Biopolymers Facts Statistics 2021 PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/356987907
Biopolymers facts and statistics 2021
Presentation · December 2021
CITATIONS READS
0 972
3 authors, including:
Nico Becker Andrea Siebert-Raths

Hochschule Hannover Hochschule Hannover
5 PUBLICATIONS 26 CITATIONS 49 PUBLICATIONS 260 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Nico Becker on 13 December 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Biopolymers
facts and statistics
2021
Production capacities,
processing routes, feedstock,
land and water use
1 Introduction and b
ackground 3
2 Process routes 5
Glossary 6
2.1 Bio-based polyesters 8

2.1.1 Polylactic acid (PLA) 8
2.1.2 Polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) 10
2.1.3 Polybutylene succinate (PBS) 12
2.1.4 Polybutylene succinate adipate (PBSA) 15
2.1.5 Polytrimethylene terephthalate (PTT) 18
2.1.6 Polyethylene terephthalate (Bio-PET) 21
2.1.7 Polyethylene furanoate (PEF) 24
2.1.8 Polybutylene terephthalate (Bio-PBT) 26
2.1.9 Polybutylene adipate terephthalate (Bio-PBAT) 29
2.2 Bio-based polyolefins 32

2.2.1 Polyethylene (Bio-PE) 32
2.2.2 Polypropylene (Bio-PP) 34
2.3 Bio-based polyamides (Bio-PA) 36

2.3.1 Homopolyamides 36
2.3.1.1 Bio-PA 6 36
2.3.1.2 Bio-PA 11 38
2.3.2 Copolyamides 39
2.3.2.1 Bio-PA 4.10 – Bio-PA 5.10 – Bio-PA 6.10 39
2.3.2.2 Bio-PA 10.10 40
2.4 Polyurethanes 42
2.5 Polysaccharide polymers 44

2.5.1 Cellulose-based polymers (Cellulosics) 44
2.5.1.1 Regenerated cellulose 44
2.5.1.2 Cellulose diacetate 45
2.5.2 Starch-based polymers 47
2.5.2.1 Thermoplastic starch (TPS) 47
2.5.2.2 Starch blends 48
2.6 Polyvinyl chloride (Bio-PVC) 50
2.7 Bio-based polyacrylates 54

2.7.1 Poly(methyl methacrylate) (Bio-PMMA) 54
3 Market data and land use facts 56

3.1 New Economy bioplastics global production capacities 58
3.2 New Economy bioplastics production capacities by
material type 59
3.3 New Economy bioplastics production capacities by region 60
3.4 New Economy bioplastics production capacities by market segment 61
3.5 Land use for New Economy bioplastics 2020 and 2025 62
4 References 64
1 Introduction and background
The IfBB – Institute for Bioplastics and Biocomposites is a re
search institute within the Hochschule Hannover, University of
Applied Sciences and Arts. The IfBB was established in 2011
after more than a decade of on-going research activities in the
field of bioplastics to respond to the growing need for expert
knowledge in this area. With its practice-oriented research
and its collaboration with industrial partners, the IfBB is able
to shore up the market for bioplastics and, in addition, foster
unbiased public awareness and understanding of the topic.
As an independent research-led expert institution for biopla-

stics, the IfBB is willing to share its expertise, research findings
and data with any interested party via online and offline publi-
cations or at fairs and conferences. In carrying on these efforts,
substantial information regarding market trends, processes
and resource needs for bioplastics are being presented here in
a concise format, in addition to the more detailed and com-
prehensive publication "Engineering Biopolymers" (cf. Endres
& Siebert-Raths 2011). If figures or data from this or other
publication of IfBB is being used, we kindly ask any person or
institution to quote IfBB's authorship.
One of our main concerns is to furnish a more rational basis

for discussing bioplastics and use fact-based arguments in
the public discourse. Furthermore, “Biopolymers, facts and
statistics” aims to easily and quickly provide specific, qualified
answers for decisionmakers in particular from public adminis-
tration and the industrial sector. Therefore, this publication is
made up like a set of rules and standards and largely foregoes
textual detail. It offers extensive market-relevant and technical
facts presented in graphs and charts, which means that the
information is much easier to grasp. The reader can expect
comparative market figures for various materials, regions,
applications, process routes, agricultural land use or resource
consumption, production capacities, geographic distribution,
etc.
In recent years, many new types of bioplastics have emerged

and innovative polymer materials are pushing into the plastics
market. All the same, bioplastics by no means constitute a
completely new class of materials but rather one that has been
rediscovered from among the large group of plastic materials.
Biopolymers, facts and statistics 2021 – 3

BIOPLASTICS
Old Economy New Economy
Chemical novel Drop-ins

Rubber
PLA Bio-PA
Regenerated cellulose
PHA Bio-PE
Cellulose acetates
PEF Bio-PET
Linoleum
Starch blends Bio-PP
etc.
etc. etc.
The first man-made polymer materials were all based on modi-

fied natural materials (e.g., casein, gelatine, shellac, celluloid,
cellophane, linoleum, rubber, etc.). That means they were
bio-based since petrochemical materials were not yet available
at that time. Ever since the middle of the 20th century, these
early bio-based plastics, with a few exceptions (cellulose and
rubber-based materials), have almost been replaced by petro-
chemical materials.
By now, due to ecological concerns, limited petrochemical re-

sources and sometimes new property profiles, bioplastics have
undergone a remarkable revival and are taken more and more
into focus by the general public, politics, the industrial sector
and in particular the research community.
Of particular interest today are new types of bioplastics, which

were developed in the past 30 years. The publication presen-
ted here refers to the socalled “New Economy” bioplastics as
opposed to “Old Economy” bioplastics which indicate earlier
materials developed before petrochemical bioplastics emerged,
yet still exist on the market today (e.g., rubber, cellophane,
viscose, celluloid, cellulose acetate, linoleum).
“New Economy” bioplastics divide up into two main groups.

On the one hand, there are those biopolymers which have a
new chemical structure virtually unknown in connection with
plastics until a few years ago (e.g. new bio-based polyesters
such as PLA), on the other hand socalled “drop-ins”, with the
same chemical structure yet bio-based. The most prominent
drop-ins at this point are bio-based PET (Bio-PET) and bio-
based polyethylene (Bio-PE).
4 – Biopolymers, facts and statistics 2021

2 Process routes
Process routes depict the manufacturing steps from the raw material
to the finished product, specifying the individual process and con-
versation steps, intermediate products, and input-output streams.
So they serve as a guide for all considerations and calculations
around the production of bioplastics, in particular also with regard
to their resource consumption.
The following methodical approach was chosen to establish the

process routes:
The mass flows were first calculated without assuming allocations

(especially no feedstock allocation) and using a molar method based
on the chemical process, with the introduction of known rates and
conversion factors. The routes so established were confirmed with
polymer manufacturers and the industry. In so far as no loss rates
due to the chemical processes or the process stages were included,
the calculations were made basically assuming no losses. The mass
flows show feedstocks and resulting and requirements in hectare
(ha) or the production of one metric ton (t) of bioplastics. Feedstock
requirements were calculated for the use of different crops. Yields
of the most important crops and renewable raw materials used for
feedstocks are shown in the chart below on page 6.
Please note that the yields in this context refer to the crop
itself, which contains the raw material for processing, and
not to the harvested whole plant.
The conservative calculation used in this publication delivers

a resilient approach for adjustments to be made out of invidi-
dual needs.
For calculating water use data, information on water use for different
raw materials originally collected by the ‘Water Footprint Network’
has been used (cf. Hoekstra et al. 2011; Mekonnen & Hoekstra 2011).
It is based on FAOSTAT crop definitions (Food and Agriculture Orga-
nization of UN) which are also used for land use calculations. This
means, water use is only available from “seed to market place”. Only
water, such as rainwater, irrigation and to somewhat extent process
water to clean agricultural products, e.g., used/needed to grow the
whole plant is included here. On the other side the water use for the
processing like polymerization is neglected. This is part of an ongoing
research, but this first simplified approach gives a good indication
and delivers first data to the issue of water use of bioplastics.

