Industrial Crops and Products 23 (2006) 147–161

Biodegradable packaging based on raw materials from

crops and their impact on waste management
G. Davis a , J.H. Song ∗
a Engineering Management Group, University of Bristol, 83 Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1US, UK
b Centre for Biodegradable Materials Research, Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering and Design,
Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, UK

Received 14 August 2003; accepted 19 May 2005

Abstract

Packaging waste forms a significant part of municipal solid waste and as such has caused increasing environmental concerns,
resulting in strengthening of EU Regulations in order to reduce amounts of packaging waste. Among other materials, a huge
range of oil-based polymers is currently used in packaging applications. They are largely non-biodegradable and particularly
difficult to recycle or reuse due to mixed levels of contamination and complex composites. In recent years, the development of
biodegradable packaging materials from renewable natural resources (e.g. crops) has received increasing attention, particularly
in EU countries. Significant progress has been made to produce biodegradable materials with similar functionality to that of the
oil-based synthetic polymers. It is anticipated that, as the materials are from renewable resources and biodegradable, they would
contribute to sustainable development and if properly managed would reduce their environmental impact upon disposal.
This paper discusses the potential impact of biodegradable packaging materials on waste management in terms of landfill,
incineration, recycle/reuse and composting. A comparison is also drawn to the oil-based polymer packaging materials. It is the
view of the authors that biodegradable packaging materials are most suitable for single use disposable packaging applications
where the post-consumer use packaging can be locally composted as a means of recycling the materials. Establishment of
appropriate collection, transportation and treatment technologies are considered crucial to the success widespread applications
of biodegradable packaging materials.
© 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Crop; Biodegradable; Packaging; Materials; Waste management

1. Introduction

∗
Almost all consumer goods purchased in everyday
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1895 266 692;
fax: +44 1895 256 392.
life come with packaging, which fulfils at least one of
E-mail address: jim.song@brunel.ac.uk (J.H. Song). the following functions (Waite, 1995):

0926-6690/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2005.05.004
148 G. Davis, J.H. Song / Industrial Crops and Products 23 (2006) 147–161
- to provide protection from physical damage, contam-
ination and deterioration;
- to give sales appeal;
- to ensure the product identity is easily recognizable;
- to give information about the product;
- to optimize distribution and storage costs;
- to provide consumer convenience and safety.
A wide range of materials are used for packaging
applications including metal, glass, wood, paper or
pulp-based materials, plastics or combination of more
than one materials as composites. They are applied in
three broad categories of packaging:
- Primary packaging, which is normally in contact
with the goods and taken home by consumers.
- Secondary packaging, which covers the larger pack-
aging such as boxes, used to carry quantities of pri-
mary packaged goods.
- Tertiary packaging, which refers to the packaging
that is used to assist transport of large quantities of
goods, such as wooden pallets and plastic wrapping.
Secondary and tertiary packaging materials are
normally in larger quantities and have less material
variation and thus are relatively easier to collect and
sort by wholesalers or retailers for recycling or reuse
purposes. Primary packaging materials are not only
more dispersed into households, they are also largely
mixed, contaminated and often damaged and thus pose
problems in recycling or reuse of the materials.
Over 67 million tonnes of packaging waste is gen-
erated annually in the EU, comprising about one-third
of all municipal solid waste (Klingbeil, 2000). In the
UK, 3.2 million tonnes (Wasteline, 2002) of household
waste produced annually is packaging, which equates
to over 12% of the total household waste produced. In
developed countries, food packaging represents 60%
(Northwood and Oakley-Hill, 1999) of all packaging.
This is due primarily to strict food packaging regula-
tions and also the drive to enhance appearance and so
increase sales. In the UK, the proportion of food that is
unfit for consumption before it reaches the consumer is
2%, whereas in developing countries, where packaging
is not as widespread, this loss can be in excess of 40%
(Cybulska, 2000).
When discarded, food packaging can become the
most obvious source of litter generated by the public.
This has caused increasing environmental concerns,
resulting in strengthening of European (Packaging
and Packaging Waste Directive (94/62/EEC)) and
The Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations
(2003) in order to reduce amounts of packaging waste.
It is particularly difficult for the UK packaging industry
to meet these targets, as around 85% of municipal waste
in the UK currently ends up in landfill sites (Linstead
and Ekins, 2001). Whilst significant improvement
has been achieved in recycling or reuse of metals,
glass and pulp-based packaging (Northwood and
Oakley-Hill, 1999), little success has been achieved
in reducing plastic packaging wastes in landfill.
Plastic packaging materials consist of a large number
of different types of polymers, each of them may
contain different processing additives such as fillers,
colorants and plasticisers. A plastic packaging material
may be coated or multi-layer composite of different
polymers for better performance. The difficulties in
collecting, identifying, sorting, transporting, cleaning
and re-processing of plastic packaging materials often
renders the attempt of recycling non-economical
making disposal to landfill a more convenient
alternative.
In recent years, development of biodegradable
packaging materials from renewable natural resources
has received widespread government support in
EU countries and many national or international
organisations have been established to facilitate the
development in this area. These include the European
Renewable Resource Materials Association (ERRMA;
www.errma.com), the National Non-Food Crops
Centre (NNFCC; www.nnfcc.co.uk) in the UK, the
International Biodegradable Polymers Association
and Work Group (IBAW; http://www.IBAW-eV.de/)
based in Germany and the Interactive European
Network for Industrial Crops Application (IENICA;
www.ienica.net). The UK Government-Industry
Forum has strongly recommended greater use of non-
food crops, particularly for biodegradable packaging
applications (DEFRA, 2002, 2004). The objectives
in the development of biodegradable packaging are
two-fold:
(1) to utilize renewable and potentially more sustain-
able sources of raw materials (crops instead of
crude oil);
(2) to facilitate integrated waste management appro-
aches so as to reduce landfill.
 G. Davis, J.H. Song / Industrial Crops and Products 23 (2006) 147–161
To date, significant technological development has
been achieved to produce biodegradable materials
for packaging applications with comparable func-
tionalities to those of traditional oil-based plastic
packaging. Among these are commercially available
materials (www.biopolymer.net) based on or derived
from starch such as Mater-BiTM (www.materbi.com),
NatureWorksTM Polylactide (http://www.cargilldow.
com), BioskaTM (www.plastiroll.fi), BioplastTM
(www.biotec.de), SolanylTM (www.biopolymer.net),
PotatopacTM (www.potatoplates.com), Greenfil
TM (www.greenlightint.co.uk) and Eco-FoamTM
(www.eco-foam.com). Despite current higher costs
compared with the traditional plastic counterpart
(Petersen et al., 1999), many have found increasing
commercial applications in packaging.
It is clearly important to study the impact of
these biodegradable packaging materials on wastes
management so to realize the true benefit and the need
to establish adequate waste management systems and
legislation. This paper discusses the potential impact
on waste management by biodegradable packaging
materials in terms of landfill, incineration, recycle or
reuse and composting. Comparison is made with other
type of packaging materials particularly the oil-based
polymer packaging materials.
2. Primary packaging materials
The most common types of material used for pri-
mary packaging are paper or pulp-based materials,
glass, metals (e.g. aluminum and steels) and plastics.
Paper or pulp-based materials, ranging from
wrapping paper, cartons boxes, disposable cups and
plates, bags and envelopes to corrugate cardboard
used both for primary and secondary packaging. In a
survey conducted by the Environment Agency in 1998
(Wasteline, 2002), paper and board packaging made
up approximately 5 wt% of the domestic waste bin,
whilst non-packaging paper (mainly printed matters)
and board accounted for over 29%. Cardboard is
bulky, taking up a lot of space in the domestic bin,
during transport and subsequently landfill void space.
