Journal of Cleaner Production 113 (2016) 144e152

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Expansion of environmental impact assessment for eco-efficiency

evaluation of biocomposites for industrial application
Jerzy Korol a, Dorota Burchart-Korol b, *, Magdalena Pichlak c
a
Central Mining Institute, Department of Material Engineering, Pl. Gwarko
w 1, 40-166 Katowice, Poland
b
Central Mining Institute, Department of Energy Saving and Air Protection, Pl. Gwarko
w 1, 40-166 Katowice, Poland
c
Silesian University of Technology, Institute of Economics and Informatics, Roosevelta 26-28, 41-800 Zabrze, Poland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, the comparative environmental assessment of a plastic pallet produced from selected
Received 11 March 2013 biocomposites and composites based on the ReCiPe Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) method is
Received in revised form presented. Five scenarios of pallet production were analyzed depending on the materials used. The
29 September 2015
system boundary considered in the analyses included the production of the particular materials and the
Accepted 29 November 2015
Available online 17 December 2015
injection molding to obtain a plastic pallet of complex properties. Environmental assessment was con-
ducted in accordance with ISO 14044:2006. Life cycle assessment (LCA) analyses were related to the
same functional unit (FU) e one heavy-duty plastic pallet made by an injection molding process. The
Keywords:
Environmental impact assessment
results of the environmental assessment of a plastic pallet produced from biocomposites and composites
LCA based on polypropylene (PP), glass fibers (GF) and natural fibers e cotton fibers (CF), jute fibers (JF), and
Biocomposites kenaf fibers (KF) e were shown. The share of the fillers in the polymer matrix ranged from 10 to 30 wt. %
Eco-efficiency to achieve the required mechanical properties of a plastic pallet. A life-cycle assessment of the bio-
composite production systems was performed using SimaPro 8 software (Pre Consultants B.V) and the
Ecoinvent database 3.1. The highest environmental impact was observed in the case of the use of cotton
fibers and glass fibers as a reinforcement of the analyzed biocomposites and composites. In the case of
natural fillers, the highest environmental impact in all damage and impact categories was indicated for
the cotton fibers. This situation can be caused by the industrial cultivation of cotton on a large scale. The
lowest environmental impact was observed in the use of kenaf and jute fibers as reinforcement. For all
analyzed materials (PP, PPGF composite and biocomposites: PPCF, PPJF, PPKF), it is impossible to assess
unequivocally which material is the most environmentally friendly and has the lowest impact on the
environment. The results of the environmental assessment were used for quantification of the eco-
efficiency. The obtained results show that there is a relationship between the applied environmental
impact categories for the evaluation of the analyzed materials and the eco-efficiency results.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction are the selection of impact categories, category indicators and

Eco-efficiency is an aspect of sustainability relating the envi-
ronmental performance of a product system to its product system
value. Eco-efficiency is a relative concept, and a product system is
only more-or-less eco-efficient in relation to another product sys-
tem (Burchart-Korol et al., 2013; Golak et al., 2011). Within the eco-
efficiency assessment, environmental impacts are evaluated using
the life cycle assessment (LCA), as prescribed by ISO 14040:2006.
LCA allows evaluating the environmental impact of products or
technologies. The life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) phase con-
sists of mandatory and optional elements. The mandatory elements
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ48 32 259 26 97.
E-mail address: dburchart@gig.eu (D. Burchart-Korol).
characterization models, classification (assignment of LCI results)
and characterization (calculation of category indicator results). The
optional elements are normalization, grouping, and weightings. ISO
14045:2012 presents only general guidelines for eco-efficiency
assessment; there is no universally accepted LCIA method for
product assessment. This is particularly important for products
such as biocomposites, where the choice of impact category de-
termines the eco-efficiency result, as shown by the results of the
analyses in this paper. The literature review showed a lack of results
on the relationship between the applied environmental impact
category and eco-efficiency, covering different aspects of the
environmental impact of biocomposites.
The development and use of environmentally friendly materials
has attracted extensive interest because of environmental pollution