Feedstock Crop Raw Global mean yield1 Average content Resulting amount
material (Crop) of raw material (raw material)
Calculations -> x -> =
Sugar cane
fermt.
Sugar cane (without cane 73.1 t/ha 13 % 3, 4, 5, 6 9.5 t sugar/ha
Sugar
tops)
Beet fermt.
Sugar beet 62.7 t/ha 16 % 3, 6, 7 10.03 t sugar/ha
(without leaves) Sugar
Corn Maize kernel Starch 7 t/ha 70 % 8 4.9 t starch/ha
Potatoes Potato tuber Starch 24 t/ha 18 % 8, 9 4.32 t starch/ha
Wheat Wheat grains Starch 3.97 t/ha 46 % 8 1.83 t starch/ha
Standing timber, 0.66 t cellulose/

Wood Cellulose 1.64 t atro2/ha 40 % 13
residual wood ha
1.5 t seeds/ha 0.6 t oil/ha

Castor oil Castor bean
Castor oil (given one harvest 40 % 10, 11, 12 (given one
plant (seeds)
per year) harvest per year)
1 Global mean yield over a period of 10 years (2010 - 2019), weighted 7 Cf. FAO 1999.
by respective production amount (based on FAOSTAT 2010 - 2019). 8 Cf. BeMiller & Whistler 2009.
2 Absolutely dry. 9 Cf. Jang & Lim 2011.
3 Cf. FAO 1994. 10 Cf. Rojas-Barros et al. 2004.
4 Cf. Perez 1997. 11 Cf. Anjani 2012.
5 Cf. Alexander 1988. 12 Cf. Yeboah et al. 2020.
6 Cf. Li & Yang 2015. 13 Calculated from various forest statistics and reports, Federal Forest
Inventory (Germany).
Glossary
Abbreviations used:
atro = bone dry
bb = bio-based
BDO = Butanediol
DMDA = Decamethylene diamine
fermt. = fermentable
ha = hectare = 0,01 km2
HMDA = Hexamethylene diamine
m3 = cubic metres = 1 000 litres
MEG = Monoethylene glycol
PDO = Propanediol
PMDA = Pentamethylene diamine
PTA = Purified terephthalic acid
SCA = Succinic acid
t = metric ton = 1 000 kg
TMDA = Tetramethylene diamine
red coloured resources have a petro-based origin
A large amount of additional information is also available at: www.ifbb-hannover.de.

Sample process route
select desired feedstock/crop, i.e.

sugar cane or sugar beet
land use for 1 t of
resulting polymer
0.09 ha 0.09 ha water usage for

1 387 m³ 711 m³ feedstock/crop amount
feedstock/crop
Sugar Sugar
cane or beet
6.62 t 5.37 t
Sugar
raw material
0.86 t (chemical) process
H2O CO2
process inputs Fermentation
Microorg.
H2O
Filtration
Microbial
mass
Succinic
intermediate product
acid*
0.69 t
process outputs
1,4-BDO H2O
Esterification
0.52 t 0.10 t
resource has
petro-based origin H2O
Polycondensation
0.10 t
PBS
bb SCA resulting polymer
1.00 t

2.1 Bio-based polyesters
2.1.1 Polylactic acid (PLA) 0.39 ha
2 659 m³
Potato
0.15 ha 0.15 ha 0.34 ha 0.91 ha
9.26 t
2 370 m³ 1 215 m³ 2 921 m³ 6 633 m³
Sugar Sugar Corn Wheat

cane or beet or
11.31 t 9.19 t 2.39 t 3.63 t
Sugar Starch
1.47 t 1.67 t
H2O H2O
Hydrolysis
Enzymes Dextrins
Glucose*
1.47 t
H2O CO2 H2O CO2

Fermentation Fermentation
Microorg. Microorg.
or
Lactic
acid*
1.25 t
H2O
Dehydration
Lactide
1.00 t
Catalyst
Polymerization
* Conversion rates:
fermt. Sugar – Lactic acid 85 %
PLA Starch – Glucose 88 %
References: Endres & Siebert-Raths 2011; Iffland et al. 2015;

1.00 t Nakajima et al. 2017; Shen et al. 2009; Vink & Davies 2015
(different feedstocks)
PLA – Feedstock requirements in t
(different
12
11.31 feedstocks)
PLA –PLA
Feedstock requirements in t (different feedstocks)
– Feedstock requirements in t
12
10 11.31
9.19 9.26
/t biopolymer
10
8 9.19 9.26
/t biopolymer
12
11.31
8
6
t feedstock
10
9.19 9.26
biopolymer
6
4 3.63
t feedstockt/tfeedstock
8
2.39
4
2 3.63
6 2.39
2
0
Sugar Sugar Corn Potato Wheat
4 3.63
cane beet
0
Sugar Sugar Corn
2.39 Potato Wheat
2 cane beet
0
PLA –cane
Land use in ha
beet
PLA – Land use in ha
PLA – Land use in ha (different feedstocks)
PLA – Land use in ha
1.0
0.91
1.0
0.8
0.91
ha/t biopolymer
0.8
0.6
ha/t biopolymer
1.0
0.39 0.91
0.6
0.4 0.34
0.8
0.39
ha/t biopolymer
0.4
0.2 0.34
0.15 0.15
0.6
0.2
0 0.15 0.15
Sugar Sugar Corn Potato
0.39 Wheat
0.4 0.34
cane beet
0
0.2 cane
0.15 beet
0.15
0
PLA Sugar
– Water Sugar
use in m3 Corn Potato Wheat
cane beet
PLA – Water use in m (different feedstocks)
PLA – Water use in m3
3
7 000
6 633
PLA – Water use in m3
7 000
6 000
6 633
5 000
6
m3/t biopolymer
000
7 000
6 633
m3/t biopolymer
4 000
5 000
6 000
4
3 000
000 2 921
2 659
2 370
m3/t biopolymer
5 000
3 2 921
2 000
000 2 659
2 370
4 000 1 215
2 000
1 000
3 000 1 215 2 921
2 659
1 000
0 2 370
2 000
cane beet
0
Sugar 1 215
Sugar Corn Potato Wheat
1 000 cane beet Biopolymers, facts and statistics 2021 – 9
0
2.1.2 Polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB)
0.75 ha
5 168 m³
Potato
0.30 ha 0.29 ha 0.66 ha 1.77 ha
18.00 t
4 610 m³ 2 364 m³ 5 655 m³ 12 867 m³

cane or beet or
22.00 t 17.87 t 4.63 t 7.04 t
Sugar Starch
2.86 t 3.24 t
H2O H2O
Hydrolysis
Enzymes Dextrins
Glucose*
2.86 t
or
H2O CO2
Fermentation
Microorg.
Isolation of H2O
biopolymers Microbial
mass
Compounding
and granulation
PHB* * Conversion rates:

Starch – Glucose 88 %
fermt. Sugar – PHB 35 %
1.00 t
References: Chen 2010; Endres & Siebert-Raths 2011;
Iffland et al. 2015; Kootstra et al. 2017;
Nakajima et al. 2017; Shen et al. 2009
PHB–
PHB– Feedstock
Feedstock requirements
requirements in
in tt
PHB– Feedstock requirements in t
PHB –(different
Feedstock requirements in t (different feedstocks)
feedstocks)
25
25
biopolymer
22.00
/t/tbiopolymer
22.00
20
20 17.87 18.00
25 17.87 18.00
/t biopolymer
22.00
15
15
feedstock
20
t tfeedstock
17.87 18.00
10
10
15 7.04
t feedstock 7.04
4.63
5
5
4.63
10
7.04
0
0 Sugar Sugar Corn
4.63 Potato Wheat
5 Sugar Sugar Corn Potato Wheat
cane
cane beet
beet
0
cane beet
PHB
PHB – – Land
Land use
use in
in ha
ha
PHB – Land use in ha (different feedstocks) (different feedstocks)
PHB – Land use in ha
2.0
2.0
1.77
1.77
biopolymer
1.6
ha/tbiopolymer
1.6
2.0
1.77
1.2
1.2
ha/t biopolymer
1.6
ha/t
0.8 0.75
0.8 0.66 0.75
1.2 0.66
0.4 0.30 0.29

0.4 0.30 0.29
0.8 0.75
0.66
0
0
0.4
Sugar
Sugar
0.30
Sugar
Sugar Corn
Corn Potato
Potato Wheat
Wheat
0.29
cane
cane beet
beet
0
cane beet
PHB– Water use in m PHB– Water use in m33
PHB –(different
Waterfeedstocks)
(different use in m3 (different feedstocks)
feedstocks)
PHB– Water use in m3
(different feedstocks) 12 867
12 867
12 000
12 000
12 867
10 000
10 000
12 000
biopolymer
8 000
/tbiopolymer
8 000
10 000
6 000 5 655
6 000 5 655 5 168
m3/t biopolymer
8 000 4 610 5 168

4 610
mm3/t
3
4 000
4 000
6 000 5 655
2 364 5 168
4 610 2 364
2 000
2 000
4 000
0 2 364
2 000 Sugar Sugar Corn Potato Wheat
cane
cane beet
beet
0
cane beet
2.1.3 Polybutylene succinate (PBS)
with bio-based succinic acid (PBS bb SCA)
0.22 ha
1 548 m³
Potato
0.09 ha 0.09 ha 0.20 ha 0.53 ha
5.43 t
1 387 m³ 711 m³ 1 693 m³ 3 853 m³

cane or beet or
6.62 t 5.37 t 1.39 t 2.11 t
Sugar Starch
0.86 t 0.97 t
H2O H2O
Hydrolysis
Enzymes Dextrins
Glucose*
0.86 t
or
H2O CO2
Fermentation
Microorg.
H2O
Filtration
Microbial
mass
Succinic
acid*
0.69 t
1,4-BDO H2O
Esterification
0.52 t 0.10 t
* Conversion rates:
H2O
Starch – Glucose 88 % Polycondensation
fermt. Sugar – Succinic acid 80 % 0.10 t
References: Clark et al. 2015; Endres & Siebert-

Raths 2011; Iffland et al. 2015; Nakajima et al. PBS
2017; Nghiem et al. 2017; Putri et al. 2020;
Van Heerden & Nicol 2013 bb SCA
1.00 t

2.1.3 Polybutylene succinate (PBS) 0.45 ha
100 % bio-based (PBS 100) 3 111 m³
Potato
0.18 ha 0.17 ha 0.40 ha 1.07 ha
10.83 t
2 757 m³ 1 414 m³ 3 404 m³ 7 746 m³

cane or beet or
13.15 t 10.69 t 2.79 t 4.24 t
Sugar Starch
1.71 t 1.95 t
H2O H2O
Hydrolysis
Enzymes Dextrins
Glucose*
1.71 t
H2O CO2 H2O CO2

Microorg. Microorg.
H2O H2O
Filtration Filtration
Microbial Microbial
mass mass
or
0.685 t Succinic
acid*
LiAlH4 1.37 t
Deoxidation
H2O
1,4-Bu-
0.685 t
tanediol
0.52 t
H2O
Esterification
0.10 t
* Conversion rates: H2O

Raths 2011; Iffland et al. 2015; Nakajima et al. PBS
Van Heerden & Nicol 2013 100
1.00 t

PBS variations – Feedstock requirements in t
PBS 100
PBS variations
PBS variations – Feedstock
– Feedstock requirements
requirements in t
PBS variations – Feedstock requirements in t
14
in t (different feedstocks) 13.15
12
14
10.69 PBS 10010.83
/t biopolymer 10
14
13.15 PBS 100
PBS bb SCA 13.15
12
8
12 10.69 10.83
6.62 10.69 10.83
10
biopolymer
6
10 5.37 PBS bb SCA5.43
t feedstock
biopolymer
PBS bb SCA 4.24

8
4
8
6.62
2.79
6.62 2.11
/t /t
6 5.37 5.43
2 1.39
t feedstock
6 5.37 5.43
t feedstock
4.24
4 4.24
0
4
Sugar Sugar Corn Potato Wheat Sugar Sugar Corn
2.79 Potato Wheat
2.11 2.79
2
cane beet 2.11 cane beet
2
1.39
1.39
PBS
0
0 variations
Sugar Sugar – Land
Corn use in ha
Potato Wheat Sugar Sugar Corn Potato Wheat
Sugar feedstocks)
(different Sugar Corn Potato Wheat Sugar Sugar Corn Potato Wheat
cane beet cane beet
cane beet cane beet
PBS 100
PBS
PBS variations –– Land
Land use
usein
inha
ha
PBS variations
variations – Land
use in ha 1.2 (different feedstocks)
(different feedstocks) 1.07
1.0
PBS100
PBS 100
ha/t biopolymer
1.2
0.8
1.2
PBS bb SCA 1.07
1.07
0.6
1.0
1.0 0.53
0.45
0.40
biopolymer
ha/t biopolymer
0.4
0.8
0.8
PBS bb
PBS bb SCA
SCA
0.20 0.22
0.2 0.18 0.17
0.6
0.6
0.09 0.09 0.53
0.53
0.45
0.45
0 0.40
0.40
0.4
0.4
Sugar Sugar Corn Potato Wheat Sugar Sugar Corn Potato Wheat
cane beet 0.20 0.22
0.22 cane beet
0.20 0.18
0.18
0.2
0.2 0.17
0.17
0.09 0.09
0.09
00
Sugar Sugar
Sugar Sugar Corn
Corn3 Potato Wheat Sugar
Sugar Sugar
Sugar Corn
Corn Potato
PotatoWheat
PHB– Water
cane use in
beet m Potato Wheat cane
Wheat
cane beet cane beet
beet
PBS variations
PHB– Water
PHB–
–inWater
Water use
use in m
m
use in m3 (different feedstocks) 3
3
PBS 100
m3/t biopolymer
8 000 7 746
12 000
6 000
10 000 PBS bb SCA
3 853
PBS 100
PBS 100
biopolymer
4 000
8 000 3 404 7 746
biopolymer
8 000 3 111 7 746