Currently, a large proportion of the packaging
is recycled within industry, particularly since the
introduction of the UK Packaging Waste Regulations.
In 2001, obligated UK industries had a packaging
149
recycling rate of 42% and the minimum material
specific target of 15% set within the regulations was
exceeded for all materials (IEMA, 2003).
Glass, by weight, is the most common form of pack-
aging waste, making up to 6% of the total weight of the
household bin (Environment Agency, 2000). Glass can
be returned for reuse or recycling. Six billion glass con-
tainers are used in the UK annually and the recycling
rate is about 22% (Environment Agency, 2000). The
UK has an extensive recovery and recycling system for
glass with over 20,000 bottle banks in operation today
(Northwood and Oakley-Hill, 1999). Glass recycling is
hindered by the different colours of glass used. Clear
glass makes the most desired cullet. Green glass is the
most common colour for packaging and yet currently
there is no sizable UK recycling market.
Aluminum is most commonly used as material for
beverage cans, foils and laminates. In 1996, 5 bil-
lion cans of product were consumed and 31% of
these were recycled (Wasteline, 2002). The recycling
rate is high as aluminum has a strong scrap metal
value. Prices for used beverage cans are currently
around £650–750 per tonne in the UK (www.scrap-
metal.info/Aluminium.htm).
Steel is widely used for packaging of food, bever-
ages and industrial goods such as paint and aerosols.
The recycling rate for steel cans in 1998 was 16%
(Wasteline, 2002). This is partly because magnetic
extraction of steel from a mixed waste stream is an
easy, well-established method employed at many of the
UK’s waste plants. The implementation of the Pack-
aging Regulations has increased recycling as all steel
packaging, such products as steel drums and bale wire
are now subject to recycling. Steel packaging in 1998
had a recycling rate of 31% (Wasteline, 2002).
Plastic materials for packaging have seen a dramatic
increase in the last two decades and over the past 50
years synthetic polymers have been replacing more tra-
ditional materials such as paper, glass and metals in
many packaging applications. This is because of their
low cost, low density, resistance to corrosion, desir-
able physical (e.g. barrier and optical) and mechanical
properties and ease of processing. Most plastics are
made almost entirely from chemicals derived from
crude oil (McCarthy, 1993). A large variety of plastics
are available from different grades of thermoplastics
and thermosetting polymers. Additional material vari-
ations include the inclusion of additives such as fillers,
150 G. Davis, J.H. Song / Industrial Crops and Products 23 (2006) 147–161
Fig. 1. Recycling rate of materials from household packaging waste
in the UK.
plasticizers or lubricants, colorants and antioxidants.
Coating, printing and lamination with other polymers
add extra material variation. This poses great diffi-
culties in sorting the materials for recycling purposes
although there is a crude polymer coding systems
already in place. Plastic packaging, due to its longevity,
high volume and often colourful appearance, tends to
be highly visible within the waste stream. This high vis-
ibility and high volume has led to non-degradable plas-
tics being blamed for dramatically shortening the life
expectancy of current commercial landfills (McCarthy,
1993). Another highly visible waste stream for plas-
tics is that of litter, be it street litter, where it is costly
for Local Authorities to implement street cleansing
programmes or marine litter polluting waterways and
beaches. In both cases, it poses a threat to both animal
and marine life, through strangulation and ingestion
(Scott, 1995). In a report in May 2001 (Wolfenden,
2001), the Environment Agency (EA) aired its con-
cerns about what it described as a ‘growing plastics
mountain’ and called for immediate action to tackle
the increase in waste plastics. According to this report,
about two-thirds of plastics waste is in the form of pack-
aging, the majority of which comes from households.
Fig. 1 shows the UK recycling rate of materials from
household packaging waste based on the statistics in the
above references.
3. Biodegradable packaging
Biodegradable packaging materials may be
broadly classified into biodegradable polymers and
biopolymers based on whether the dominating ingre-
dient is synthetic oil-based polymer or a biologically
derived polymer. The former are synthetic poly-
mers which either have certain degrees of inherent
biodegradability such as polycaprolactone, polyhy-
droxybutyrate and poly(vinyl alcohol) (Brody and
Marsh, 1997) or chemically modified plastics to assist
biodegradation (Bastioli et al., 1994). Biopolymers are
naturally occurring long-chain molecules. Cellulose,
polysaccharides, proteins and DNA are among the
common examples. This definition has been extended
to materials made or derived from these natural
polymers. Unlike synthetic polymer, most of them
are biodegradable, i.e. decomposable by biological
activity such as through bacteria or fungi and give rise
to natural metabolic products.
Natural cellulose packing materials are dominated
by traditional corrugated boards products and moulded
pulp products, which have been extended in recent
years from egg boxes and food trays to solutions in
industrial packaging (e.g. www.impepa.org).
Among commercially available biodegradable
packaging materials based on natural raw materials,
those based on polysaccharides (starch) are currently
the front-runners. This is mainly attributable to the facts
that starch is annually renewable and is:
abundant—around 15 million tonnes per year are pro-
duced in Europe and nearly 50% is used for non-food
applications (Löckes, 1998) and
inexpensive—around D 0.5–1.0 kg−1 (Petersen et al.,
1999).
Starch alone is hardly useable as a packaging mate-
rial due mainly to its poor mechanical properties
(e.g. brittleness) and its hydrophilic nature. They are
often modified mechanically, physically or chemically
and/or combined with plasticizer or polymeric addi-
tives. The boundary between starch biopolymer and
biodegradable polymer here can thus become diffused.
In a biodegradable material combining starch and
biodegradable polymer or copolymers, starch content
could vary between 5 and 90 wt%. It therefore seems to
be logical to classify the material as a “starch contain-
ing biodegradable polymer” rather than a “starch-based
biopolymer” if die starch content is lower than 50 wt%.
These materials fall largely into the following cate-
gories:
 G. Davis, J.H. Song / Industrial Crops and Products 23 (2006) 147–161
- Starch filled plastics using starch as biodegradable
filler in synthetic polymers such as polyethylene
(PE) (Kim and Lee, 2002) and polystyrene (PS)
(Kiatkamjornwong et al., 1999). Biodegradation of
the starch filler is utilised here to weaken and disin-
tegrate the materials after use and thus the materials
are by no means completely biodegradable.
- Chemically modified starch (Aggarwal and
Dollimore, 1998) using, e.g. fatty acid chlorides
(Aburto et al., 1999).
- Plasticised thermoplastic starch (PTS) using plas-
ticisers to increase flexibility and to enhance its
impact strength (Arvanitoyannis and Biliaderis,
1998; Baumberger et al., 1997).
- Starch compounded or grafted with biodegradable
polymers including polylactide (PLA), polyhydrox-
ybutyrate (PHB) or polyhydroyalkanoates (PHA)
(Petersen et al., 2001; Raghavan and Emekalam,
2001), polylcaprolactone (PCL) (Avérous et al.,
2001; Matzinos et al., 2002), aliphatic polyester
(Ratto et al., 1999) and poly(ester-urethane) (PEU)
(Seidenstucker and Fritz, 1998).
- Biopolymers chemically derived from starch using
fermentation of starch followed by polymerisation
to produce polylactide (Vink, 2001).
The four major markets for biodegradable materials
are seen as (Nayak, 1999):
- food packaging;
- non-food packaging;
- personal and health care disposal;
- consumer goods.