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.101
0959-6526/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J. Korol et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 113 (2016) 144e152
problems caused by the use of crude oil for synthetic polymer
production (Korol, 2012; Gasper et al., 2005; Czaplicka-Kolarz et al.,
2013a, 2013b). The development of biocomposites based on natural
fillers in combination with synthetic thermoplastic polymers has
been the subject of considerable recent research efforts (Bajer et al.,
2012; Kozioł et al., 2013). Natural fiber, owing to its reproducibility,
availability, and relatively low price, has become a key raw material
for the production of biocomposites. In recent years, natural fiber
reinforced composites have received much attention because of
their lightweight, nonabrasive, combustible, nontoxic, low cost and
biodegradable properties (Kalia et al., 2009). Natural fibers are rich
in cellulose and have the advantages of low cost, high specific
strength and modulus, comparative ease of processing, and deri-
vation from renewable sources (Zimniewska et al., 2012). Natural
fibers are biodegradable and renewable resource-based bioplastics
and can be designed to be either biodegradable or not, according to
the specific demands of a given application. Biocomposites can
supplement and eventually replace petroleum-based composite
materials in several applications such as packaging, automotive
industry, construction materials, furniture and consumer goods
(Kuciel and Liber-Kne
c, 2011). Bio-based materials are also used for
advanced applications, such as bio-based shape memory hyper-
branched polyurethanes (Kalita and Karak, 2012) and green nano-
composites (Karande et al., 2014; Ferfera-Harrar and Nassima-Dairi,
2014).
The substitution of conventional petroleum-based plastics with
bio-based plastics requires the knowledge of the flow of these
materials and their adverse impacts in their entire life cycles to
consider new approaches towards sustainability. No bio-based
plastics currently in commercial use or under development in
most cases are fully sustainable. The production process of bio-
based plastics is not hazard-free. Bio-based feed stocks are gener-
ally grown using methods of industrial agricultural production, and
therefore significant amounts of toxic pesticides are used, which
can pollute the water and soil and impact wildlife habitats. The
current global food crisis has raised serious questions about the use
of agricultural land to grow crops for industrial products such as
ethanol (Alvarez-Cha
vez et al., 2012). Ecological disadvantages are
likely to occur in other impact categories such as acidification and
eutrophication (Essel, 2012). BASF conducted an eco-efficiency
analysis comparing the production of polymer granules for four
petroleum-based polymers to that of two renewable-resource-
based polymers: two petroleum-based polyamides, two
petroleum-based polyesters, a biopolymer based on both petro-
leum and renewable resources and a biopolymer based completely
on renewable resources. The obtained results demonstrate that one
should not assume that renewable-resource-based polymers are
more eco-efficient. The petroleum-based polyester was the most
eco-efficient, based on its low cost, and had less overall environ-
mental impact than the biopolymers (Wall-Markowski et al., 2004;
Golak et al., 2011). The LCA of biocomposites was recently pre-
sented in some papers (Sujit, 2011; Miller et al., 2013; LaRosa et al.,
2013; Czaplicka-Kolarz et al., 2013a, 2013b). LaRosa et al. (2013)
presented an application of the LCA of glass fiber composite ma-
terials by replacing a portion of the glass fibers with hemp. Hemp
fibers perform better than glass fibers in terms of their environ-
mental impacts (Cicala et al., 2009; Weiss et al., 2012). The limits of
renewable raw materials are that generally they score better than
petrochemical polymers with regard to fossil energy use and
greenhouse gas emissions, while they score worse with regard to
land use, ecotoxicity and eutrophication (Weiss et al., 2012). Miller
et al. (2013) used LCA methods to examine the environmental
impact and improvements to production processes for bio-based
composites made of a renewable polymer matrix, poly(b-hydrox-
ybutyrate)-co-(b-hydroxyvalerate), and a natural fiber fabric. The
145
greatest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, energy con-
sumption, and weighted impact score were found to be possible
through the incineration of excess biomass and the use of alternate
fiber types (Miller et al., 2013). Alves et al. (2010) used the LCA
method to demonstrate the possibility of using natural fibers
through a case study design that investigated environmental im-
provements related to the replacement of glass fibers for natural
jute fibers to produce a structural frontal bonnet for an off-road
vehicle. Korol et al. (2012) presented the use of keratin feather fi-
ber as reinforcement in LDPE composites and the use of recycled
LDPE. Korol et al. (2015) presented the use of starch and HDPE for
biocomposite production.
From a technical point of view, biocomposites can be used for
the production of plastic pallets used in the transport of goods. In
the literature, there are scarce LCA analyses for plastic pallets
(Bengtssona and Logiea, 2015), and there is a lack of work on the
LCA assessments of the production of pallets from biocomposites.
The primary goal of this paper was to carry out an LCA of the
production system for plastic pallets from biocomposites. In this
article, environmental analyses of a plastic pallet made from PP, PP
glass fiber reinforced and PP-based biocomposites, and natural fi-
bers (cotton, jute, kenaf) were carried out. The second objective was
to provide an eco-efficiency assessment depending on the choice of
the environmental impact category.
2. Methods and materials
2.1. Goal and scope of analysis
The goal of this life cycle assessment was to compare the envi-
ronmental impacts of analyzed materials including the phases from
raw material extraction to plastic pallet production. The scope of
the LCA and eco-efficiency included the inputs and outputs from
cradle to gate. The system boundary was defined from raw material
extraction to one standard plastic pallet production by injection
molding technology (Fig. 1).
The life cycle assessment of plastic pallet production systems
was performed using the LCA software package SimaPro 8 and the
Ecoinvent database v 3.1 within the program. LCA analyses were
related to the same functional unit (FU). The function of the
analyzed system was the production of one standard plastic pallet
made from PP different composites with different shares and types
of fillers. The analyzed heavy duty plastic pallet is presented in
Fig. 2. The weight of the analyzed plastic palette is 15 kg (www.
paletyplastik.pl, 2015).
2.2. Criteria of choice of composites e material properties
The use of plastic pallets is growing globally due to their
cleanliness, conservation of wood and use of environmentally
friendly materials for their production. Because of their nearly
limitless shape possibilities, plastic pallets can be designed to
function and perform in superior ways compared to wooden pal-
lets. The mechanical and processing properties of the chosen ma-
terials allow for the development of the injection molding of plastic
pallets. For plastic pallet production with the use of injection
molding technology, PP is usually used. One possibility to improve
the mechanical properties of a PP plastic pallet is using various
fillers, such as glass fibers. Natural fibers reinforced by composites
seem to be a good alternative to glass fibers for this application
because of the advantages they provide, such as renewable char-
acter and low cost (Korol, 2012; Gasper et al., 2005; Czaplicka-
Kolarz et al., 2013a, 2013b). Thanks to the use of natural fillers
such as cellulose based fiber or modified starch, we can reduce the
use of crude oil and increase the use of renewable resources for
146 J. Korol et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 113 (2016) 144e152

Fig. 1. System boundary and life cycle flow diagram.

Fig. 2. Analyzed pallet, dimensions in millimeters.