2 757
2
6 000
1 693 1 548 1 414
000 1 387
6 000 711 PBS bb SCA
PBS bb SCA
m3m/t3/t
0 3 853
4 000
3 853 Sugar Sugar Corn
3 404 Potato Wheat
3 111
2 757 3 404
cane beet cane
2 757
beet 3 111
2 000 1 693 1 548 1 414
1 387
2 000 1 693 1 548 1 414
1 387
14 – Biopolymers, facts and 711
statistics 2021
711
0
0 Sugar Sugar Corn Potato Wheat Sugar Sugar Corn Potato Wheat
2.1.4 Polybutylene succinate adipate (PBSA)
with bio-based succinic acid (PBSA bb SCA)
0.13 ha
878 m³
Potato
0.05 ha 0.05 ha 0.11 ha 0.30 ha
3.06 t
790 m³ 405 m³ 960 m³ 2 185 m³

cane or beet or
3.77 t 3.06 t 0.79 t 1.20 t
Sugar Starch
0.49 t 0.55 t
H2O H2O
Hydrolysis
Enzymes Dextrins
Glucose*
0.49 t
or
H2O CO2
Fermentation
Microorg.
H2O
Filtration
Microbial
mass
Succinic
acid*
0.39 t
1,4-BDO: 0.30 t H2O

Esterification
Adipic acid: 0.49 t 0.12 t
H2O
Polycondensation
0.06 t
* Conversion rates:
fermt. Sugar – Succinic acid 80 %
PBSA
References: Clark et al. 2015; Endres & Siebert-Raths 2011; bb SCA
Iffland et al. 2015; Nakajima et al. 2017; Nghiem et al.
1.00 t
2017; Putri et al. 2020; Van Heerden & Nicol 2013
2.1.4 Polybutylene succinate adipate (PBSA)
with bio-based succinic acid and 1,4-butanediol
(PBSA bb SCA/BDO) 0.26 ha
1 771 m³
Potato
0.10 ha 0.10 ha 0.23 ha 0.61 ha
6.17 t
1 580 m³ 810 m³ 1 938 m³ 4 409 m³

cane or beet or
7.54 t 6.13 t 1.59 t 2.41 t
Sugar Starch
0.98 t 1.11 t
H2O H2O
Hydrolysis
Enzymes Dextrins
Glucose*
0.89 t
H2O CO2 H2O CO2

Microorg. Microorg.
H2O H2O
Microbial Microbial
mass mass
or
0.39 t Succinic
acid*
LiAlH4 0.78 t
Deoxidation
H2O
1,4-Bu- 0.39 t
tanediol
0.30 t
H2O
Esterification
Adipic acid: 0.12 t
* Conversion rates: 0.49 t
Starch – Glucose 88 % H2O
Polycondensation

Raths 2011; Iffland et al. 2015; Nakajima et al.
PBSA bb
Van Heerden & Nicol 2013 SCA/BDO
1.00 t

(different feedstocks) 6.13 6.17
t feedstock /t biopol
6
3.77
PBSA
4
variations
3.06 – Feedstock
3.06
requirements in t
PBSA variations – Feedstock requirements in t
PBSA bb SCA/BDO
8 2 7.54 1.59
2.41
1.20
/t biopolymer
PBSA bb SCA
0.79
6.13 6.17
6 0
Sugar Sugar Corn Potato Wheat Sugar Sugar
PBSA bbCorn Potato Wheat
SCA/BDO
8
cane beet cane beet
7.54
4 3.77
biopolymer
3.06PBSA bb SCA3.06
t feedstock /tt feedstock

6.13 6.17 2.41
6
2 1.59
1.20
0.79
4 3.77
0 3.06 3.06
2.41
2PBSA variations – Land use in ha
cane beet cane beet 1.59
1.20
0.79
0
cane beet cane beet
PBSA bb SCA/BDO
0.8
PBSA variationsPBSA
– Land use in ha
bb SCA
PBSA variations – Land use in ha (different feedstocks)
0.61
ha/t biopolymer
(different
0.6 feedstocks)
0.4
PBSA variations – Land use in ha
0.30
SCA/BDO0.26
PBSA bb 0.23
(different
0.80.2 feedstocks)
0.11 0.13 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
PBSA bb SCA 0.61
ha/t biopolymer
0.6 0
Sugar Sugar Corn Potato Wheat Sugar Sugar
PBSA bbCorn Potato Wheat
SCA/BDO
0.8
cane beet cane beet
0.4
0.30
PBSA bb SCA 0.23
0.26 0.61
ha/t biopolymer
0.6
0.2
0.11 0.13 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.4
0
Sugar Sugar 0.30
Corn Potato Wheat Sugar Sugar Corn Potato
0.26 Wheat
0.23
0.2
cane beet cane beet
0.11 0.13 0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
PBSA variation – Water use in m3
0
cane beet cane beet
PBSA variations – Water use in m 3
PBSA variation – Water use in m3 PBSA bb SCA/BDO

5 000
(different feedstocks) 4 409
4 000
m3/t biopolymer
PBSA variationPBSA bb SCA

– Water use in m3
3 000
2 185
PBSA bb1SCA/BDO
938
5 000
2 000 1 771
1 580 4 409
960 878
4 000
1 000 790 810
405
m3/t biopolymer
PBSA bb SCA PBSA bb SCA/BDO

5 000
3 000 0
Sugar Sugar Corn Potato Wheat Sugar Sugar Corn Potato 4Wheat
409
cane beet 2 185 cane beet 1 938
4 000
2 000 1 771
1 580
m3/t biopolymer
PBSA bb SCA
3 000 960 878
1 000 790 810
405 2 185
1 938
2 000
0
1 771
1 580
1 000
cane
790
beet 960 878 cane beet
810
405
0
cane beet cane beet
2.1.5 Polytrimethylene terephthalate (PTT)
with bio-based 1,3-propanediol (PTT bb PDO)
0.24 ha
1 659 m³
Potato
0.10 ha 0.09 ha 0.21 ha 0.57 ha
5.78 t
1 483 m³ 761 m³ 1 816 m³ 4 131 m³

cane or beet or
7.08 t 5.75 t 1.49 t 2.26 t
Sugar Starch
0.92 t 1.04 t
H2O H2O
Hydrolysis
Enzymes Dextrins
Glucose*
0.92 t
or
H2O CO2
Fermentation
Microorg.
H2O
Filtration
Stillage
1,3-Pro-
panediol*
0.37 t
PTA H2O
Esterification
0.81 t 0.09 t
* Conversion rates: H2O

fermt. Sugar – Succinic acid 80 %
0.09 t
References: Akanuma et al. 2014; Clark et al.