Performance, process ability and cost are the major
challenges for biodegradable polymers to be cost-
effective and to fulfil the required functions during
the service and disposal life of the product, where
oil-based plastic packaging is to be displaced. Signif-
icant technical advances have been made in material
performance and process ability of biopolymers,
which resulted in many successful commercial appli-
cations (www.biopolvmer.net, www.materbi.com,
http://www.cargilldow.com, www.plastiroll.fi, www.
biotec.de, www.potatoplates.com, www.greenlightint.
co.uk, www.eco-foam.com), particularly in single
use packaging applications such as food packaging,
disposable cutlery/tableware and disposal bags. It has
been suggested that the life-cycle analysis of using
151
biopolymer packaging for such single use packaging
is more attractive than other alternatives (McCarthy,
1993) such as paper (Scott, 2001) where both the
manufacturing energy and burden of environmental
contaminants is higher for paper than polyolefins.
They are also being increasingly researched to replace
traditional materials formulated into items such
as disposable nappies (www.naty.se). Increasing
technological advancement, fuelled by consumer
needs for more user-friendly products, is pushing the
polymer markets to find new and novel materials.
Evidence of this is plainly visible in the develop-
ment of biodegradable detergent sachets and clothes
washing ‘tabs’ (Davis, 2003) where the biodegradable
polymers end up in the waste water/sewerage system.
Currently, the high purchase cost associated with
biodegradable polymers remains a constraint to more
widespread exploitation of these materials (Petersen et
al., 2001) with their application being limited to goods
where cost is not the deciding issue. Significant cost
reduction is expected with the increase of economy
of production scale, which is at the moment less than
0.1% that of oil-based polymers (Bartle, 2001).
4. Disposal and waste management of
biodegradable packaging
Plastic packaging wastes in the UK were tradi-
tionally sent to landfill due mainly to the difficul-
ties in sorting and transporting the large volume
of lightweight materials in mixed and contaminated
forms. Biodegradable packaging materials are poten-
tially suitable for inclusion in the composting process
or the waste water system and opens new routes for
waste treatment. Table 1 summarises the different envi-
ronments in which biodegradable polymers may be
found (Moore and Saunders, 1997).
Table 1
Possible environment for disposal of biopolymers
Biodegradation Terrestrial Aquatic
Aerobic Soil Marine
Compost Aerobic sewage sludge
Waterways
Anaerobic Landfill Anaerobic sewage sludge
152 G. Davis, J.H. Song / Industrial Crops and Products 23 (2006) 147–161
As waste from primary plastic packaging is in large
volume and the material recovery rate is low, it has
become the main focus of environmental concerns and
will therefore be the focus of following discussions in
comparison with biodegradable packaging.
The per capita consumption of plastics in the USA,
for example, is approximately 150 kg, Europe about
20 kg and India about 5 kg (Nayak and Swain, 2002).
On 18 January 2002, the Basel Convention’s Technical
Working Group comprising of experts from over
100 Governments formulated “Technical Guidelines
for the Identification and Environmentally Sound
Management of Plastic Wastes and their Disposal”
(www.unep.ch/conventions/press.sbc.pr1-02a.htm).
The guidelines are in response to the growing per capita
consumption of plastics in developing countries where
uncontrolled burning and landfilling of plastics is com-
mon practice. The working group acknowledged the
potential risks posed to human health and the environ-
ment by plastics and aims to reduce those risks through
re-use, recycling and rigorous disposal procedures.
There are many technologies available for the treat-
ment of plastic packaging waste (Tukker, 2002):
- integrated collection with household waste and incin-
eration with energy recovery;
- separation of plastics with high calorific value from
household waste for selective combustion, such as in
cement kilns;
- separation of plastics from household waste and use
as reducing agent in blast furnaces or for materials
feedstock recycling;
- separate collection of plastics, sorting, cleaning and
mechanical recycling.
Treatment technologies for degradable and
biodegradable polymers also include composting and
anaerobic digestion (Davis, 2003).
4.1. Incineration
Approximately 40 million tonnes of municipal solid
waste (MSW) are incinerated within the EU annually
with approximately 95% of Europe’s 230 large incin-
erators recovering energy (Musdalslien and Sandberg,
2002).
Incineration with recovery of both heat and power
is an option after all recyclable elements, for which
there is a market, have been removed. Reports by
the Environment Committees of both the House of
Commons (1993) and the House of Lords (1994) have
supported the opinion that energy recovery for some
types of household plastic wastes is an acceptable
waste management option. However, plastics con-
taining chlorinated compounds, such as PVC, are a
potential hazard when incinerated. If burnt at low tem-
peratures they can produce toxic chlorine compounds
with a risk of their additives leaching out. However,
unlike coal, pellets made from pre-treated plastics
contain virtually no sulphur or nitrogen, resulting in
less acidification within the plant and lower emissions
of sulphur and nitrogen to atmosphere (APME, 2002).
Low value soiled packaging films and carrier bags
may be used as an economic boiler fuel (incineration
combined with electricity generation), as they are
usually manufactured from polyethylene that has a
very high calorific value, similar to that of petroleum,
and it burns relatively cleanly. Thus, the incineration of
plastics made from petroleum could be considered as
the most efficient way of gaining the maximum benefit
from the petroleum. Firstly, the use of the plastic, and
then by recovering the same amount of heat from the
plastic, as if the same amount of petroleum was burnt
in the first place (Nayak and Swain, 2002).
The British Plastics Federation’s Energy Recovery
Task Force (BPF, 1993b) conducted a series of trials
at the SELCHP plant to demonstrate the acceptabil-
ity of extracting the energy from plastic waste. The
demonstration concluded that modern waste-to-energy
plants were capable of burning plastic waste, even those
containing chlorinated compounds such as PVC with-
out releasing any dangerous or potentially dangerous
emissions of dioxins and furans.
Polyolefins have particularly high gross calorific
values (GCV) even higher than coal (APME, 2002).
Plastics compounded with additives (e.g. inorganic
fillers and pigments or glass fibre) also tend to have
a lower GCV of only around 18–28 MJ/kg, compared
to the GCV of parent plastics typically ranging from
28 to 42 MJ/kg (Eagles, 1985).
It is possible to combust both non-biodegradable
plastic and biodegradable polymers. Degradable PE
should have similar GCV as conventional PE because
the modification additives are at very low levels
(Davis et al., 2005). Biodegradable polymers such
as EcoflexTM based on aliphatic aromatic co-polyes-
ters (http://www2.basf.de/basf2/html/plastics/englisch/
 G. Davis, J.H. Song / Industrial Crops and Products 23 (2006) 147–161
Table 2
Gross calorific values for selected materials
Polymer/material Gross calorific value (MJ/kg)
Starch 14.5–16.5
Paper 16.7
Wood (oak) 18
Coal 26–33a
PMMA 29
PC 31.1
PA6 32.5
PS 39.2
PE 44.8
a Eastop and Croft (1996).
pages/biokstoff/ecoflex.htm) and BionolleTM based
on polyesters chains extended with diisocyanate
(http://www.wtec.org/loyola/biopoly/showa.htm)
have GCV values in the same range as coal.
Biopolymers such as natural fibre and starch have
relatively lower GCVs (Jacquinet, 1985) as shown
in Table 2 and thus will reduce, to some extent,
the overall GCVs if incorporated with degradable
polymers. However, the biopolymer’s GCVs are close
to wood and thus still have considerable value for
incineration. In addition, the production of these
materials consumes significantly less energy in the
first place (Patel et al., 2003), and thus would possibly
result in an overall positive energy balance. The
incorporation of natural fibres into composites in place
of glass fibre can reduce the environmental impact of
incineration as it reduces the non-combustible solids
and only release as much CO2 as the plant absorbed
when it was growing (European Plastics News, 2001).