Table 1 properties is 30 wt. % (Korol et al., 2015). Composites based on

Composition of analyzed materials, for one plastic pallet, wt. %. natural fillers also show a light weight, high strength to weight
ratio and good stiffness (Mahieu et al., 2013; Liua et al., 2009; Xiea
PP PPCF PPGF PPJF PPKF
et al., 2009; Bajer and Kaczmarek, 2007; Averous et al., 2000; Korol
PP 100 70 90 70 70 et al., 2012).
Cotton fibers e 30 e e e
Glass fibers e e 10 e e
The properties of PP for PP-based composites were analyzed and
Jute fibers e e e 30 e are characterized by better strength parameters. For this purpose,
Kenaf fibers e e e e 30 glass fibers and natural fibers were introduced to PP. Moreover, the
introduction of fibers to PP with the exception of cotton fibers
lowers the unit cost of the material for pallet production. Based on
polymer biocomposite production. The biocomposites cover a wide British Plastic Federation (2015) data, virgin PP has a tensile
range of polymer matrix types (including PP, PE and PVC) as well as strength of 25e33 MPa and a modulus of elasticity from 1000 to
a wide range of fillers including wood fibers, flax, hemp, jute and 1400 MPa. The introduction of natural fibers into the PP matrix in
other cellulose-based fiber fillers such as cotton fibers. Poly- the range of 30 wt. % will increase the tensile strength to
propylene and polyethylene are most commonly used in exterior 40e45 MPa and the modulus of elasticity to 3000e3500 MPa
applications, for automotive and consumer applications. The ma- (Sobczak et al., 2012; Kuciel et al., 2010), depending on the type of
jority of current applications are in the USA and Japan, but the use natural filler, dimensions of particles and other parameters. To
of natural and wood fibers in composite applications is also achieve the same mechanical properties, only 10 wt.% glass fibers is
growing in Europe (Matzinos et al., 2002; Koenig and Huang, 1995). required (www.web.rtpcompany.com, 2015). In our analyses, bio-
Depending on the amount of natural fillers, we can obtain a non- composites have a higher natural fiber volume fraction compared
biodegradable material or partially biodegradable material. In the to glass fibers.
case of pallet production, our goal is to use a non-biodegradable Five scenarios of composition of analyzed materials for the
material. The highest amount of natural fillers for non- production of one plastic pallet were developed. The analyses were
biodegradable (degradation process is determined by degradation carried out also for pure PP. In this paper, composites of up to 30%
time of the matrix used) composites with satisfactory mechanical natural fillers were analyzed. The mechanical properties of the
 J. Korol et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 113 (2016) 144e152 147

Table 2
Impact categories in ReCiPe Midpoint (Goedkoop et al., 2012).

Impact Categories Unit Description

Climate change
Ozone depletion
Human toxicity
Photochemical oxidant formation
Particulate matter formation
Ionising radiation
Terrestrial acidification
Freshwater eutrophication
Marine eutrophication
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Freshwater ecotoxicity
Marine ecotoxicity
Agricultural land occupation
Urban land occupation
Natural land transformation
Water depletion
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
kg CO2 eq Total amount of greenhouse gases produced to directly and indirectly support human activities,
expressed using the reference unit, kg of CO2
kg CFC-11-Eq Emissions of ozone depleting substances, expressed using the reference unit, kg of
Trichlorofluoromethane, also called freon-11
kg 1,4-DCB-Eq Emission of some substances (such as heavy metals) can have impacts on human health, expressed using
the reference unit, kg of 1,4-dichlorobenzene
kg NMVOC Expressed using the reference unit, kg of Non-methane volatile organic compounds
kg PM10-Eq Expressed using the reference unit, kg of particulate matter of very small diameter, below - 10 microns.
kg U235-Eq Expressed using the reference unit, kg of an isotope of uranium (Uranium-235)
kg SO2-Eq Expressed using the reference unit, kg of sulphur dioxide
kg P-Eq Expressed using the reference unit, kg of phosphorus
kg N-Eq Expressed using the reference unit, kg of nitrogen
kg 1,4-DCB-Eq Emission of some substances (such as heavy metals) can have impacts on human health, expressed using
the reference unit, kg of 1,4-dichlorobenzene
kg 1,4-DCB-Eq Emission of some substances (such as heavy metals) can have impacts on human health, expressed using
the reference unit, kg of 1,4-dichlorobenzene
kg 1,4-DCB-Eq Emission of some substances (such as heavy metals) can have impacts on human health, expressed using
the reference unit, kg of 1,4-dichlorobenzene
m2a Refers to a continuous use of land area for a certain human-controlled purpose, is measured as area time,
square meters annually
m2a Refers to a continuous use of land area for a certain human-controlled purpose, is measured as area time,
square meters annually
m2 Refers to the change from one land use category to another; for example plantation of forest on land
previously used for agriculture
m3 Expressed using the reference unit, m3 of water
MJ surplus Expressed using the reference unit MJ surplus energy per year per capita
kg oil-Eq Expressed using the reference unit, kg of oil

composites are strongly affected by the quantity of the filler in the
material. In the range up to 30 wt. % fillers in the case of thermo-
plastic matrices of composites, the mechanical properties increase.
The compositions of the analyzed materials are presented in
Table 1.
2.3. Life cycle impact assessment method
Because the ReCiPe method is the most complex, it was chosen
for the analyses aiming at showing the comparative analyses of the
environmental impact in various impact categories and damage
categories. The primary objective of the ReCiPe Midpoint method is
to transform the long list of life cycle inventory results into a limited
number of indicator scores. These indicator scores express the
relative severity within an environmental impact category. In
ReCiPe, the indicators are determined at two levels: eighteen
midpoint indicators and three endpoint indicators. This method is
considered the follow up of the CML 2002 and EI 99 methods
(Goedkoop et al., 2012).
In ReCiPe, the endpoint Damage to Human Health is measured
in units of Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALY), which express the
number of years lived disabled and the number of years of life lost.
The category ‘human health’ is based on the assumption that hu-
man health problems are caused by the influence of various types
of pollution on the human organism. In this category, greenhouse
gas emissions, ozone depletion, photochemical smog production,
toxicity for humans, ionizing radiation and the creation of dust
Table 3
Indices applied at the normalization and weighting stage in ReCiPe 2008 (H/A) LCIA
method for Europe (ecoinvent 3.1, ReCiPe 2008 method).
Damage category Normalization
Human health 49.5
Ecosystems 5.530
Resources 0.00324
particles have been taken into account. Damage to Ecosystem
Quality is reflected by the diversity of species within, and the
damage to an ecosystem may be expressed in terms of the number
of species that disappear in a given area as a result of contamina-
tion. The “ecosystem” category includes eco-toxicity, acidification,
eutrophication, occupation and conversion of land. In ReCiPe, a
characterization factor for aquatic eutrophication is developed
(both for freshwater and marine water), and the unit of this indi-
cator is the potentially disappeared fraction of species (PDF)
m3  yr, which involves an integration over a volume instead of an
area. The damage category connected with the use of natural re-
sources (fossil fuels and metal ores) is based on the assumption that
non-renewable resources should be available for future genera-
tions. It was chosen to base the ReCiPe model on the geological
distribution of mineral and fossil resources and assess how the use
of these resources causes marginal changes in the efforts to extract
future resources. A function was developed that reflects the mar-
ginal increase of the extraction cost due to the effects of continued
extraction. For minerals, the effect of extraction is that the average
grade of the ore declines, while for fossil resources, the effect is that
less conventional fuels need to be exploited, as conventional fossil
fuels cannot cope with the increasing demand. All impact cate-
gories of the ReCiPe method are presented in Table 2. In this study,
both the mandatory and optional elements of the LCIA were
included.
The hierarchic version of the ReCiPe Midpoint method was
chosen. To assess various categories of damage, the life cycle
assessment method ReCiPe Endpoint H/A (Hierarchic/Average
Perspective) was applied, referring to the normalization values of
Europe, with the weighting set belonging to the hierarchic
perspective.
In LCA, the procedure of ISO 14044:2006 was performed in four
stages: specifying the aim and scope of the research, collecting LCI
Weighting
data, conducting LCIA and interpreting the obtained results.
400 Table 3 contains normalization and weighting indices. Goedkoop
400
et al. (2012) described the indices of damage in the ReCiPe 2008
200
method.
148 J. Korol et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 113 (2016) 144e152