2015; Collias et al. 2014; Endres & Siebert-Raths PTT
2011; Iffland et al. 2015; Memmo et al. 2018;
Peters et al. 2011; Ryan 2019; Shen et al. 2009
bb PDO
1.00 t

2.1.5 Polytrimethylene terephthalate (PTT)
0.74 ha
100 % bio-based (PTT 100) 5 185 m³
Potato
0.30 ha 0.28 ha 0.66 ha 1.76 ha
18.06 t
4 612 m³ 2 364 m³ 5 673 m³ 12 908 m³

cane or beet or
22.00 t 17.88 t 4.64 t 7.07 t
fermt. Starch
Sugar*
2.86 t 3.25 t
H2O H2O
Hydrolysis
Enzymes Dextrins
Glucose*
2.86 t
or
0.92 t 1.94 t
H2O CO2 H2O CO2

Microorg. Microorg.
H2O H2O
Stillage Stillage
Iso-
butanol*
0.76 t
H2O: 0.18 t
Dehydration
Other: 0.04 t
Iso-
butene
0.54 t
Dimerization
Iso-
octene
0.54 t
H2SO4 H2O: 0.26 t

Dehydrogenation
1.43 t H2SO4: 1.26 t
Para-
Xylene1
0.51 t
KMnO4 KOH: 1.09 t

Oxidation
3.07 t MnO2: 1.69 t
1,3-Pro-
1
GEVO-Process Bio-PTA
panediol*
0.37 t H2O 0.81 t
* Conversion rates: Esterification
Starch – Glucose 88 % 0.09 t
fermt. Sugar – 1,3-Propanediol 40 % H2O
Glucose – Isobutanol 39 % Polycondensation
0.09 t
References: Akanuma et al. 2014; Clark et al.

2015; Collias et al. 2014; Endres & Siebert-Raths PTT 100
2011; Iffland et al. 2015; Memmo et al. 2018;
Peters et al. 2011; Ryan 2019; Shen et al. 2009 1.00 t

25
22.00
t feedstock /t biopolymer
20
17.88 18.06
PTT variations – Feedstock requirements in t
PTT variations – Feedstock requirements in t (different feedstocks) (different feedstocks)
PTT variations – Feedstock requirements in t
15
PTT bb PDO
(different feedstocks) PTT 100
10
25
7.08 7.07
5.75 5.78
22.00 PTT 100
/t biopolymer 25
5
20
4.64
2.26 22.00 17.88 18.06
1.49
/t biopolymer
20
0
15 17.88 18.06
Sugar SugarPTTCorn Potato Wheat
bb PDO Sugar Sugar Corn Potato Wheat
15
cane beet cane beet
t feedstock
10 PTT bb PDO
7.08 7.07
t feedstock
10 5.75 5.78
5 4.64
7.08 7.07
5.75 5.78 2.26
1.49
4.64
PTT
5
0
variations – Land use in ha
2.26
(different
Sugar feedstocks)
Sugar Corn
1.49 Potato Wheat Sugar Sugar Corn Potato Wheat
0 cane beet cane beet
cane beet cane beet PTT 100
2.0
1.78
PTT variations
PTT variations – Land
– Land use
use in ha in ha (different feedstocks) 1.6
PTT variationsPTT bb PDO
– Land use in ha
ha/t biopolymer
1.2
PTT 100
0.8 0.75
2.0
0.57
PTT 100
0.66
1.78
2.0
0.4
1.6 0.30 0.29 1.78
0.21 0.24
0.09 PTT bb PDO
ha/t biopolymer
0.10
1.6
0
1.2
Sugar SugarPTTCorn
bb PDO
Potato Wheat Sugar Sugar Corn Potato Wheat
ha/t biopolymer
1.2
cane beet cane beet
0.8 0.75
0.66
0.57
0.8 0.75
0.66
0.4 0.57 0.30 0.29
0.21 0.24
0.10 0.09
0.4 0.30 0.29
0 0.21 0.24
Sugar
0.10 Sugar
0.09 Corn Potato Wheat Sugar Sugar Corn Potato Wheat
0 cane beet cane beet
cane beet cane beet
PTT PTT
variations – Water
variations – Water use in m use in m (different feedstocks)
3 3
PTT 100
12 908
12 000
PTT variations – Water use in m3

(different
10 000 feedstocks)
PTT variations – Water use in m3
m3/t biopolymer
8 000 PTT 100

12 908
PTT 100
6 000
12 000 5 673
5 185 12 908
PTT bb PDO 4 612
12 000 4 131
4 000
10 000
2 364
10 000 1 816 1 659
/t biopolymer
2
8 000
000 1 483
761
biopolymer
8 000
0
6 000 5 673
Sugar SugarPTTCorn Potato Wheat
bb PDO Sugar Sugar Corn Potato
5 185 Wheat
cane beet 4 612
cane beet
6 000 4 131 5 673
5 185
3
4 000 PTT bb PDO

m3/t m
4 612
4 131
20 – Biopolymers,
4 000 facts and statistics 2021
1 816
2 364
2 000 1 483 1 659
761 2 364
1 816
2.1.6 Polyethylene terephthalate (Bio-PET) 0.20 ha
1 356 m³
with bio-based ethanol (Bio-PET 30)
Potato
0.08 ha 0.07 ha 0.17 ha 0.47 ha
4.72 t
1 193 m³ 612 m³ 1 484 m³ 3 376 m³

cane or beet or
5.69 t 4.63 t 1.21 t 1.85 t
Sugar Starch
0.74 t 0.85 t
H2O H2O
Hydrolysis
Enzymes Dextrins
Glucose*
0.74 t
H2O CO2 H2O CO2

Yeast Yeast
H2O H2O
Stillage Stillage
or
Ethanol*
0.36 t
H2O
Dehydration
0.11 t
Ethene*
0.17 t
O2 Catalytic CO2: 0.03 t

0.10 t oxidation H2O: 0.01 t
Ethene-
oxide*
0.23 t
O2
Reaction
0.23 t
Ethene-
carbonate
0.46 t
H2O CO2
Reaction
0.09 t 0.23 t
1
Omega-Process (Shell)
MEG1
* Conversion rates:
0.32 t
Glucose – Ethanol 48 % PTA H2O
Ethanol – Ethene 48 % Esterification
0.87 t 0.095 t
Ethene – Etheneoxide 85 %
H2O
Polycondensation
0.095 t
References: Akanuma et al. 2014; Clark et al. 2015;
Collias et al. 2014; Endres & Siebert-Raths 2011;
Iffland et al. 2015; Kawabe 2010; Bio-PET
Memmo et al. 2018; Peters et al. 2011; 30
Ryan 2019; Siracusa et al. 2020; Taffe 2008 1.00 t

2.1.6 Polyethylene terephthalate (Bio-PET) 0.74 ha
5 122 m³
100 % bio-based (Bio-PET 100) Potato

0.30 ha 0.28 ha 0.66 ha 1.76 ha
17.83 t
4 547 m³ 2 331 m³ 5 604 m³ 12 751 m³

cane or beet or
21.69 t 17.63 t 4.59 t 6.98 t
fermt. Starch
Sugar*
2.82 t 3.21 t
H2O H2O
Hydrolysis
Enzymes Dextrins
Glucose*
2.82 t
or
0.74 t 2.08 t
H2O CO2 H2O CO2

Yeast Microorg.
H2O H2O
Stillage Stillage
Iso-
Ethanol*
butanol*
0.36 t 0.81 t
H2O: 0.11 t H2O: 0.19 t

Dehydration Dehydration
EtOH: 0.08 t Other: 0.04 t
Ethene* Iso-
butene
0.17 t 0.58 t
O2 Catalytic CO2: 0.03 t

