environmental, social and economic impacts associated with unit products will cumulatively
produce enormous impacts during mass production. Several sustainability issues associated with biobased plastics which can be
identifies only by visualizing a hypothetical mass production scenario such as competition with food production, mass depletion
of land and water resources and cost uncertainty have been evaluated in the previous discussions. Therefore, the discussed
hypothetical simulation of mass production for each individual bioplastic which is aimed at any industrial application will
provide a foresight of such impedances to sustainable development and hence is indispensable. However, since the available
sustainability measurement methods provide no such tools, it is necessary at this stage to develop mathematic methodologies
focusing on this. The end of life scenario has an equally significant contribution in environmental and economic impacts. An
analysis for identifying the ideal end of life scenario out of recycling, biodegradation and incineration, an example of which has
been discussed, is required.
Fig. 11 Design of a sustainable bioplastic.
It is therefore very necessary at this stage that the discrepancies associated with sustainability measurement are eliminated and
the sustainability potential of bioplastics is holistically evaluated. Although, the discussed bioplastics in this contribution
exhibited detrimental environmental impacts and several social and economic concerns were associated with their mass pro-
duction, it does not imply that these cannot develop into ideal material systems. For the purpose of designing a bioplastic, the
general guideline to be followed is given by the 12 principles of green engineering. However, these are generalized concepts which
give little insight into the protocol or strategy for developing of a sustainable bioplastic. This leaves bioplastic material design a
process with no definite ends.
What can be done?
• The purpose for designing a bioplastic must initiate from the requirement of replacing a specific synthetic plastic used in a
particular product. Since environmental, social and economic conditions vary regionally, the general goal of the design must be
to develop a sustainable bioplastic that satisfies the balance needed for sustainable development in reference to regional
production and commercialization of the bioplastic. For this, the availability and abundance of local land and water resources
must be identified, such that cultivation of the crop which yield the raw material for the bioplastic can be initiated without
restricting the production of food and other crops. The choice of raw material must minimize the environmental impacts such
as soil depletion, which its production is expected to produce. For example, a plastic crop which can be cultivated in crop-
polyculture with food crops, where each crop symbiotically replenishes the nutrients the other crop depletes can be a good
place to start. The cultivation of plastic crop must be analyzed for other such possible environmental impacts.
• Once the raw material is identified, the regional environmental and economic conditions must be analyzed to assign weightage
to the different environmental impacts possible. Subsequently a processing route must be designed such that it yields mini-
mum to no environmental impacts in categories which cannot be damaged any further. It is essential that the cost of the
developed product is such that it can be commercialized easily. Processes such as pre-consumer recycling, biodegradation and
incineration must be implemented to aid the sustainability potential of the product being designed.
• The end of life scenarios possible must be evaluated, while taking into consideration the environmental and social impacts of
these, the regional awareness and responsibility of consumers towards waste management as well as the available government
incentives for implementing the concerned waste management option. For example, biodegradation may not be a
suitable solution for a region, from where the waste usually finds its way into the marine environment, unless an industrial
composting facility is established and the it is ensured that the plastic waste reaches it upon disposal.
• Thereafter, the developed bioplastics must be filtered for the options which offer the required properties. The bioplastics which
do not pass this filter can then be considered for other applications, for which their properties are suitable.
• Once the product life cycle has been designed, all the filtered bioplastics must undergo comprehensive LCA, LCC and S-LCA
studies, which holistically evaluate all the impact categories and yield an unbiased wholesome picture. This step will identify
the environmental and other impacts which were left unrealized in the design of the life cycle. These impacts must then be
addressed by modifying the design of the processing route, or the choice of raw materials etc.
• For the remaining bioplastics, each of which has the relevant set of material properties and is environmentally, socially and