Metals and glass are not combustible and can hinder
the combustion process and foul machinery. Organic
matter such as kitchen and garden wastes, due to the
high moisture values, will actively lower combustion
temperatures resulting in reducing the efficiency of the
process.
As previously discussed, the developed countries
have a much larger per capita consumption of plastics
giving their waste a higher proportion of plastics to
non-combustible materials resulting in a higher gross
calorific value of the MSW (Nayak and Swain, 2002).
4.2. Landfill
During 1999, Western Europe sent 65% of the total
recoverable plastics in household waste (8.4 million
153
tonnes annually) to landfill (APME, 2002). Approxi-
mately 470,000 tonnes of plastic bottles were disposed
of in 2001, of which more than 90% was sent to land-
fill (Materials Recycling Week, 2003). The landfill of
traditional plastics is viewed by the supporters of com-
bustion technologies as wasting the energy potential of
the oil contained within the plastic.
Traditional plastics and other non-degradable mate-
rials, such as glass and metals, provide a stable landfill
material. Landfill engineers argue that stable materials
make the design and control of landfills easier, reduce
pollution risks and allowing the site to stabilize more
quickly allowing site redevelopment. In Germany,
an increasing number of landfills are only accepting
inert waste, where any organic/degradable wastes have
been stabilized through biostabilisation before landfill
(Mueller et al., 1998). These landfills are referred to as
low emission landfills and require less engineering and
control than landfills that accept degradable wastes as
there is reduced risk of gas and leachate formation.
Article 5 of the Landfill Directive (99/31/EC) seeks
to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste
(BMW) including biodegradable packaging wastes
going to landfill in three successive stages eventually
to 35% of the 1995 total of BMW by 2020, because
of the negative environmental impacts associated with
leachate and methane production (Hudgins, 1999). The
Department for the Environment, Transport and the
Region’s Waste Strategy—England and Wales (DETR,
2000), set targets for Waste Disposal Authorities to
reduce the amount of BMW sent to landfill by intro-
ducing a tradable permit system designed so that the
UK could meet EU Landfill Directive targets (Read,
1999, 2000). The Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme
(LATS) commenced on 1 April 2005, and limits the
amount of BMW sent to Landfill by England’s 121
disposal authorities in order to meet the demands of
the European Landfill Directive. These targets have
resulted in the proliferation of kerbside collection sys-
tems, which have targeted BMW.
4.3. Composting
Composting is essentially a process to breakdown
waste by biodegradation and this is considered the most
attractive route for treatment of biodegradable (or, in
this particular context, compostable) packaging waste.
154 G. Davis, J.H. Song / Industrial Crops and Products 23 (2006) 147–161
Polymeric materials may degrade in a number of
ways when reacting with (Wool, 1995):
sunlight by photo-oxidation;
chemicals by oxidation processes;
bacteria (presence on species-correct microorgan-
isms);
macroorganism (invertebrates and insects consuming
the plastic as food) known as biodegradation.
Most oil-based plastics are resistant to biological
attack because microorganisms do not have an enzyme
capable of the degradation of most man-made poly-
mers. In addition to this the hydrophobic character
of plastics inhibits enzyme activity (Nayak, 1999).
The degradation processes within the ‘outdoor’
environment are assisted by photo and thermal oxida-
tion. Photo-degradation may result from ultra-violet
radiation, whilst within a composting environment
thermo-oxidation can also play the dominant role
since temperatures can easily exceed 60–70 ◦ C for
a prolonged period of time, even during the UK’s
colder months (Davis et al., 2002). Oxidation is the
main cause of degradation in ambient conditions.
Oxygen is important in small quantities during the
initiation of thermal degradation as it provides the
initial bond-breaking step (Stivala et al., 1983).
Biodegradable polymers degrade using the same
mechanisms as organic matter within aerobic com-
posting systems. The trigger for degradation could be
a microbially, hydrolytically or oxidatively suscep-
tible linkage built into the backbone of the polymer
(Narayan, 2000) or, alternatively, additives that
catalyze breakdown of the polymer chains (Moore and
Saunders, 1997). This ‘trigger’ may be specifically
designed to ensure degradation does not occur within
the ‘use lifetime’ and to also ensure that degradation
does occur upon disposal within a given environment.
This is a unique trait of certain biodegradable plastics
that they may be designed to disintegrate once their use-
ful life is over. Biodegradability also enables a “materi-
als cycle to be built up that imitates nature”(Schroeter,
2001) by recycling the carbon. Biodegradable poly-
mers are attacked and disintegrated by enzymes from
naturally occurring microorganisms (such as bacteria
and fungi) encountered under specific conditions
found in soils and composts. The microorganisms
digest the small fragments of the macromolecules.
Biodegradation starts when microorganisms begin
growing on the surface of the polymer and secrete
enzymes that break down the polymer (Nayak, 1999).
The biodegradation process depends on several
factors such as the microbial activity of the environ-
ment, the surface area of the polymer, temperature,
pH, molecular weight and polymer crystallinity. The
mineral structure of terrestrial environments is also
influential on the rate of biodegradation (Moore and
Saunders, 1997). Therefore, soils that have a compact
structure tend to be more anaerobic, and will produce
lower rates of degradation. The rate of biodegradation
is ultimately affected by (Moore and Saunders, 1997):
- the polymer’s environment and the organisms
utilised;
- the nature of the polymeric substrate.
Following disposal, biodegradable polymers are
expected to go through complete mineralisation. For
example, to carbon dioxide under aerobic conditions
and methane under anaerobic conditions together with
other elements that may present in the materials:
Aerobic biodegradation (such as composting)
Polymer + O2 → CO2 + H2 O
Anaerobic biodegradation (such as landfill and anaer-
obic digestion)
Polymer → CO2 + CH4 + H2 O
It is essential that the degradation products are not
toxic to the environment and do not persist within the
environment.
The treatment of biodegradable plastics by compost-
ing is classified as material recovery, and a permitted
recovery option specified in the Producer Responsibil-
ity (Packaging Waste) Regulations as amended in 1997.
From March 2001, in Kassel, Germany, biodegrad-
able polymer (BDP) packaging was introduced into
the local retail trade (Klauss, 2001). The purpose of
this scheme was to introduce biodegradable packaging
and manage its source separation by householders
so that it could be collected with the organic waste
stream to produce compost. The scheme required
much planning prior to the launch, to ensure that the
public had received sufficient information about the
biodegradable polymers, their labelling, separation
and collection. The compost derived from the mixed
packaging and organic waste is being composted at
 G. Davis, J.H. Song / Industrial Crops and Products 23 (2006) 147–161
a full-scale composting site and is undertaken at a
commercial level. The compost feedstock is monitored
to ensure a ratio of 99:1 (99 organic:1 packaging) on
a weight basis. All of the biodegradable packaging
being trialed had to comply to the German DIN V
54’900 before inclusion. An initial concern of the trial
was that there could be a reduction in compost quality
and for this reason, a strict regime of monitoring was
enforced. However, the compost produced showed no
differences in terms of quality parameters compared
to the compost comprised of solely green waste and
no biodegradable polymers (Klauss and Bidlingmaier,
2004). Growing tests using the finished compost indi-
cated that the compost containing the biodegradable
polymers had the same positive effect on soil and plant
characteristics as the conventional compost (Klauss
and Bidlingmaier, 2004).