Dimerization
0.10 t oxidation H2O: 0.01 t
Ethene- Iso-
oxide* octene
0.23 t 0.58 t
CO2 H2SO4 H2O: 0.28 t

Reaction Dehydrogenation
0.23 t 1.53 t H2SO4: 1.28 t
Ethene- Para-
carbonate 1 Omega-Process (Shell)
xylene2
0.46 t 0.55 t
1
Omega-Process (Shell) H2O CO2 KMnO4 MnO2: 1.81 t
2
GEVO-Process Reaction
0.23 t
Oxidation
0.09 t 3.29 t KOH: 1.16 t
* Conversion rates:
1 Omega-Process (Shell)
MEG1 PTA
Glucose – Ethanol 48 %
Glucose – Isobutanol 39 % 0.32 t 0.87 t
Ethanol – Ethene 48 % H2O

Esterification
Ethene – Etheneoxide 85 % 0.095 t
References: Akanuma et al. 2014; Clark et al. H2O

Polycondensation
2015; Collias et al. 2014; Endres & Siebert-Raths 0.095 t
2011; Iffland et al. 2015; Kawabe 2010;
Memmo et al. 2018; Peters et al. 2011; Bio-PET
Ryan 2019; Siracusa et al. 2020; Taffe 2008 100
1.00 t

Bio-PET variations – Feedstock requirements in t
Bio-PET variations – Feedstock requirements in t
Bio-PET variations – Feedstock requirements
Bio-PET 100 in t Bio-PET variations
(different
25
feedstocks)
(different feedstocks) 21.69
Bio-PET 100
/t biopolymer
20
25
17.63Bio-PET10017.83
25 21.69
/t biopolymer
15
20 21.69
biopolymer
Bio-PET 30 17.63 17.83
20
17.63 17.83
feedstock 10
15
15 Bio-PET 30 6.98
5.69
4.63 Bio-PET 30 4.72
t feedstock
4.59
t /t
5
10
t feedstock
10 1.21 1.85 6.98

5.69
0 4.63 4.72 4.59 6.98
5
5.69
4.63 4.72 Wheat Sugar Sugar Corn
4.59 Potato Wheat
5 1.21 1.85
cane beet cane beet
0 1.21 1.85
0
cane Sugar
Sugar beet Corn Potato Wheat cane Sugar
Sugar beet Corn Potato Wheat
cane beet cane beet
Bio-PET variations – Land use in ha
Bio-PET variations – Land use in ha (different feedstocks) Bio-PET variations – Land use in ha
Bio-PET variations – Land use in ha
(different feedstocks) Bio-PET 100
2.0
Bio-PET 100 1.76
1.6
Bio-PET 100
2.0
Bio-PET 30
ha/t biopolymer
2.0 1.76
1.2
1.6 1.76
Bio-PET 30
biopolymer
1.6
Bio-PET 30
biopolymer
0.8
1.2 0.74
0.66
1.2 0.47
0.4
0.8 0.30 0.74
0.66
ha/t
0.17 0.20 0.28

0.8 0.74
0.08 0.07 0.47 0.66
ha/t
0
0.4 0.47 0.30
Sugar Sugar Corn
0.17 Potato
0.20 Wheat Sugar Sugar
0.28 Corn Potato Wheat
0.4 0.30
cane
0.08 beet
0.07
0.17 0.20 cane beet
0.28
0 0.08 0.07
0
cane Sugar
Sugar beet Corn Potato Wheat
cane beet cane beet
Bio-PET variations – Water use in m3
Bio-PET variations – Water use in m3 (different feedstocks)
Bio-PET variations – Water use in m3
Bio-PET
(differentvariations – Water use in m3
feedstocks)
(different feedstocks) Bio-PET 100
12 751
12 000 Bio-PET 100

12 751
Bio-PET 100
10 000 12 751
12
12 000
m3/t biopolymer
8 000
10
10 000
/t biopolymer
6 000
8 5 604
5 122
Bio-PET 30
m3biopolymer
8 000 4 547
4 000
6 3 376 5 604
5 122
6 000 Bio-PET 30 4 547 5 604
2 331 5 122
2 000
4
Bio-PET
1 484
30 4 547
1 356 3 376
m3/t
1 193
4 000 612 3 376 2 331
0
2 000 1 484
Sugar
1 193 Sugar 1 356 Wheat
Corn Potato 2 331
2 000 612 1 484 1 356
cane
1 193 beet cane beet
0 612
0
cane Sugar
Sugar beet facts
Biopolymers, Corn and statistics
Potato Wheat 2021 – 23
cane beet cane beet
2.1.7 Polyethylene furanoate (PEF) 0.66 ha
4 515 m³
100 % bio-based Potato

0.26 ha 0.25 ha 0.58 ha 1.55 ha
15.72 t
4 014 m³ 2 058 m³ 4 940 m³ 11 241 m³

cane or beet or
19.15 15.56 t 4.04 t 6.15 t
Sugar Starch
2.49 2.83 t
H2O H2O
Hydrolysis
Enzymes Dextrins
Sugar*
2.49 t
or
0.79 t 1.70 t
H2O CO2
Fermentation
Yeast
H2O
Filtration
Stillage
Ethanol*
0.38 t
H2O
Dehydration
EtOH
Ethene
0.18 t
O2 CO2 H2O
Catalytic oxidation Dehydration
H2O
Ethene-
oxide
0.25 t
CO2
Reaction
Ethene-
carbonate HMF2
0.49 t 1.07 t
O2 CO2 O2
Reaction Oxidation
H2O
1
MEG = Ethylene glycol
2
Hydroxymethylfurfural
MEG1 FDCA3
3
FDCA= 2,5-Furandicarboxylic acid
0.34 t 0.86 t
* Conversion rates:
Starch – Sugar 88 %
Ethanol – Ethene 48 %
Ethene – Etheneoxide 85 %
H2O
HMF – FDCA 80 % Esterification
0.10 t
Sugar (Fructose) – HMF 63 %
H2O
References: Andreeßen 2019; Eerhart et al. 2012; Polycondensation
0.10 t
Hajid et al. 2018; Hwang et al. 2020; Iffland et al. 2015;
Kawabe 2010; Nakajima et al. 2017; Taffe 2008;
Van Putten 2011 PEF
1.00 t

PHB– Feedstock requirements in t
PEF – Feedstock requirements in t (different feedstocks) 25
biopolymer
25
biopolymer
20 19.15
20 19.15
25 15.56 15.72
biopolymer
15.72
/t /t
15 15.56
t feedstock
15
19.15
t feedstock
20
10
10 15.56 15.72
6.15
/t
15
4.04 6.15
t feedstock
5
5 4.04
10
0
6.15
5 Sugar
cane Sugar
beet Corn
4.04 Potato Wheat
cane beet
0
cane beet

PHB – Land
(different use in ha
feedstocks)
PEF – Land use in ha (different feedstocks)
2.0
2.0
1.55
biopolymer
1.6
1.55
biopolymer
1.6
2.0
1.2
1.2
1.55
ha/t biopolymer
ha/t
1.6
0.8
ha/t
0.66
0.8 0.58 0.66
1.2 0.58
0.4
0.26 0.25
0.4
0.26 0.25
0.8
0.66
0 0.58
0.4 Sugar
cane Sugar
beet Corn Potato Wheat
0.26 0.25
cane beet
0
cane beet
PHB– Water use in m 3
PHB– Water
(different use in m
feedstocks)
3
PEF – Water use in m3 (different feedstocks)
PHB– Water use in m3
12 000
11 241
12 000
11 241
10 000
10 000
12 000
11 241
biopolymer
8 000
biopolymer
8 000
10 000
6 000
6 000 4 940
4 515
m3/t biopolymer
4 940
/t3/t
8 000 4 014 4 515