economically suitable for regional commercialization, a hypothetical mass production must be simulated to identify the
hidden sustainability issues which surface only in mass production. The bioplastic which passes this filter is the ideal sus-
tainable material system for implementation in the desired application and subsequent commercial use (Fig. 11).
Several such protocols can be developed based on the requirements and factors, which are specific to either the region, the
application or the plastics. However, it is essential that the protocol holistically evaluates the bioplastic and the implemented
bioplastic is stable environmentally, commercially and socially.
Summary
In this article, the evaluated and possible sustainability issues associated with biobased and biodegradable plastics have been
discussed. The drawbacks associated with LCA which prevent an unqualified assessment of bioplastics have been highlighted.
Since bioplastics constitute both biobased and biodegradable plastics, both of these and the sustainability issues associated with
them have been analyzed. Biodegradability and recycling have been compared for identification of the eco-friendlier end of life
scenario and the need for simulating hypothetical mass production to foresee the sustainability concerns associated with bio-
plastics has been emphasized. Assessment of individual bioplastics and three product-based case studies have been discussed to
provide an insight into the sustainability issues of existing bioplastics.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support by Robert Patrick Jenkins Professorship, and the Dean’s Faculty Fellow
Professorship.
References
Altieri, M.A., 2018. Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture. CRC Press.
Álvarez-Chávez, C.R., Edwards, S., Moure-Eraso, R., Geiser, K., 2012. Sustainability of bio-based plastics: General comparative analysis and recommendations for improvement.
Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (1), 47–56.
Andrady, A.L., 2007. Biodegradability of Polymers. In Physical properties of polymers handbook. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 951–964.
Andrews, E.S., 2009. Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP/Earthprint.
Aumonier, S., Collins, M., 2005. Life cycle assessment of disposable nappies and reusable nappies in the UK. Environment Agency. Available at: https://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/
marshall/4I10/Nappies.pdf.
Benedict, C.V., Cameron, J.A., Huang, S.J., 1983. Polycaprolactone degradation by mixed and pure cultures of bacteria and a yeast. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 28 (1),
335–342.
Benhin, J.K., 2006. Agriculture and deforestation in the tropics: A critical theoretical and empirical review. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 35 (1), 9–17.
Bos, H.L., Meesters, K.P., Conijn, S.G., Corré, W.J., Patel, M.K., 2012. Accounting for the constrained availability of land: A comparison of bio‐based ethanol, polyethylene,
and PLA with regard to non‐renewable energy use and land use. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 6 (2), 146–158.
Bruinsma, J., 2017. World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030: An FAO Study. Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames.
Burillo, G., Clough, R.L., Czvikovszky, T., et al., 2002. Polymer recycling: Potential application of radiation technology. Radiation Physics and Chemistry 64 (1), 41–51.
Carus, M., Carrez, D., Kaeb, H., Venus, J., 2011. Level playing field for bio-based chemistry and materials. Nova Institute. 04–18.
Chen, L., Pelton, R.E., Smith, T.M., 2016. Comparative life cycle assessment of fossil and bio-based polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles. Journal of Cleaner Production
137, 667–676.
Chen, X., Xi, F., Geng, Y., Fujita, T., 2011. The potential environmental gains from recycling waste plastics: Simulation of transferring recycling and recovery technologies to
Shenyang, China. Waste Management 31 (1), 168–179.
Chiellini, E., Corti, A., D’Antone, S., Baciu, R., 2006. Oxo-biodegradable carbon backbone polymers–Oxidative degradation of polyethylene under accelerated test conditions.
Polymer Degradation and Stability 91 (11), 2739–2747.
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., Galloway, T.S., 2011. Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62 (12), 2588–2597.
Cook, W.J., Cameron, J.A., Bell, J.P., Huang, S.J., 1981. Scanning electron microscopic visualization of biodegradation of polycaprolactones by fungi. Journal of Polymer
Science: Polymer Letters Edition 19 (4), 159–165.
De Andrade, M.F.C., Souza, P.M., Cavalett, O., Morales, A.R., 2016. Life cycle assessment of Poly (Lactic acid)(pla): Comparison between chemical recycling, mechanical
recycling and composting. Journal of Polymers and the Environment 24 (4), 372–384.
Deanin, R., 1978. Aspects of degradation and stabilization of polymers, H. H. G. Jellinek, Ed., Elsevier, Oxford and New York, 1978, 690 pp. Journal of Polymer Science:
Polymer Letters Edition 16 (9), 482–483.