The low levels of contamination in the organic waste
stream indicated that consumers are able and willing
to separate compostable polymers from conventional
plastics. Householder surveys conducted in September
2001 and November 2002 indicated that the 82% of
Kassel’s population could clearly identify the hexag-
onal logo printed on all compostable polymers with
90% supporting the replacement of conventional plas-
tic packaging with compostable packaging.
This program demonstrated that the success of bio-
technologies for waste treatment has created a demand
for further products that can be digested/degraded in
the same way as ‘conventional’ organic waste. The
incentives for this have been two-fold:
- firstly, to increase separation and collection efficien-
cies (be it household or centralised);
- secondly, to reduce the amount of waste going to
landfill or incineration.
Legislation, however, has imposed a number of
increasing constraints on the UK compositing indus-
try. The 1999 Animal By-Product Order (SI1999/646)
came into force to control the use and disposal of
animal-derived material, including catering wastes,
which were no longer fit/intended for human consump-
tion (Gilbert, 2001). This order stated that catering
or household waste containing meat or other products
derived from animals could be composted, but that the
resulting material could not be spread/used on land. The
order also prohibited the use of ‘mixed’ compost on
land where animals (including birds) may have access.
155
The ABPO had considerable impact on those Local
Authorities collecting source segregated kitchen waste
from households. Many such schemes were being put
into place by Authorities in order to meet their regula-
tory requirements/targets as specified under the Land-
fill Directives.
On 1 May 2003, the Animal By-Products Regulation
(ABPR) came into effect. The ABPR revoked ABPO,
and started the UK implementation of the EU Regula-
tion. The ABPR divides animal by-products into three
categories and stipulates the means of collection, trans-
port, storage, handling processing and use or disposal
for each category: category 1—higher risk materials
such as carcasses infected with BSE, Scrapie, etc.; cat-
egory 2—also high risk materials such as animal that
die on farms and animals that are unfit for human con-
sumption; category 3—materials that are fit (but not
intended) for human consumption such as fish, milk,
parts of slaughtered animals, etc. Household kitchen
waste and by association, biodegradable food packag-
ing (because it has came into contact with food, meat
or non-meat) is classified under category 3. Categories
2 and 3 materials may be composted or treated via
anaerobic digestion following strict requirements on
handling, temperature and retention times.
The implications of the ABPR on the UK waste
management sector has been extensive, with many
companies investing in high capital in-vessel com-
posing plants that fulfil the criteria for compositing
specified by the ABPR. Although the ABPR does not
apply to sites accepting only green botanical garden
waste, many UK Local Authorities have already
started mixed organic waste (garden and kitchen)
collections or are considering mixed collections in
order to meet legislative targets. For mixed organic
waste collections, the majority of the material col-
lected is from botanical sources; however, due to the
presence of kitchen/catering waste all of the waste
must be composted in-vessel in order to meet the
above requirements. Alternatively, the Local Authority
could collect the organic botanical waste separately
from the kitchen-derived waste, but this would have
extensive logical requirements (a separate vehicle,
crew and compositing facility).
In-vessel compositing is more costly than open-
windrow methods commonly adopted in the UK, result-
ing in increasing compositing costs per tonne, gate fee
charges to Local Authorities and consequential making
156 G. Davis, J.H. Song / Industrial Crops and Products 23 (2006) 147–161
in-vessel compositing less competitive against other
treatment and disposal options such as landfill.
Concern over the potential eco-toxicity of degrada-
tion products has resulted in the formulation and adop-
tion of suitable international standards for compostable
polymer products. For example, EN 13432 requires
that compostable polymer materials have to fulfil Euro-
pean, or where none exist, national requirements for
composibility. In December 2003, the Compositing
Association in the UK launched a Certification Scheme
for Compostable Packaging, in order to assist UK Local
Authorities with the selection of sacks for organic waste
collections. As there is currently no European standard
on compost quality (besides the ecological criteria for
the award of the EU Eco-label), the UK adopted the
BSI PAS 100 in November 2002 (BSI, 2002). Other
standards such as the ASTM 6400-99 (ASTM, 2002)
also defines product classification and requirements for
compositing.
Over recent years, the major supermarket chains,
seeing the marketing and environmental potential,
have been quick to adopt biodegradable packaging for
selected organic produce ranges (ENDS Report, 2002)
despite this form of packaging being considerably
more expensive than conventional packaging. The
biodegradable packaging solutions adopted are con-
sidered suitable for home and commercial composting
systems. Although composting is a permitted recov-
ery option specified in the Producer Responsibility
(Packaging Waste) Regulations as amended in 1997,
a way of counting such packaging into the producer
obligations seems some way off.
The current standard BS EN 13432 (1999) covers
the requirements for packaging recoverable through
composting and biodegradation and test scheme and
evaluation criteria for the final acceptance of packag-
ing. According to EN 13432, a plastic is considered
to be disintegrable under compositing conditions if,
following compositing, no more than 10% of its initial
dry weight has a particle size equal or greater than
2 mm. Some hydrocarbon-based polymers marketed in
the UK as compositable have failed to reach this stan-
dard (Davis et al., 2003). At the European Committee
for Standardisation (CEN TC 261/SC4/WG2) meeting
in February 2003, the view was presented that BS EN
13432 is not satisfactory for hydrocarbon-based com-
postable polymers and a new BS for the compostability
of oxo-degradable plastics has been proposed.
Ultimately, the need must be to reduce the amount
of waste. However, the current rate of municipal solid
waste produced in England is growing at approximately
3% per annum (Lyas et al., 2003), where the attempt in
the reduction of packaging waste is hindered by food
packaging legislation.
Home composting has been identified by the UK
Strategy Unit of the Cabinet Office as one of five key
measures to reduce the growth rate of household waste
according to a report on Biodegradable Polymers
and Sustainability published by the UK National
Non-Food Crop Centre (Murphy and Bartle, 2004).
Home composting of packaging materials could
divert waste from municipal collection system and
compliment municipal composting. It should be noted
that home composting is difficult to regulate and
inappropriate composting conditions may results in
generation of methane. In addition, some biodegrad-
able materials certified for municipal composting may
take much longer to degrade in home composting bins.
Organisations such as Composting Association, UK,
could play important regulatory/advisory roles.
4.4. Recycling
Efficient recycling of plastics requires a clean and
homogeneous waste stream, however post-consumer
use primary plastics tend to be contaminated and have
mixed compositions.
The UK Government’s researchers have estimated
that up to 70% of the plastic in household waste could
be recovered (Northwood and Oakley-Hill, 1999). In
1998, however, only 5.7% of plastic packaging in the
UK was recycled and most of this came from com-
mercial sources (Northwood and Oakley-Hill, 1999),
although this will have to increase to comply with
EU law. Currently, very little plastic in the household
stream gets recycled and hence over 80% ended up in
landfill sites (Linstead and Ekins, 2001).
One of the largest barriers to polymer recycling is
the lack of a continuous and reliable supply of quality,
sorted materials (Hartmann and Rolim, 2002). Whilst
scrap materials may be separated during the production
period and recycling by re-palletizing or compounding
is relatively easy, there are considerable practical dif-
ficulties in the recycling of used plastics (Kumar and
Singh, 2003; Ogilvie, 1996):
 G. Davis, J.H. Song / Industrial Crops and Products 23 (2006) 147–161
• difficulties in collection, separating and identifica-
tion of plastics;
• limited recycling technologies;
• degradation due to repeated processing;
• low bulk densities of polymers;
• availability and low quantities;
• less economically viable than other feedstock recy-
cling;
• time consuming.