Table 4
Results of the environmental assessment of the particular pallet production characterization stage.

Impact category Unit PPKF PPJF PPGF PPCF PP

Climate change kg CO2 eq/FU 58.2287 58.3897 69.8297 69.4565 70.9783

Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq/FU 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq/FU 0.6090 0.6140 0.7240 0.7010 0.7730
Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq/FU 0.0140 0.0143 0.0139 0.0292 0.0124
Marine eutrophication kg N eq/FU 0.0402 0.0445 0.0333 0.0645 0.0355
Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq/FU 13.2159 13.2806 17.8975 16.8541 15.1013
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC/FU 1.0820 1.0780 1.3837 1.1365 1.5160
Particulate matter formation kg PM10 eq/FU 0.1946 0.1944 0.2408 0.2215 0.2569
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq/FU 0.0069 0.0071 0.0076 0.7176 0.0080
Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq/FU 0.2417 0.2421 0.2728 0.4683 0.2502
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq/FU 0.2863 0.2867 0.3325 0.4076 0.3156
Ionising radiation kBq U235 eq/FU 22.2561 22.2629 26.8822 24.2952 27.5044
Agricultural land occupation m2a/FU 9.6216 10.8802 1.9974 53.2596 1.9626
Urban land occupation m2a/FU 0.1011 0.0984 0.1104 0.8793 0.0934
Natural land transformation m2/FU 0.0035 0.0034 0.0039 0.0054 0.0032
Water depletion m3/FU 2.8292 5.5525 0.7294 7.2581 0.7477
Metal depletion kg Fe eq/FU 0.7895 0.7659 1.0549 2.0189 0.8414
Fossil depletion kg oil eq/FU 29.0026 28.9560 36.1989 31.8024 38.1517

2.4. Influence of the impact categories on the eco-efficiency result 3. Results and discussion

The second goal of the study was to present the influence of 3.1. Environmental impact assessment based on LCA
different environmental impact categories on the eco-efficiency
results. The methodology of the eco-efficiency assessment The results of the environmental assessment of the particular
included the following stages. The first stage was the determination pallet production scenarios, according to ReCiPe Midpoint, are
of the goal and the range of the analysis, which included the shown in Table 4.
designation of the system boundary, the function of technology, the The highest environmental impacts in almost all impact cate-
functional unit, and the determination of assumptions and limita- gories were indicated for PPCF and PP. For climate change, terres-
tions. The second stage was the assessment of the environmental trial acidification, photochemical oxidant formation, particulate
efficiency of the production system as a constituent of the eco- matter formation, ionizing radiation and fossil depletion, the
efficiency analysis. According to ISO 14045:2012, the technology highest impact is observed for PP. For the impact categories of
of the LCA was indicated to perform environmental efficiency an- freshwater eutrophication, marine eutrophication, terrestrial eco-
alyses. The next stage was the cost assessment of the production toxicity, freshwater ecotoxicity, marine ecotoxicity, agricultural
system as a constituent of the eco-efficiency analysis. In ISO land occupation, natural land transformation, metal depletion and
14045:2012, there is no determination or technology serving to water depletion, the highest impact is observed for PPCF because of
assess the value of the production system. The last stage was the the use of cotton fibers as reinforcement.
calculation of the relative indicator of the eco-efficiency and the The high value of fossil fuel consumption is determined by the
interpretation of the results of the analysis. PP use as a matrix in the analyzed biocomposites and composites.
The method of eco-efficiency assessment is a function of two
indicators e an environmental one based on LCA and an economic
one based on a cost analysis. The result of the LCA with the impact
assessment ReCiPe method was assumed as an environmental ef-
ficiency assessment indicator in various impact categories. The eco-
efficiency was inversely proportional to the results of the LCA and
cost analysis. The more eco-efficient a plastic pallet was, the higher
the value of the eco-efficiency indicator (EEi). The authors propose
expressing the eco-efficiency of a plastic pallet in relative units.
Relative values of eco-efficiency (EERV) were recommended to be
calculated using the Formula (1)

EE $n
EERVi ¼ Pn i (1)
i¼1 EEi
where

EERV e eco-efficiency relative value,

EEi e eco-efficiency indicator for analyzed plastic pallet,
n e number of plastic pallets in the analyzed set,
Pn
i EEi e total of indicators of eco-efficiency of plastic pallets in
the analyzed set.