4 000
m3m
4 014
4 000
6 000 2 058
2 000 2 058 4 940
4 515
2 000 4 014
4 000
0
0 Sugar Sugar
2 058
Corn Potato Wheat
2 000 Sugar
cane Sugar
cane beet
0
cane beet
2.1.8 Polybutylene terephthalate (Bio-PBT)
0.17 ha
with biobased 1,4-butanediol (Bio-PBT bb BDO) 1 165 m³
Potato
0.07 ha 0.06 ha 0.15 ha 0.40 ha
4.06 t
1 032 m³ 529 m³ 1 274 m³ 2 900 m³

cane or beet or
4.92 t 4.00 t 1.04 t 1.59 t
Sugar Starch
0.64 t 0.73 t
H2O H2O
Hydrolysis
Enzymes Dextrins
Glucose*
0.64 t
or
H2O CO2
Fermentation
Microorg.
H2O
Filtration
Stillage
Succinic
acid
0.51 t
LiAlH4
Deoxidation
H2O
1,4-Bu-
tanediol
0.41 t
PTA H2O
Esterification
0.75 t 0.08 t
* Conversion rates:
Sugar – Succinic acid 80 % H2O
Polycondensation
Succinic acid – 1,4-Butanediol 77 % 0.08 t
Iffland et al. 2015; Memmo et al. 2018;
Bio-PBT
Peters et al. 2011; Ryan 2019 bb BDO
1.00 t

2.1.8 Polybutylene terephthalate (Bio-PBT) 0.64 ha
4 420 m³
100% biobased
Potato
0.26 ha 0.24 ha 0.57 ha 1.52 ha
15.39 t
3 934 m³ 2 017 m³ 4 836 m³ 11 002m³

cane or beet or
18.77 t 15.25 t 3.96 t 6.02 t
Sugar Starch
2.44 t 2.77 t
H2O H2O
Hydrolysis
Enzymes Dextrins
Glucose*
2.44 t
or
0.64 t 1.80 t
H2O CO2 H2O CO2

Microorg. Microorg.
H2O H2O
Microbial mass Stillage
Succinic Iso-
acid butanol*
0.51 t 0.70 t
LiAlH4 H2O
Deoxidation Dehydration
H2O Byproducts
1,4- Iso-
Butan-
ediol butene
0.41 t 0.51 t
Dimerization
Iso-
octene
0.50 t
Sulfuric acid H2O

Dehydrogenation
Sulfuric acid
p-Xylene
0.48 t
KMnO4 MnO2
Oxidation
KOH
* Conversion rates: PTA

Glucose – Isobutanol 39 % 0.75 t
Isobutanol – p-Xylene 68 % H2O

Esterification
Sugar– Succinic acid 80 % 0.08 t
Succinic acid – 1,4 Butanediol 77 %
H2O
Polycondensation
References: Akanuma et al. 2014; Clark et al. 2015; 0.08 t
Iffland et al. 2015; Memmo et al. 2018; Bio-PBT
Peters et al. 2011; Ryan 2019 100
1.00 t

Bio-PBT-100
20 18.77
Bio-PBT variations – Feedstock requirements

Bio-PBT-100 in t 16 15.25 15.39
/t biopolymer
(different feedstocks) 20 18.77
12 Bio-PBT-100
16
20 15.25 15.39
Bio-PBT bb BDO 18.77
biopolymer
8
6.02
feedstock
12
16 15.25 15.39
4.92
/t biopolymer
4.00 4.06 3.96

4
Bio-PBT bb BDO
1.59
t /t
8
12 1.04
6.02
t feedstock
0 4.92 Bio-PBT bb BDO

Sugar Sugar
4.00 Corn Potato
4.06 Wheat Sugar Sugar Corn
3.96 Potato Wheat
4
8
t feedstock
1.59
4.92 1.04
4.00 4.06 3.96
0
4
1.59 Sugar Sugar Corn Potato Wheat
1.04
cane beet cane beet
0
cane beet cane beet
Bio-PBT-100
Bio-PBT variations – Land use in ha (different feedstocks) 1.52
1.4 Bio-PBT-100
1.52
1.2
Bio-PBT-100
1.4
1.52
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.8
1.0
1.2 0.64
Bio-PBT bb BDO
0.57
ha/t biopolymer
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.40
0.4
Bio-PBT bb BDO 0.64
0.57
ha/t biopolymer
0.6
0.8 0.26 0.24
0.2 0.15 0.17 0.64
Bio-PBT bb BDO 0.40
0.07 0.57
ha/t biopolymer
0.4
0.6 0.06
0 0.26 0.24
0.17 Wheat
0.40 Sugar Sugar Corn Potato Wheat
0.2
0.4 0.15
cane beet cane beet
0.07 0.06 0.26 0.24
0
0.2 0.15 0.17
0.07 0.06
cane beet cane beet
0
cane beet cane beet
Bio-PBT variations – Water use in m3 (different feedstocks)
12 000 Bio-PBT-100
11 002
10 000
12 000 Bio-PBT-100
11 002
m3/t biopolymer
8 000
10
12 000 Bio-PBT-100
11 002
6 000
4 836
m3/t biopolymer
8 000
10 Bio-PBT bb BDO 4 420
3 934
4 000
2 900
m3/t biopolymer
6
8 000
2 017 4 836
2 000 Bio-PBT bb BDO
1 274 1 165
4 420
1 032 3 934
4
6 000 529
2 900 4 836
0 Bio-PBT bb BDO 4 420
Sugar Sugar Corn Potato Wheat Sugar
3 934 Sugar
2 017 Corn Potato Wheat
2
4 000
cane
1 032 beet 1 274 1 165 2 900 cane beet
529
28 – Biopolymers, 2 017
0 facts and statistics 2021
2 000
Sugar
1 032 Sugar 1 274 Potato
Corn 1 165 Wheat Sugar Sugar Corn Potato Wheat
529
cane beet cane beet
2.1.9 Polybutylene adipate terephthalate (Bio-PBAT)
with biobased 1,4-butanediol (Bio-PBAT bb BDO)
0.18 ha
1 260 m³
Potato
0.07 ha 0.07 ha 0.16 ha 0.43 ha
4.39 t
1 129 m³ 579 m³ 1 379 m³ 3 138m³

cane or beet or
5.38 t 4.38 t 1.13 t 1.72 t
Sugar Starch
0.70 t 0.79 t
H2O H2O
Hydrolysis
Enzymes Dextrins
Glucose*
0.70 t
or
H2O CO2
Fermentation
Microorg.
H2O
Filtration
Microbial mass
Succinic
acid
0.56 t
LiAlH4
Deoxidation
H2O
1,4-Bu-
tanediol
0.43 t
Adipic acid: 0.35 t H2O

Esterification
* Conversion rates: PTA: 0.39 t 0.085 t
Sugar – Succinic acid 80 % H2O
Succinic acid – 1,4-Butanediol 77 % Polycondensation
0.085 t
Iffland et al. 2015; Jian et al. 2020; Memmo et al. 2018;
Bio-PBAT
Peters et al. 2011; Ryan 2019; Wang et al. 2010 bb BDO
1.00 t