One reason why plastic recycling is so under devel-
oped is the large number of different polymers in use.
There are about 50 different family groups of plastics
with hundreds of different varieties. In addition to
this, some products can be made from several different
polymers and each may have used different additives.
Also, composites are frequently in packaging for
enhancement of performances (Nomaguchi, 2002).
The sorting of materials is further hampered by the
use of composites consisting two or more dissimilar
materials that cannot be easily separated for recycling
(Netravali and Chabba, 2003).
The difficulties in sorting have significant financial
implications. It is estimated that two-thirds of the total
financial cost incurred in plastics recycling is due to the
collection and sorting of the plastics (Brandrup, 1999).
The economic and environmental costs of transporting
a large volume of flammable, lightweight material, of
sorting the various polymer types and of washing the
material, which is very often contaminated by the food
and drink it has contained, have mitigated against the
process. By weight, plastics make up about 7% of the
household waste totalling of approximately 35 million
tonnes in the UK in 1998 (DOE, 1992). This figure is
rising annually and if calculated in terms of volume can
be much higher due to the low bulk density of the mate-
rials. This also contributes to the economical burden
to recycle plastics. For instance, plastic bottles occupy
around 10% of the capacity of a household refuse
collection vehicle and it is estimated that UK Local
Authorities currently spend £45 million per annum
on the collection and disposal of plastic bottles from
MSW (Materials Recycling Week, 2003). The UK’s
National Organisation for Domestic Plastic Recycling,
Recoup, produced a Plastic Recycling Report Survey
2002, suggesting that those same plastic bottles could
be recovered and sold to the recycling industry for
approximately £27 million (Materials Recycling
157
Week, 2003). This figure does not include the potential
savings made from landfill tax and charge avoidance.
The concept of “loop society” (Jackson, 1996) is
fundamental to the theory of recycling and implies that
we continuously use the same materials without the
need for using new resources. But based on the sec-
ond law of thermodynamics, high entropy is associated
with high recovery costs of materials recycling. It is
therefore essential to reduce the entropy of a resource,
such as municipal solid waste, by pre-sorting the more
valuable components. This could involve the source
segregation at household level of aluminium cans and
paper, up to the biomechanical separation of plastics
for waste to energy plants. With regard to sorting of
plastics, it could be helped if products were manu-
factured from fewer types of polymer and that the
polymers were clearly labelled. Effective sorting by
materials composition is still a developing technology.
Manual sorting of post-consumer use polymer products
at materials recovery facilities (MRF’s) is achieved by-
product recognition rather than polymer composition
recognition. This could be facilitated by using fewer;
more appropriate and clearly identifiable materials and
effective sorting facilities for collected refuse. Such
an example is the MRF plant run by Integra, at Cop-
nor, Portsmouth, UK, which sorts all curbside collected
plastics and not only separates plastics but also all pos-
sible recyclable materials.
Depending upon their quality and purity, ther-
moplastics may be reprocessed several times using
thermo-mechanical recycling, although it must be
noted that this is associated with loss in physical perfor-
mance at every processing stage. Although it is possible
to recycle mixed plastics into certain types of prod-
ucts, properties of recycled polymer are often seriously
inferior to virgin polymers and may only be used for
downgrade applications.
When the physical properties have deteriorated sig-
nificantly it is possible to then recover the chemicals
using chemical recycling. The plastic materials are
chemically broken down into smaller molecules, which
can then be used as the building blocks for new materi-
als. Many technologies in chemical recycling have been
developed but currently are not economically attractive
but in long terms, this situation may change with tight-
ening legislation and occurrence of crisis in oil supply.
The addition of starch or natural fibres to traditional
polymers can complicate recycling processes because
158 G. Davis, J.H. Song / Industrial Crops and Products 23 (2006) 147–161
(Hartmann and Rolim, 2002):
• The particle size of the starch can affect the melt
strength of a polymer. Larger starch particle can also
act as stress sites for blowholes in films.
• Starch particles have temperature limitations. If
heated above 232 ◦ C, the starch is susceptible to
burning.
• Starch is hydrophilic, which means that any film will
absorb moisture.
Polymers with starch filler and biodegradable mod-
ifiers are not suitable for conventional polymer recy-
cling processes, as the additives will have a deleterious
effect on mechanical properties of subsequent films
(Scott, 1995).
Since compositions of biodegradable polymers are
very different from oil-based polymers and designed
to degrade after use, they are generally considered
unsuitable for the conventional plastics recycling
mentioned above but more suitable for composting
seen as a form of materials recovery (European
Plastics News, 2001). Biopolymers are generally
unsuitable for recycling once biodegradation has
been triggered during service life or in the waste
stream. However, some biodegradable plastics such
as the polyolefin-based polymers may contain heavy
metal catalysts and are unsuitable to enter compost
stream but may be considered for conventional
thermo-mechanical recycling. These materials vary
significantly in biodegradability and may or may not
be readily compostable as often claimed. For instance,
PLA is found only biodegradable under certain indus-
trial composting conditions and unsuitable for garden
composting (BPF, 1993a) as the temperatures required
for the degradation of PLA are not sufficiently high
in small-scale compost heaps. Procedures need to be
strictly certified, clearly classified and labelled so that
they can be readily identified by both the householder
and the waste contractor for composting purposes.
5. Conclusion remarks
• Careful redesign of packaging is necessary to min-
imise packaging, whilst at the same time ensuring
that the packaging still meets its functional and
legislative requirements. This redesign, whenever
possible, should also make primary and secondary
packaging more recyclable. The UK Packaging Reg-
ulations (1997) have tried to minimise this variety,
but many items are still composed of multiple plas-
tics that require a greater level of knowledge and
technique to conduct effective source separation.
• Biodegradable packaging is generally unsuitable
for landfill (due to the requirements of Article 5
of the EU Landfill Directive seeking to reduce
biodegradable materials sent to landfill because of
their propensity to release methane under anaero-
bic conditions) or conventional recycling. There is
no reason why biodegradable packaging materials
cannot be collected with other plastic packaging
for incineration. These materials contain reasonable
GCV and do not produce hazardous emissions. The
growth in biodegradable plastics could undermine
the already struggling plastics recycling industry
by complicating the identification and sorting pro-
cesses. To ensure that this does not become the case,
strong clear labelling is required so that such prod-
ucts can be easily identified and separated.
• Biodegradable packaging are most suitable for
domestic and/or municipal composting and should
be separated from and other non-biodegradable
packaging and collected with organic waste at
household level for composting. The argument that
biodegradable packaging will harm the plastics recy-
cling industry is unfounded as composting would
not compete with the recycling industry, not least
because composting is a form of material recovery
as stated in many UK legislative and policy doc-
uments. To facilitate composting, however, infras-
tructure must be established to certify biodegrad-
able packaging materials and to collect biodegrad-
able packaging with organic waste. By using local
or regional composting facilities, the total waste to
landfill could be reduced, in addition to the reduction
of transport cost and associated emissions.
• Composting is seen in many European countries as a
cheap method of disposal (Mueller et al., 1998) and
composting facilities in many European states offer
attractive gate fees compared with landfill. This is
not the case in the UK where landfill continues to
offer the cheapest waste management option, albeit
disposal. This will change as the landfill legisla-
tion is tightening and available UK landfill sites are
rapidly diminishing. The staged increases in landfill
tax also seeks to make alternative treatment routes
 G. Davis, J.H. Song / Industrial Crops and Products 23 (2006) 147–161
more financially attractive compared to landfill. The
cost of the receptacle used to collect the organic
wastes and infrastructure required to facilitate its col-
lection and transport is significant, but the long-term
environmental reward will be high.