Degli-Innocenti, F., Bellia, G., Tosin, M., Kapanen, A., Itävaara, M., 2001. Detection of toxicity released by biodegradable plastics after composting in activated vermiculite.
Polymer Degradation and Stability 73 (1), 101–106.
Degnan, T., 2015. Bioplastics – Plenty of room to grow. Focus on Catalysts 2015 (7), 1–2.
Detzel, A., Kauertz, B., Derreza-Greeven, C., Kirsch, A., 2012. Untersuchung der Umweltwirkungen von Verpackungen aus biologisch abbaubaren Kunststoffen.
Umweltbundesamt, Dessau-Roßlau.
Emadian, S.M., Onay, T.T., Demirel, B., 2017. Biodegradation of bioplastics in natural environments. Waste Management 59, 526–536.
Esty, D.C., Levy, M., Srebotnjak, T., De Sherbinin, A., 2005. Environmental Sustainability Index: Benchmarking National Environmental Stewardship. New Haven: Yale Center for
Environmental Law & Policy, pp. 47–60.
European Bioplastics, 2017. Bioplastics: Facts and figures. Berlin. Available at: https://www.european-bioplastics.org/market/.
European Commission-Joint Research Centre, 2010. Institute for Environment and Sustainability: International Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook – Framework and
Requirements for Life Cycle Impact Assessment Models and Indicators, first ed. Ispra, Italy: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and
Sustainability, Available at: https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/ILCD-Handbook-LCIA-Framework-Requirements-ONLINE-March-2010-ISBN-fin-v1.0-EN.pdf.
Fields, R.D., Rodriguez, F., Finn, R.K., 1974. Microbial degradation of polyesters: Polycaprolactone degraded by P. pullulans. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 18 (12),
3571–3579.
Finkbeiner, M., Ackermann, R., Bach, V., et al., 2014. Challenges in life cycle assessment: an overview of current gaps and research needs. In Background and Future
Prospects in Life Cycle Assessment. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 207–258.
Fischer, G., Hizsnyik, E., Prieler, S., van Velthuizen, H., Wiberg, D., 2012. Scarcity and abundance of land resources: Competing uses and the shrinking land resource base. In:
Proceedings of the Worlds Within Reach: From Science To Policy – IIASA 40th Anniversary Conference, 24–26 October 2012. Laxenburg, Austria: Hofburg Congress
Center, Vienna and IIASA.
Garcia, J.M., Robertson, M.L., 2017. The future of plastics recycling. Science 358 (6365), 870–872.
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R., Law, K.L., 2017. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances 3 (7), e1700782.
Gironi, F., Piemonte, V., 2011. Life cycle assessment of polylactic acid and polyethylene terephthalate bottles for drinking water. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy
30 (3), 459–468.
Gourmelon, G., 2015. Global plastic production rises, recycling lags. Vital Signs, 22, 91–95. New Worldwatch Institute analysis explores trends in global plastic consumption
and recycling. Recuperado de. Available at: http://www.worldwatch.org.
Grau, H.R., Gasparri, N.I., Aide, T.M., 2005. Agriculture expansion and deforestation in seasonally dry forests of north-west Argentina. Environmental Conservation 32 (2),
140–148.
Groot, W.J., Borén, T., 2010. Life cycle assessment of the manufacture of lactide and PLA biopolymers from sugarcane in Thailand. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 15 (9), 970–984.
Haider, T.P., Völker, C., Kramm, J., Landfester, K., Wurm, F.R., 2019. Plastics of the future? The impact of biodegradable polymers on the environment and on society.
Angewandte Chemie International Edition 58 (1), 50–62.
Hails, R.S., 2000. Genetically modified plants – The debate continues. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 15 (1), 14–18.
Herrmann, C., 2009. Holistic Life Cycle Management: Sustainability and Lifecycle Orientation in Companies. Springer-Verlag.
Iwata, T., 2015. Biodegradable and bio‐based polymers: Future prospects of eco‐friendly plastics. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 54 (11), 3210–3215.
Jaisankar, I., Velmurugan, A., Sivaperuman, C., 2018. Biodiversity conservation: Issues and strategies for the tropical islands. In: Biodiversity and Climate Change Adaptation in
Tropical Islands. Cambridge: Academic Press, pp. 525–552.
Jambeck, J.R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., et al., 2015. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347 (6223), 768–771.
James, P., 2014. Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles of Sustainability. Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames.
Jay, S., Jones, C., Slinn, P., Wood, C., 2007. Environmental impact assessment: Retrospect and prospect. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (4), 287–300.
Jen-hou, L., 1961. Zum Verhalten von bakteriengemischen gegenuber polyathylen verschiedenen mittleren Molekulargewichts. Kunststoffe 51, 317–320.
Karlsson, S., Ljungquist, O., Albertsson, A.C., 1988. Biodegradation of polyethylene and the influence of surfactants. Polymer Degradation and Stability 21 (3), 237–250.
Kikuchi, Y., Hirao, M., Narita, K., et al., 2013. Environmental performance of biomass-derived chemical production: A case study on sugarcane-derived polyethylene. Journal of