The obtained relative values of the eco-efficiency indicator

enabled comparing and ranking the analyzed plastic pallets. Fig. 3. Results of the LCA after the standardization stage.
J. Korol et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 113 (2016) 144e152 149

Composites with glass and cotton fibers as fillers have a higher

value of fossil fuel consumption than other compared bio-
composites. This situation can be caused by the high energy re-
quirements for glass processing. In the case of the use of cotton
fiber as reinforcement in the analyzed biocomposites, a high value
of fossil fuel consumption can be caused by the use of fertilizers and
watering of fields during the production of cotton on a large in-
dustrial scale.
To improve our analyses, standardization was performed for the
LCA results. The stage of weighting indicates the most important
impact categories characterized by the largest number of points.
The indicators of environmental assessment refer to the average
values falling annually on one European. According to the stan-
dardization stage, the most important impact categories were
determined for the analyzed materials. The results of the analyses
after standardization, according to ReCiPe H/A, are shown in Fig. 3.
Among the 18 impact categories the authors chose for the eco-
efficiency assessment are the depletion of fossil fuels, climate
change, particulate matter formation, agricultural land occupation
and human toxicity (Fig. 4aee). Such a choice resulted from the
analysis standardized in relation to the amount of environmental
assessment in Europe, which showed that under the applied
methodology, they are the most significant environmental prob-
lems of the analyzed production systems.
The PP and PPGF scenarios have the largest impact among the
analyzed materials on fossil depletion. In both cases, it is deter-
mined first of all by PP, in which production fossil fuels are used as
resources and an energy source in polymerization processes.
Polypropylene production and glass and glass fiber production are
both energy-intensive processes, depending mainly on fossil fuels
(Joshia et al., 2004).
In the case of the climate change indicator, the largest values are
shown by PP, PPGF and PPCF. In the case of PP, it is connected with
its production process, whereas in the case of PP reinforced with
glass fiber (PPGF), this indicator is influenced by highly energy-
intensive processes involving production and glass processing. A
similar level of environmental impact is represented by cotton fiber
reinforced PP (PPCF). In the case of cotton fiber, this situation can be
caused by the large industrial scale of cotton cultivation and the use
of irrigation systems, fertilizers and other chemicals.
The highest environmental indicator, agricultural land occupa-
tion, appears in the case of application as cotton fiber reinforce-
ment (PPCF), for which the production of cotton cultivated on a
large scale in China, India, the USA, Pakistan, Brazil and other
countries is used. The lowest indicator is characterized by PP and
PPGF.
The largest impact among the analyzed materials on particulate
matter formation was assumed for PP and PPGF. The impacts of
both PPKF and PPJF are the lowest compared to the other materials
in this category.
In the case of the human toxicity category, the impact of PP is
lower than for the cotton and glass fiber reinforced (PPGF), but the
lowest environmental indicator is assumed for PPKF and PPJF.
It was claimed that in the case of the analyzed materials, it
cannot be clearly assessed which plastic pallet is the most ecolog-
ical and has the lowest impact on the environment. To indicate the
most significant impact categories, weighting was introduced. In
this study, the LCIA phase includes not only mandatory elements
such as classification and characterization but also optional ele-
ments such as normalization, grouping and weighting. The ReCiPe

Fig. 4. Assessment of significant impact categories on the environment according to

the ReCiPe Midpoint: a) fossil depletion, b) climate change, c) agricultural land occu-
pation, d) particulate matter formation, and e) human toxicity.
150 J. Korol et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 113 (2016) 144e152

Table 5
Results of the environmental impact assessment of the particular scenarios of pallet
production.