• In summary, biodegradable polymers broaden the
range of waste management treatment option over
traditional plastics and this is supported by Life
Cycle Assessment (Murphy and Bartle, 2004). The
most favoured end-of-life disposal options for these
materials are domestic and municipal compositing
in place of landfill as the worst disposal option, the
second worst option being interaction and anerobic
digestion option being intermediate. Techniques for
recycling of conventional polymers are generally not
suitable for biodegradable polymers but the value
of the materials may be recovered in the form of
useful compost. Biodegradable polymers can thus
make significant contributions to material recovery,
reduction of landfill and utilisation of renewable
resources. Widespread public awareness of the mate-
rial and effective infrastructure for stringent control
of certification, collection, separation and composit-
ing are crucial to materialise the fully benefits.
Acknowledgements
The EPSRC and the Organic Resource Agency, UK,
are thanked for their financial support to G. Davis for
her EngD research.
References
Aburto, J., Alric, I., Thiebaud, S., Borredon, E., 1999. Preparation
of long-chain esters of starch using fatty acid chlorides in the
absence of an organic solvent. Starch-Starke 51, 132–135.
Aggarwal, P., Dollimore, D., 1998. The effect of chemical modifica-
tion on starch studied using thermal analysis. Thermochim. Acta
324, 1–8.
APME, March 2002. Using waste plastic as a substitute for coal.
Warmer Bulletin No. 83, pp. 20–21.
Arvanitoyannis, I., Biliaderis, C.G., 1998. Physical properties of
polyol-plasticized edible films made from sodium caseinate and
soluble starch blends. Food Chem. 62, 333–342.
ASTM, 2002. Standard Specification for Compostable Plastics (Des-
ignation: D 6400-99). ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbour
Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
159
Avérous, L., Fringant, C., Moro, L., 2001. Starch-based biodegrad-
able materials suitable for thermoforming packaging. Starch-
Starke 53, 368–371.
Bartle, I., 2001. Biopolymers: Packaging—A New Generation,
ACTIN Proceeding, Birmingham, UK, 29–30 March.
Bastioli, C., Bellotti, V., Camia, M., Del Giudice, L., Rallis, A.,
1994. In: Doi, Y., Fukuda, K. (Eds.), Biodegradable Plastics and
Polymers. Elsevier, pp. 200–213.
Baumberger, S., Lapierre, C., Monties, B., Lourdin, D., Colonna, P.,
1997. Preparation and properties of thermally moulded and cast
lignosulfonates starch blends. Ind. Crops Prod. 6, 253.
BPF, 1993a. Plastics in Our Lives: Environmental and Safety Aspects
of Plastic Packaging. Factsheet by British Plastics Federation and
Packaging and the Industrial Films Association, Summer.
BPF, 1993b. SELCHP Trials: Summary Report—Energy Recovery
from Plastic Waste. British Plastics Federation and the Industrial
Films Association.
Brandrup, J., 1998. Ecology and economy of plastic recycling. In:
5th International Scientific Workshop on Biodegradable Plastics
and Polymers, Stockholm, Sweden, 9–13 June.
Brody, A.L., Marsh, K.S., 1997. The Wiley Encyclopaedia of Pack-
aging Technology, second ed. John Wiley, London.
BSI, 2002. Publicly Available Specification 100—Specification
for Composted Materials (BSIPAS 100). ICS Codes:
65.020.20:65.080.
Gilbert, J., 2001. Confusion Over Catering Wastes. Composting
News, vol. 5, issue 4. The Composting Association, UK, Sum-
mer, pp. 1–3.
Cybulska, G., 2000. Waste Management in the Food Industry: An
Overview. Campden and Chorleywood Food Research Associa-
tion Group, UK.
Davis, G., 2003. To Degrade or not to Degrade? Composting
News, vol. 7, issue 2. The Composting Association, UK,
pp. 16–19.
Davis, G., Read, A., Bulson, H., Harrison, D., Billett, E., 2003. Open
windrow composting of polymers: an investigation into the rate
of degradation of polyethylene. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 40,
343–357.
Davis, G., Bulson, H., Harrison, D., Billett, E., 2002. The Per-
formance of Degradable Polymers within Wastes Management.
Waste Management and the Environment. WIT Press, Southamp-
ton, pp. 287–296.
Davis, G., Bulson, H., Harrison, D., Billett, E., 2005. An evaluation of
polyethylene (PE) sacks in open windrow composting. Compost
Sci. Utilization 13 (Winter (1)), 50–59.
DEFRA, 2002. The First Annual Report of the
Government—Industry Forum on Non-Food Use of Crops
(PB7470). Department of Food, Environment and Rural
Affairs, DEFRA Publications, Admail 6000, London, August
(www.defra.gov.uk/farm/acu/).
DEFRA, 2004. A Strategy for Non-Food Crops and Uses—Creating
Value From Renewable Materials (PB10188). Department of
Food, Environment and Rural Affairs, DEFRA Publications,
Admail 6000, London, October (www.defra.gov.uk).
DETR, 2000. Waste Strategy: A Waste Strategy for England and
Wales. Department for the Environment, Transport and the
Regions, HMSO, London.
160 G. Davis, J.H. Song / Industrial Crops and Products 23 (2006) 147–161
DOE, 1992. Waste Management Paper No. 28—Recycling. Depart-
ment of the Environment, HMSO, London.
Eagles, A., 1985. Energy in the life-cycle of polymers. Plast. Rubber
Int. 10, 30–33.
Eastop, T.D., Croft, D.R., 1996. Energy Efficiency for Engineering
and Technologists, Longman, Malaysia, p. 37.
EN 13432, 1999. Requirements for Packaging Recoverable Through
Composting and Biodegradation—Test Scheme and Evaluation
Criteria for the Final Acceptance of Packaging. European Com-
mittee for Standardisation, Brussels.
Environment Agency, 2000. A Study of the Composition of Collected
Household Waste in the United Kingdom with Particular Refer-
ence to Packaging Waste: Research and Development. Technical
Report P347.
European Plastics News, 2001. Nat. Select. 28 (5), 37–38.
Hartmann, L., Rolim, A., 2002. Post-consumer plastic recycling as a
sustainable development tool: a case study. In: GPEC 2002: Plas-
tics Impact on the Environment Conference Proceedings, Detroit,
US, 13–14 February 2002, pp. 431–438.
House of Commons, 1993. Session 1993–94, Environment Commit-
tee, 2nd Report, Recycling 1, p. 470.
House of Lords, 1994. The Government Response to the 2nd Report
from the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environ-
ment White Paper Recycling, November, p. 5.
Hudgins, M., 1999. Aerobic Landfill Studies from the USA. In: Paper
Presented at the 1st International Conference on Solid Waste,
Rome, April.
IEMA, May 2003. Producer Responsibility and the Packaging Reg-
ulations: Five Years On, vol. 3. The Institute of Environmental
Management and Assessment, UK.
Jackson, T., 1996. Material Concerns: Pollution, Profit and Quality
of Life. Routledge, London.
Jacquinet, P., 1985. Calorific value of composites. Composites Plas-
tiques Renforces Fibres de Verre Textile 25, 14–16.
Kiatkamjornwong, S., Sonsuk, M., Wittayapichet, S., Prasassara-
kich, P., Vejjanukroh, P.C., 1999. Degradation of styrene-g-
cassava starch filled polystyrene plastics. Polym. Degrad. Stab.
66, 323–335.