Chemical Engineering of Japan 46 (4), 319–325.
Kim, M.N., Lee, B.Y., Lee, I.M., Lee, H.S., Yoon, J.S., 2001. Toxicity and biodegradation of products from polyester hydrolysis. Journal of Environmental Science and Health,
Part A 36 (4), 447–463.
Kloepffer, W., 2008. Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13 (2), 89.
Kubowicz, S., Booth, A., 2017. Biodegradability of plastics: Challenges and misconceptions. Environmental Science & Technology 51 (21), 12058–12060.
Kumar, K., Gupta, S.C., Chander, Y., Singh, A.K., 2005. Antibiotic use in agriculture and its impact on the terrestrial environment. Advances in Agronomy 87, 1–54.
Kuo, P.C., Sahu, D., Yu, H.H., 2006. Properties and biodegradability of chitosan/nylon 11 blending films. Polymer Degradation and Stability 91 (12), 3097–3102.
Kuruppalil, Z., 2011. Green plastics: An emerging alternative for petroleum-based plastics. International Journal of Engineering Research & Innovation 3 (1), 59–64.
Kusy, R.P., Whitley, J.Q., 2005. Degradation of plastic polyoxymethylene brackets and the subsequent release of toxic formaldehyde. American Journal of Orthodontics and
Dentofacial Orthopedics 127 (4), 420–427.
La Rosa, A.D., Recca, G., Summerscales, J., et al., 2014. Bio-based versus traditional polymer composites. A life cycle assessment perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production
74, 135–144.
Lehni, M., 1998. WBCSD Project on Eco-efficiency Metrics and Reporting, State-of-Play Report. Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
Lucas, N., Bienaime, C., Belloy, C., et al., 2008. Polymer biodegradation: Mechanisms and estimation techniques – A review. Chemosphere 73 (4), 429–442.
Madival, S., Auras, R., Singh, S.P., Narayan, R., 2009. Assessment of the environmental profile of PLA, PET and PS clamshell containers using LCA methodology. Journal of
Cleaner Production 17 (13), 1183–1194.
Mendoza, J.M.F., D’Aponte, F., Gualtieri, D., Azapagic, A., 2019. Disposable baby diapers: Life cycle costs, eco-efficiency and circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production
211, 455–467.
Mirabella, N., Castellani, V., Sala, S., 2013. Life cycle assessment of bio-based products: A disposable diaper case study. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
18 (5), 1036–1047.
Momani, B., 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 (Doctoral dissertation). Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
Mülhaupt, R., 2013. Green polymer chemistry and bio‐based plastics: Dreams and reality. Macromolecular Chemistry and Physics 214 (2), 159–174.
Nishida, H., Tokiwa, Y., 1993. Effects of higher-order structure of poly (3-hydroxybutyrate) on its biodegradation. II. Effects of crystal structure on microbial degradation. Journal
of Environmental Polymer Degradation 1 (1), 65–80.
Nishide, H., Toyota, K., Kimura, M., 1999. Effects of soil temperature and anaerobiosis on degradation of biodegradable plastics in soil and their degrading microorganisms.
Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 45 (4), 963–972.
van der Oever, M., Molenveld, K., van der Zee, M., Bos, H., 2017. Bio-Based and Biodegradable Plastics: Facts and Figures: Focus on Food Packaging in the Netherlands
(Report no 1722). Wageningen Food & Biobased Research. Available at: https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/519929.
Palliser, J., 2010. Banning the Bottle. Science Scope 34 (2), 8–10.
Papong, S., Malakul, P., Trungkavashirakun, R., et al., 2014. Comparative assessment of the environmental profile of PLA and PET drinking water bottles from a life cycle
perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 65, 539–550.
Petts, J. (Ed.), 2009. Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment: Volume 2: Impact and Limitations 2. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Philp, J., 2015. Balancing the bioeconomy: Supporting biofuels and bio-based materials in public policy. Energy & Environmental Science 8 (11), 3063–3068.
Pickering, S.J., 2006. Recycling technologies for thermoset composite materials – Current status. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing 37 (8), 1206–1215.
Piemonte, V., Sabatini, S., Gironi, F., 2013. Chemical recycling of PLA: A great opportunity towards the sustainable development? Journal of Polymers and the Environment 21
(3), 640–647.
Pimentel, D., Dazhong, W., Eigenbrode, S., et al., 1986. Deforestation: Interdependency of fuelwood and agriculture. Oikos 46 (3), 404.
Pun, K.F., Hui, I.K., Lewis, W.G., Lau, H.C., 2003. A multiple-criteria environmental impact assessment for the plastic injection molding process: A methodology. Journal of
Cleaner Production 11 (1), 41–49.
Ragaert, K., Delva, L., Van Geem, K., 2017. Mechanical and chemical recycling of solid plastic waste. Waste Management 69, 24–58.
Rivard, C., Moens, L., Roberts, K., Brigham, J., Kelley, S., 1995. Starch esters as biodegradable plastics: Effects of ester group chain length and degree of substitution on
anaerobic biodegradation. Enzyme and Microbial Technology 17 (9), 848–852.
Rujnić-Sokele, M., Pilipović, A., 2017. Challenges and opportunities of biodegradable plastics: A mini review. Waste Management & Research 35 (2), 132–140.