Unit, Pt/FU PPKF PPJF PPGF PPCF PP

Climate change Human Health 1.6141 1.6185 1.9357 1.9253 1.9675

Ozone depletion 0.0051 0.0051 0.0065 0.0052 0.0071
Human toxicity 0.1831 0.1840 0.2479 0.2335 0.2092
Photochemical oxidant formation 0.0008 0.0008 0.0011 0.0009 0.0012
Particulate matter formation 1.0016 1.0009 1.2396 1.1405 1.3227
Ionising radiation 0.0072 0.0072 0.0087 0.0079 0.0089
Total e Human health 2.8120 2.8166 3.4395 3.3132 3.5167
Climate change ecosystems 1.0212 1.0240 1.2248 1.2181 1.2449
Terrestrial acidification 0.0078 0.0079 0.0093 0.0090 0.0099
Freshwater eutrophication 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0029 0.0012
Terrestrial ecotoxicity 0.0023 0.0024 0.0025 0.2394 0.0027
Freshwater ecotoxicity 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0009 0.0005
Marine ecotoxicity 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001
Agricultural land occupation 0.3854 0.4405 0.0530 2.2779 0.0521 Fig. 5. Comparison of cumulative damage categories of scenarios.
Urban land occupation 0.0046 0.0045 0.0051 0.0403 0.0043
Natural land transformation 0.0110 0.0113 0.0115 0.0237 0.0096
Total e Ecosystems 1.4344 1.4926 1.3082 3.8122 1.3254 quality. 97e99% of the damage category of resources is constituted
Metal depletion 0.0366 0.0355 0.0489 0.0935 0.0390 by the depletion of fossil fuels.
Fossil depletion 3.1196 3.1146 3.8941 3.4195 4.1052
Total e Resources 3.1562 3.1501 3.9430 3.5130 4.1442
The application of the ReCiPe 2008 method allows for the ag-
Total 7.4025 7.4593 8.6906 10.6384 8.9862 gregation of the results in three damage categories: human health,
ecosystem and the availability of resources and raw materials. The
cumulative damage categories of all scenarios are presented in
2008 method allows for the weighing stage, thanks to which it was Fig. 5.
possible to express all of the impact categories' effects on the The environmental impacts of biocomposites reinforced by juta
environment in ‘eco-points’ (Pt). One eco-point represents one- (PPJF) and kenaf (PPKF) fibers are similar. The highest total envi-
thousandth part of the annual damage for the environment that ronmental impact is observed in the case of the use of cotton fibers
is caused by one inhabitant of Europe. The results of the analysis (PPCF). In the case of the PPCF scenario compared to other sce-
after the weighting stage are shown in Table 5. narios, the result was determined by the ecosystem damage cate-
The application of the ReCiPe Endpoint method allow for the gory. The value of this category for the PPCF scenario is two times
assessment of three damage assessment categories: human health, higher than for the other compared scenarios. A comparison of the
ecosystem quality and resources. The highest indicator of the most significant impact categories is shown in Fig. 6.
environmental assessment in the damage assessment categories The obtained results were used to choose the most significant
was obtained for PPCF. impact categories on the environment, to be used in eco-efficiency
The role of the particular impact categories in the given damage calculations. In all the analyzed scenarios, the highest impact was
categories and the most significant categories, according to ReCiPe determined by fossil depletion and climate change and, in the case
Endpoint method, are shown in Table 6. of PPCF, by agriculture land occupation. Of the 18 impact categories
The results of the analyses with the ReCiPe Endpoint method of the ReCiPe method, five were used for eco-efficiency calculation.
show that the main categories of impact on human health are
generated by greenhouse gas emissions, particulate matter for-
3.2. Results of eco-efficiency assessment
mation and human toxicity. The greenhouse gas effect and agri-
cultural land occupation are the most harmful for ecosystem
For the eco-efficiency calculations, our own methodology was
adopted, which was based on ISO 14045:2012 (Burchart-Korol,
Table 6
2013). The study used an eco-efficiency evaluation method based
Share of the particular impact categories in given damage categories. on the results of an LCA and product system value. Simplification
was used to show the eco-efficiency results depending on the
Unit, % PPKF PPJF PPGF PPCF PP
impact category used to evaluate the environmental impact per-
Climate change human health 57 57 56 58 56 formance. The results of the eco-efficiency evaluation were based
Ozone depletion 0 0 0 0 0
Human toxicity 7 7 7 7 6
Photochemical oxidant formation 0 0 0 0 0
Particulate matter formation 36 36 36 34 38
Ionising radiation 0 0 0 0 0
Total e Human health 100 100 100 100 100
Climate change ecosystems 71 69 94 32 94
Terrestrial acidification 1 1 1 0 1
Freshwater eutrophication 0 0 0 0 0
Terrestrial ecotoxicity 0 0 0 6 0
Freshwater ecotoxicity 0 0 0 0 0
Marine ecotoxicity 0 0 0 0 0
Agricultural land occupation 27 30 4 60 4
Urban land occupation 0 0 0 1 0
Natural land transformation 1 1 1 1 1
Total e Ecosystems 100 100 100 100 100
Metal depletion 1 1 1 3 1
Fossil depletion 99 99 99 97 99
Total e Resources 100 100 100 100 100
Fig. 6. Comparison of the most significant impact categories of scenarios, Pt/FU.
 J. Korol et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 113 (2016) 144e152 151

Table 7
Input data for eco-efficiency calculation.

Factor Unit PPKF PPJF PPGF PPCF PP

Cost Euro/FU 12.3 12.75 14.85 16.8 15

Climate change kg CO2 eq/FU 58.23 58.39 69.83 70.98 69.46
Particulate matter formation kg PM10 q/FU 0.19 0.19 0.24 0.22 0.26
Agricultural land occupation m2a/FU 9.62 10.88 2.00 1.96 53.26
Fossil depletion kg oil eq/FU 29.00 28.96 36.20 31.80 38.15
Human toxicity kg 1.4-DB eq/FU 13.22 13.28 17.90 16.85 15.10

Table 8 production was calculated. According to ISO 14045:2012, the result

Relative results of the eco-efficiency analysis according to chosen impact categories. is always a relative eco-efficiency, which means that the product is
Results of eco-efficiency analyses PPKF PPJF PPGF PPCF PP more or less eco-efficient compared to another one. In Table 8, the
GHG emission 1.27 1.22 0.88 0.76 0.87
relative results of eco-efficiency analyses are presented.
Particulate matter formation 1.29 1.25 0.85 0.92 0.69 It was found that the chosen impact categories determine eco-
Agricultural land occupation 0.52 0.45 2.08 0.08 1.88 efficiency results. Therefore, when comparing the eco-efficiency
Fossil depletion 1.27 1.23 0.84 0.95 0.71 of the different materials to each other, it should be noted which
Human toxicity 1.30 1.25 0.79 0.83 0.83
impact categories were used for the calculations. The results of the
Total damage impact 1.30 1.24 0.92 0.88 0.66
eco-efficiency, including the cost of raw materials and particular
impact categories, are shown in Fig. 7.
In the case of using total damage category, human toxicity, fossil
fuel depletion, particulate matter formation and climate change as
impact categories, the highest eco-efficiency was indicated for the
PPKF and PPJK scenarios, and the lowest eco-efficiency was indi-
cated for the PP scenario.
For the human toxicity impact category, the lowest eco-
efficiency was indicated for the PPGF scenario.
In the case of using agriculture land occupation as an impact
category, the highest eco-efficiency was indicated for the PP and
PPGF scenarios. The lowest eco-efficiency value for this impact
category (agriculture land occupation) was indicated for the PPCF
scenario.
In the case of using GHG emissions as an impact category, the
highest eco-efficiency was noted for pallets produced from PPKF
and PPJF, and the lowest eco- was calculated for PPCF. Bio-
composites reinforced by kenaf and jute fibers had similarly high
levels of eco-efficiency for all impact categories except for agri-
culture land occupation.