Kim, M., Lee, S., 2002. Characteristics of crosslinked potato starch
and starch-filled linear low-density polyethylene films. Carbo-
hyd. Polym. 50, 331–337.
Klauss, M., 2001. Introducing compostable packaging in Kassel,
Germany. Orbit Association, Orbit Mag. (July).
Klauss, M., Bidlingmaier, W., February 2004. Biodegradable poly-
mer packaging: practical experiences of the model project Kassel.
In: Papadimitrou, E., Stentiford, E. (Eds.), Biodegradable and
Residual Waste Management, pp. 382–388.
Klingbeil, M., 2000. Working Document of Biodegradable Waste
Management. European Commission, Brussels.
Kumar, V., Singh, M., 2003. Recycling of cornstarch based
biodegradable polyethylene film. Popular Plast. Packaging 3,
64–67.
Landfill Directive (1999/3I/EC), 1999. European Commission. Offi-
cial J. Eur. Communities 1182/1-19, 16 July.
Linstead, C., Ekins, P., 2001. Mass Balance UK, Mapping UK
Resource and Material Flows. Royal Society for Natural Con-
servation, p. 12.
Löckes, J., 1998. Properties and applications of compostable
starch-based plastic materials. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 59, 245–
249.
Lyas, J., Shaw, P., Van-Vugt, M., 2003. Short-term effects of feed-
back on householder recycling behaviour. In: The Eighteenth
International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Man-
agement, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 23–26 March 2003, pp. 384–
396.
Materials Recycling Week, 2003. Plastic Fantastic: Recy-
cling Growth Continues. Materials Recycling Handbook,
p. 170.
Matzinos, P., Tserki, V., Kontoyiannis, A., Panayiotou, C., 2002. Pro-
cessing and characterisation of starch/polycaprolactone products.
Polym. Degrad. Stab. 11, 17–24.
McCarthy, S.P., 1993. Biodegradable Polymers for Packaging in
Biotechnological Polymers Conference Proceedings, Lancaster,
PA, pp. 214–222.
Moore, G., Saunders, S., 1997. Advances in Biodegradable Poly-
mers. Rapra Review Reports. Report 98, vol. 9, no. 2.
Mueller, W., Fricker, K., Vogtmann, H., 1998. Biodegradation of
organic matter during mechanical treatment of MSW. Compost
Sci. Utilization 6 (Summer (3)), 42–52.
Murphy, R., Bartle, I., 2004. Summary Report, Biodegradable Poly-
mers and Sustainability: Insight from Life Cycle Assessment.
National Non Food Crops Centre, UK.
Musdalslien, M., Sandberg, P., 2002. Energy and HCL recov-
ery from PVC in municipal solid waste incineration. In: PVC
2002: Towards a Sustainable Future. Conference Proceedings,
Brighton, IOM Communications, London, 23–25 April 2002.
Narayan, R., 2000. Starch based biodegradable plastics and prod-
ucts. In: Proceedings from Natural Polymers and Composites
Conference, Sao Pedro, Brazil, 14–17 May, pp. 201–205.
Nayak, P., Swain, S., 2002. Plastics and pollution: biodegradable
polymers. Popular Plast. Packaging 47 (10), 66–78.
Nayak, P., 1999. Biodegradable polymers: opportunities and chal-
lenges. Rev. Macromol. Chem. Phys. C39, 481–505.
Netravali, A., Chabba, S., 2003. Composites get greener. Mater.
Today 6 (4), 22–29.
Nomaguchi, K., 2002. Composites waste management. In: Proceed-
ings of RP Asia 2002, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 5–6 September
2002, pp. 263–266.
Northwood, T., Oakley-Hill, D., 1999. Wastebook. Luton Friends
of the Earth, Environment Agency and the Building Research
Establishment.
Ogilvie, S., August 1996. Opportunities and Barriers to Plastics
Recycling. Recycling advisory Unit of the National Environmen-
tal Technology Centre for the DTI, AEA Technology, UK.
Patel, M., Bastioli, C., Marini, L., Würdinger, E., 2003. Life-cycle
assessment of bio-based polymers and natural fibre composites.
In: Steinbüchel, A. (Ed.), Biopolymers, vol. 10. John Wiley.
Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (94/62/EEC), 1994.
Petersen, K., Nielsen, P.V., Olsen, M.B., 2001. Physical and mechan-
ical properties of bio-based materials—starch polylactate and
polyhydroxybutyrate. Starch-Starke 53, 356–361.
Petersen, K., Nielsen, P., Bertelsen, G., Lawther, M., Olsen, M., Nils-
son, N., Mortensen, G., 1999. Potential of bio-based materials for
food packaging. Trends Food Sci. Tech. 10, 52–68.
 G. Davis, J.H. Song / Industrial Crops and Products 23 (2006) 147–161
Producer Responsibility (Packaging Waste) Regulations as amended
in 1997 (SI 1997, No. 648), 1997. HMSO, UK.
Raghavan, D., Emekalam, A., 2001. Characterization of
starch/polyethylene and starch/polyethylene/poly(lactic
acid) composites. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 72, 509–
517.
Ratto, J.A., Stenhouse, P.J., Auerbach, M., Mitchell, J., Farrell,
E., 1999. Processing, performance and biodegradability of a
thermoplastic aliphatic polyester/starch system. Polymer 40,
6777–6788.
Read, A.D., 1999. Making waste work—making UK national solid
waste strategy work at the local scale. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
26, 259–285.
Read, A.D., 2000. A response to the national waste strategy. Recycl.
Rev. 2 (5), 23–24.
Schroeter, J., 2001. Biodegradable materials: a status report. Kun-
ststoffe Plast. Eur. 90, 64–70 (English translation and German
original from KU).
Scott, G., 2000. Environmental biodegradation of polyoleflns: when,
why and how? In: ICS Proceedings: Expert Group Meeting in
Environmental Degradable Plastics: Present Status and Perspec-
tives, Trieste, Italy, 16–17 November.
Scott, G., 1995. Photo-biodegradable plastics. In: Scott, G., Gilead,
D. (Eds.), Degradable Polymers: Principles and Applications.
Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 169–184.
161
Seidenstucker, T., Fritz, H.G., 1998. Innovative biodegradable mate-
rials based upon starch and thermoplastic poly(ester-uretihane)
(TPU). Polym. Degrad. Stab. 59, 279–285.
Stivala, S., Kimura, J., Gabbay, S., 1983. Thermal Degradation
and Oxidative Processes, Degradation and Stabilisation of Poly-
olefins. Applied Science Publishers, pp. 63–154.
The ENDS Report, September 2002. Co-op Launches Degradable
Carrier Bags Amid Inflated Green Claims. Environmental Data
Services, UK, No. 332, pp. 35–36.
The Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations, 2003 (SI 194,
No. 1941).
Tukker, A., 2002. Plastics Waste—Feedstock Recycling, Chemical
Recycling and Incineration. Rapra Review Reports, Report 148,
vol. 13, no. 4.
Vink, E., 2001. ACTIN Proceeding—Biopolymers Packaging—A
New Generation, University of Birmingham, UK, March.
Waite, R., 1995. Household Waste Recycling. Earthscan Publica-
tions, London.
Wasteline, January 2002. Information Sheet on Packaging. Wastew-
atch, UK.
Wolfenden, L., May 2001. Plastics in the Environment Report. The
Environment Agency, UK.
Wool, R., 1995. The science and engineering of polymer composite
degradation. In: Scott, G., Gilead, D. (Eds.), Degradable Poly-
mers and Applications. Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 138–152.