Sandberg, P., Khan, N., Leong, L.L., 2010. Vision 2050: The New Agenda for Business. Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
Savci, S., 2012. An agricultural pollutant: Chemical fertilizer. International Journal of Environmental Science and Development 3 (1), 73.
Scanlon, B.R., Jolly, I., Sophocleous, M., Zhang, L., 2007. Global impacts of conversions from natural to agricultural ecosystems on water resources: Quantity versus quality.
Water Resources Research 43, W03437.
Schmidhuber, J., Tubiello, F.N., 2007. Global food security under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104 (50),
19703–19708.
Scott, G., 1995. Initiation processes in polymer degradation. Polymer Degradation and Stability 48 (3), 315–324.
Snow, A.A., Andow, D.A., Gepts, P., et al., 2005. Genetically engineered organisms and the environment: Current status and recommendations. Ecological Applications 15 (2),
377–404.
Spierling, S., Knüpffer, E., Behnsen, H., et al., 2018. Bio-based plastics – A review of environmental, social and economic impact assessments. Journal of Cleaner Production
185, 476–491.
Suwanmanee, U., Varabuntoonvit, V., Chaiwutthinan, P., et al., 2013. Life cycle assessment of single use thermoform boxes made from polystyrene (PS), polylactic acid,(PLA),
and PLA/starch: Cradle to consumer gate. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 18 (2), 401–417.
Suyama, T., Tokiwa, Y., Ouichanpagdee, P., Kanagawa, T., Kamagata, Y., 1998. Phylogenetic affiliation of soil bacteria that degrade aliphatic polyesters available commercially
as biodegradable plastics. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 64 (12), 5008–5011.
Tabone, M.D., Cregg, J.J., Beckman, E.J., Landis, A.E., 2010. Sustainability metrics: Life cycle assessment and green design in polymers. Environmental Science & Technology
44 (21), 8264–8269.
Thakur, S., Chaudhary, J., Sharma, B., et al., 2018. Sustainability of bioplastics: Opportunities and challenges. Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry 13, 68–75.
Tokiwa, Y., Calabia, B., Ugwu, C., Aiba, S., 2009. Biodegradability of plastics. International Journal Of Molecular Sciences 10 (9), 3722–3742.
Turner, B.L., Lambin, E.F., Reenberg, A., 2007. The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences 104 (52), 20666–20671.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2018. Sustainable materials management: U.S. State data measurement sharing program. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/smm/
sustainable-materials-management-us-state-data-measurement-sharing-program.
Uihlein, A., Ehrenberger, S., Schebek, L., 2008. Utilisation options of renewable resources: A life cycle assessment of selected products. Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (12),
1306–1320.
United Nations Environment Programme, 2016. Biodegradable plastics & marine litter: Misconceptions, concerns and impacts on marine environments. UN. Available at:
https://www.wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/7468.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011. Municipal solid waste generation, recycling, and disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2010. EPA-530-F-11-005,
Washington, DC: Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5306P). Available at: https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/web/pdf/msw_2010_factsheet.pdf.
Van der Zee, M., Stoutjesdijk, J.H., Van der Heijden, P.A.A.W., De Wit, D., 1995. Structure-biodegradation relationships of polymeric materials. 1. Effect of degree of oxidation
on biodegradability of carbohydrate polymers. Journal of Environmental Polymer Degradation 3 (4), 235–242.
Vink, E.T., Rabago, 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.
Vink, E.T., Glassner, D.A., Kolstad, J.J., Wooley, R.J., O’Connor, R.P., 2007. The eco-profiles for current and near-future NatureWorks® polylactide (PLA) production. Industrial
Biotechnology 3 (1), 58–81.
Vogt, N.B., Kleppe, E.A., 2009. Oxo-biodegradable polyolefins show continued and increased thermal oxidative degradation after exposure to light. Polymer Degradation and
Stability 94 (4), 659–663.
Wackernagel, M., Rees, W., 1998. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. vol. 9. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.
Witt, U., Einig, T., Yamamoto, M., et al., 2001. Biodegradation of aliphatic–aromatic copolyesters: Evaluation of the final biodegradability and ecotoxicological impact of
degradation intermediates. Chemosphere 44 (2), 289–299.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), 2001. The business case for sustainable development: Making a difference towards the Johannesburg Summit
2002 and beyond. Corporate Environmental Strategy 9 (3), 226–235.
Yates, M.R., Barlow, C.Y., 2013. Life cycle assessments of biodegradable, commercial biopolymers – A critical review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 78, 54–66.
Żenkiewicz, M., Richert, J., Rytlewski, P., et al., 2009. Characterisation of multi-extruded poly (lactic acid). Polymer Testing 28 (4), 412–418.