4. Conclusions

LCA allows the assessment of many environmental impact cat-

Fig. 7. Results of eco-efficiency analysis.
on the most significant impact categories. The results of the envi-
ronmental impact assessment are expressed in different units, so to
carry out a comparative analysis of the LCIA results to examine the
influence of the chosen LCIA method on the environmental impact,
the results were converted to relative values.
The cost of pallet production and the most important environ-
mental impact categories were used to evaluate the eco-efficiency
(Table 7). Only the cost of materials necessary to produce the
analyzed pallets was taken into account because the production
cost of one pallet in the injection technology in the case of the
analyzed materials was the same. The reinforcement prices range
from approximately 0.4 V/kg for kenaf at the lower end to 1.2 V/kg
for short glass fibers at the upper end. By comparison, poly-
propylene typically has a price level of 1.0e1.4 V/kg, depending on
the specific grade and the order volume (Sobczak et al., 2012; www.
alibaba.com, 2015).
On the basis of the obtained LCA results and the cost of a pallet
production, the relative value of the eco-efficiency of a pallet
egories of plastic pallets produced from biocomposites. According
to the ReCiPe method, it was assumed that the total environmental
impact assessment including all damage and impact categories is
the highest for PPCF and the lowest for PPKF. However, the analysis
of the particular impact categories shows that PPCF has the lowest
indicators in fewer impact categories than PP.
The obtained results show that in the case of biocomposites, the
comparative analysis of particular impact categories is very
important because the results of the analyses are very diverse. The
share of natural fibers in composites does not make them envi-
ronmentally friendly materials. Additionally, the raw materials or
intermediate products of natural origin are not always environ-
mentally friendly materials. Thanks to the LCA analysis, it was
possible to evaluate the impact of the product or technology on the
environment, taking into account the different impact categories of
depletion of fossil fuels, climate change, particulate matter forma-
tion, agricultural land occupation and human toxicity. It is found
that biocomposites reinforced by jute and kenaf natural fibers had a
lower impact on the environment than PP composites with glass
fiber or cotton. Taking into account the result of the total LCA, the
highest environmental indicator is indicated for PPCF. However the
analysis of the most significant impact categories showed that in
152 J. Korol et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 113 (2016) 144e152
three categories, PP is characterized by a higher impact on the
environment. The high environmental indicator of PPCF is caused
by the agricultural land occupation category, and this indicator
determines the total result for this material.
Based on the eco-efficiency analysis, the following conclusions
are obtained. ISO 14045:2012 presents only general eco-efficiency
guidelines; there is no universally accepted LCIA method for
product and technology assessment. In this study, it is found that in
the case of LCA for biocomposites, the selection of impact cate-
gories determine the result of eco-efficiency. Each of the life-cycle
impact assessment methods used for the environmental analysis
of the biocomposites includes various impact categories. The eco-
efficiency result depends on the impact categories. Therefore, to
assess the eco-efficiency, in addition to the basic requirements in
accordance with ISO 14045:2012, the impact of the selected cate-
gories for environmental assessment should be taken into account.
On the basis of the ReCiPe method analyses, it is stated that the
most significant impact categories on the environment for the
materials used for plastic pallet production are fossil depletion,
climate change, agricultural land occupation, particulate matter
formation and human toxicity. All of the significant impact cate-
gories are used to make an eco-efficiency assessment of the chosen
biocomposites. Based on the eco-efficiency assessment of bio-
composites, it is shown that there is a correlation between the
chosen environmental impact categories and the result of the eco-
efficiency assessment.
This work was the first to account for the eco-efficiency of a
plastic pallet from biocomposites. The results obtained from this
work can help decision makers and practitioners in the material
engineering field understand how environmental impact cate-
gories affect the eco-efficiency of biocomposites.
References
www.alibaba.com. accessed on June 2015.
Alvarez-Cha
vez, C.R., Edwards, S., Moure-Eraso, R., Geiser, K., 2012. Sustainability of
bio-based plastics: general comparative analysis and recommendations for
improvement. J. Clean. Prod. 23 (1), 47e56.
Alves, C., Ferr~ao, P.M.C., Silva, A.J., Reis, L.G., Freitas, M., Rodrigues, L.B., Alves, D.E.,
2010. Ecodesign of automotive components making use of natural jute fiber
composites. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (4), 313e327.
Averous, L., Moroa, L., Doleb, P., Fringantcet, C., 2000. Properties of thermoplastic
blends: starch-polycaprolactone. Polymer 41, 4157e4167.
Bajer, K., Kaczmarek, H., 2007. Methods of biodegradation study of polymeric ma-
terials. Polimery 52 (1), 13e18.
Bajer, K., Richert, A., Bajer, D., Korol, J., 2012. Biodegradation of plastified starch
obtained by corotation twin screw extrusion. Polym. Eng. Sci. 52 (12),
2537e2542.
Bengtssona, J., Logiea, J., 2015. Life cycle assessment of one-way and pooled
pallet alternatives. Procedia CIRP 29, 414e419.
British Plastic Federation -http://www.bpf.co.uk/plastipedia/polymers/PP.aspx.
accessed on March 2015.
Burchart-Korol, D., 2013. Life cycle assessment of steel production in Poland: a case
study. J. Clean. Prod. 54, 235e243.
Burchart-Korol, D., Krawczyk, P., Sliwi

ska, A., Czaplicka-Kolarz, K., 2013. Eco-effi-
n fibers and wood-General mechanical property profiles. Compos. Sci. Technol.
ciency assessment of the production system of coal gasification technology.
Przem. Chem. 92 (3), 384e390.
Cicala, G., Cristaldi, G., Recca, G., Ziegmann, G., El-Sabbagh, A., Dickert, M., 2009.
Properties and performances of various hybrid glass/natural fibre composites
for curved pipes. Mater. Des. 30 (7), 2538e2542.
Czaplicka-Kolarz, K., Burchart-Korol, D., Korol, J., 2013a. Environmental assessment
of biocomposites based on LCA. Polimery 58 (6), 476e481 (in Polish).
Czaplicka-Kolarz, K., Burchart-Korol, D., Korol, J., 2013b. Application of life cycle
assessment and exergy to environmental evaluation of selected polymers.
Polimery 58 (7e8), 605e609 (in Polish).
Essel, R., 2012. Meta-analysis of life cycle assessments for bio-based polymers (PLA
and PHA). In: 5th International Congress on Bio-based Plastics and Composites,
Cologne.
Ferfera-Harrar, H., Nassima-Dairi, N., 2014. Green nanocomposite films based on
cellulose acetate and biopolymer-modified nanoclays: studies on morphology
and properties. Iran. Polym. J. 23 (12), 917e931.
Gasper, M., Benko, Z., Dogossy, G., Reczey, K., Czigany, T., 2005. Reducing water
absorption in compostable starch-based plastics. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 90 (3),
563e569.
Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., Schryver An De, Struijs, J., van Zelm, R.,
2012. ReCiPe 2008 a Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Which Comprises
Harmonised Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level Report
I: Characterisation. PRe
Consultants, Amersfoort; CML, University of Leiden;
RUN, Radboud University Nijmegen; RIVM, Bilthoven.
Golak, S., Burchart-Korol, D., Czaplicka-Kolarz, K., Wieczorek, T., 2011. Application of
neural network for the prediction of eco-efficiency. Lecture notes in computer
science. In: Liu, D., Zhang, H., Polycarpou, M., Alippi, C., He, H. (Eds.), ISNN 2011,
Part III, LNCS 6677. Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 380e387.
ISO 14044, 2006. Environmental Management e Life Cycle Assessment e Re-
quirements and Guidelines.
ISO14045, 2012. Environmental Management e Eco-efficiency Assessment of
Product Systems e Principles, Requirements and Guidelines.
Joshia, S.V., Drzal, L.T., Mohanty, A.K., Arora, S., 2004. Are natural fiber composites
environmentally superior to glass fiber reinforced composites? Compos. Part A
35, 371e376.
Kalia, S., Kaith, B.S., Kaur, I., 2009. Pretreatments of natural fibers and their appli-
cation as reinforcing material in polymer composites-a review. Polym. Eng. Sci.
49 (7), 1253e1272.
Kalita, H., Karak, N., 2012. Bio-based elastomeric hyperbranched polyurethanes for
shape memory application. Iran. Polym. J. 21 (4), 263e271.
Karande, V.S., Bharimalla, A.K., Vigneshwaran, N., Kadam, P.G., Mhaske, S.T., 2014.
Cotton linter nano-fibers as the potential reinforcing agent for guar gum. Iran.
Polym. J. 23 (11), 869e879.
Koenig, M.F., Huang, S.J., 1995. Biodegradable blends and composites of poly-
caprolactone and starch derivatives. Polymer 36 (9), 1877e1882.
Korol, J., 2012. Polyethylene matrix composites reinforced with keratin fibers
obtained from waste chicken feathers. J. Biobased Mater. Bio. 6 (4),
355e360.
_ J., Burchart-Korol, D., Bajer, K., 2012. Extrusion and testing the
Korol, J., Lenza,
changes of recyclate LDPE properties. Przem. Chem. 91 (11), 2196e2201.
_ J., Formela, K., 2015. Manufacture and research of TPS/PE bio-
Korol, J., Lenza,
composites properties. Compos. Part B Eng. 68, 310e316.
Kozioł, M., Wieczorek, J., Bogdan-Włodek, A., Myalski, J., 2013. Evaluation of jute
fiber preforms absorbability using optical profilographometer. J. Compos. Mater.
47 (19), 2309e2319.
Kuciel, S., Liber-Kne
c, A., 2011. Biocomposites based on PHB filled with wood or
kenaf fibers. Polimery 56 (3), 218e223.
Kuciel, S., Liber-Kne
c, A., Zajchowski, S., 2010. Composites based on polypropylene
recyclates and natural fibers. Polimery 55, 718e725 (in Polish).
LaRosa, A.D., Cozzo, G., Latteri, A., Recca, A., Bjo € rklund, A., Parrinello, E., Cicala, G.,
2013. Life cycle assessment of a novel hybrid glass-hemp/thermoset composite.
J. Clean. Prod. 44, 69e76.
Liua, H., Xiea, F., Yua, L., Chena, L., Lia, L., 2009. Thermal processing of starch-based
polymers. Prog. Polym. Sci. 34 (12), 1348e1368.
Mahieu, A., Terrie
, C., Agoulon, A., Leblanc, N., Youssef, B., 2013. Thermoplastic
starch and poly(ε-caprolactone) blends: morphology and mechanical properties
as a function of relative humidity. J. Polym. Res. 20 (229), 1e13.
Matzinos, P., Tserki, V., Gianikouris, C., Pavlidou, E., Panayiotou, C., 2002. Processing
and characterization of LDPE/starch/PCL blends. Eur. Polym. J. 38 (9),
1713e1720.
Miller, S.A., Billington, S.L., Lepech, M.D., 2013. Improvement in environmental
performance of poly(b -hydroxybutyrate)-co-(b -hydroxyvalerate) composites
through process modifications. J. Clean. Prod. 40, 190e198.
www.paletyplastik.pl/index.php?p35,paleta-plastikowa-1200x800-pelna-niebieska.
accessed on June 2015.
www.web.rtpcompany.com/info/data/0100/RTP101CC.htm. accessed on July 2015.
Sobczak, L., Lang, R.W., Haider, A., 2012. Polypropylene composites with natural
72, 550e557.
Sujit, D., 2011. Life cycle assessment of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer composites.
Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16, 268e28.
Wall-Markowski, C.A., Kicherer, A., Saling, P., 2004. Using eco-efficiency analysis to
assess renewable-resource-based technologies. Environ. Prog. 23, 329e333.
Weiss, M., Haufe, J., Carus, M., Branda ~o, M., Bringezu, S., Hermann, B., Patel, M.K.,
2012. A review of the environmental impacts of biobased materials. J. Ind. Ecol.
16, 169e181.
Xiea, F., Yua, L., Sua, B., Liua, P., Wanga, J., Liua, H., Chenet, L., 2009. Rheological
properties of starches with different amylose/amylopectin ratios. J. Cereal. Sci.
49 (3), 371e377.
Zimniewska, M., Myalski, J., Kozioł, M., Man
kowski, J., Bogacz, E., 2012. Natural fiber
textile structures suitable for composite materials. J. Nat. Fibers 9 (4), 229e239.