Art 28 - Sostenibilidad

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Art 28 - Sostenibilidad

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability Issues in Bioplastics

Encyclopedia of Renewable and Sustainable Materials doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-803581-8.10610-1 1

Fig. 2 Block diagram representing the life cycle of a plastic product.

Environmental impact assessment (EIA)

Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA)

Fig. 3 The concept of sustainable development.

Life cycle assessment (LCA)

Life cycle costing (LCC)

Social life cycle assessment (S-LCA)

LCSA ¼ LCA þ LCC þ SLCA

Routes to Environmental Degradation of Plastics

Degradation by microbial communities

Factors Affecting Biodegradability of Plastics

Table 1 Types and mechanisms for abiotic degradation of plastics

Degradation type Mechanism

Interaction with water

Fig. 5 Bacterial interaction with hydrophobic polymers.

General Concerns: Biodegradable Plastics and Biodegradability

Ecotoxicity concerns in biodegradable plastics

Recycling versus biodegradation: Which is greener?

Fig. 6 Case 1 – Hypothetical biodegradable plastic.

Fig. 7 Case 2 – Hypothetical non-biodegradable, highly recyclable plastic.

Sustainability Assessment of Biobased Plastics

General Concerns Related to Biobased Plastics

Individual Analysis of Common Biobased Plastics

Polylactic Acid (PLA)

Biobased Polyethylene (Bio PE)

Product Based Case-Studies

Sandwich Composite Panel

Fossil-based PET versus 100% biobased PET

Fossil-based PET versus PLA

Fig. 11 Design of a sustainable bioplastic.

You might also like