2.1.9 Polybutylene adipate terephthalate (Bio-PBAT)
0.43 ha
with biobased 1,4-butanediol and terephthalic acid 2 968 m³
(Bio-PBAT bb BDO/PTA) Potato

0.17 ha 0.16 ha 0.38 ha 1.02 ha
10.33 t
2 644 m³ 1 356 m³ 3 247 m³ 7 388 m³

cane or beet or
12.62 t 10.25 t 2.66 t 4.04 t
Sugar Starch
1.64 1.86 t
H2O H2O
Hydrolysis
Enzymes Dextrins
Glucose*
1.64 t
or
0.70 t 0.94 t
H2O CO2 H2O CO2

Microorg. Microorg.
H2O H2O
Stillage Stillage
Succinic Iso-
acid butanol*
0.56 t 0.37 t
LiAlH4 H2O
Deoxidation Dehydration
H2O Byproducts
1,4- Iso-
Butan-
ediol butene
0.43 t 0.26 t
Dimerization
Iso-
octene
0.26 t
Sulfuric
acid H2O
Dehydrogenation
Sulfuric acid
p-Xylene
0.25 t
KMnO4 MnO2
Oxidation
KOH
* Conversion rates: PTA

0.39 t
Glucose – Isobutanlo 39 %
Isobutanol– p-Xylene 68 % Adipic acid H2O
Esterification
Sugar– Succinic acid 80 % 0.35 t 0.085 t
Succinic acid – 1,4 Butanediol 77 %
H2O
Polycondensation
References: Akanuma et al. 2014; Clark et al. 2015; 0.085 t
Iffland et al. 2015; Jian et al. 2020; Memmo et al. 2018; Bio-
PBAT bb
Peters et al. 2011; Ryan 2019; Wang et al. 2010 BDO/PTA
1.00 t

10.25 10.33
10
Bio-PBAT bb BDO-PTA
12.62
12
8
Bio-PBAT variations – Feedstock requirements in t
feedstock /t biopolymer
Bio-PBAT bb BDO 10.25 10.33
10
6 5.38
4.38 4.39 12.62
Bio-PBAT bb BDO-PTA
4.04
8
4
12
t feedstock /t tbiopolymer
Bio-PBAT bb BDO 2.66
10.25 10.33
6
2 5.38 1.72
10 1.13
4.38 4.39
4.04
4
0
8
t feedstock /t biopolymer Sugar Sugar Corn Potato Wheat Sugar Sugar Corn
2.66
Potato Wheat
Bio-PBAT bb BDO
cane beet cane beet
2 1.72
6 5.38 1.13
4.38 4.39
0 4.04
4
2 1.72
1.13
0
cane beet cane beet
1.2
Bio-PBAT bb BDO-PTA
Bio-PBAT variations – Land use in ha (different feedstocks) 1.0

1.02
1.2
Bio-PBAT bb BDO-PTA
0.8
Bio-PBAT bb BDO 1.02

ha/t biopolymer
1.0
0.6
0.43 0.43
0.8
0.4
1.2
Bio-PBAT0.38
bb BDO-PTA
Bio-PBAT bb BDO
0.18 1.02
ha/t biopolymer
0.6
0.2 0.16 0.17 0.16
1.0
0.07 0.07
0.43 0.43
0.38
0.4
0
0.8
cane beet cane beet
0.2 Bio-PBAT
0.16bb BDO
0.18 0.17 0.16
ha/t biopolymer
0.6
0.07 0.07
0.43 0.43
0 0.38
0.4
cane beet cane beet
0.2 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.16
0.07 0.07
Bio-PBATSugar
variations – Water useSugar
in m 3
0
8 000 cane beet cane Bio-PBAT

beet bb BDO-PTA
7 388
7 000
Bio-PBAT bb BDO-PTA
8
6 000
7 388
7
5 000
6
Bio-PBT bb BDO Bio-PBAT bb BDO-PTA
4 000
8 000
m3/t biopolymer
3 247 7 388
3 138
5
2 968
3 000
7 000 2 644
Bio-PBT bb BDO
4
2 000
6 000
m3/t biopolymer
1 379 1 260 1 356 3 247

1 129 3 138
2 968
3
1 000
5 000 579 2 644
2 000
0 Bio-PBT bb BDO
4 000
Sugar Sugar Corn
1 379 Potato Wheat Sugar Sugar
/t biopolymer
1 129 1 260 3 247

cane beet 3 138 cane beet
1 000 2 968
3 000 579
Biopolymers,
2 644 facts and statistics 2021 – 31
0
2 000
2.2 Bio-based polyolefins
2.2.1 Polyethylene (Bio-PE) 1.15 ha
7 899 m³

Potato
0.46 ha 0.43 ha 1.01 ha 2.71 ha
27.50 t
7 031m³ 3 605 m³ 8 642 m³ 19 663 m³

cane or beet or
33.55 t 27.26 t 7.07 t 10.76 t
Sugar Starch
4.36 t 4.95 t
H2O H2O
Hydrolysis
Enzymes Dextrins
Glucose*
4.36 t
or
H2O CO2
Fermentation
Yeast
H2O
Rectification
Stillage
Bio-
Ethanol*
2.08 t
H2O: 0.64 t
Dehydration
EtOH: 0.44 t
Ethene*
1.00 t
* Conversion rates:
Starch – Glucose 88 % Catalyst
Polymerization
fermt. Sugar – Ethanol 48 %
(conventional technology)
References: Endres & Siebert-Raths 2011; Iffland et al. Bio-PE

2015; Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017; Siracusa et al. 2020
1.00 t

35 33.55
Bio-PE– Feedstock requirements in t

30
27.26 27.50
Bio-PE– Feedstock
(different feedstocks)requirements in t
Bio-PE – Feedstock requirements in t (different feedstocks)
25
35 33.55
20
35 33.55
30
15 27.26 27.50
30
/t biopolymer
27.26 27.50
25 10.76
/t biopolymer
10
25
7.07
20
t feedstock 5
20
15
t feedstock
0
15
10.76
10 cane beet 10.76
10 7.07
5
7.07
5
Bio-PE – Land use in ha
0
(different
Sugar feedstocks)
0
cane
Sugar beet
cane beet
3.0
2.71
Bio-PE – Land use in ha
2.5
Bio-PE – Land
(different use in ha
feedstocks)
Bio-PE – Land use in ha (different feedstocks) (different feedstocks)
biopolymer ha/t biopolymer
2.0
3.0
1.5
3.0 2.71
1.15 2.71
2.5
1.01
1.0
2.5
2.0
0.46 0.43
biopolymer
0.5
2.0
1.5
0
1.5 1.15
ha/t
1.01
1.15
1.0 cane beet
ha/t
1.01
1.0
0.46 0.43
0.5
0.46 0.43
0.5
0
0
cane
Sugar beet
cane beet
Bio-PE – Water use in m3

(different
24 000
feedstocks)
19 663
20 000
/t biopolymer m3/t biopolymer
16 000
24 000
12
24 000
000
19 663
20 000 8 642
7 899
8 000 7 031 19 663
20 000
16 000
3 605
m3biopolymer
4 000
16 000
12 000
0
12 000
Sugar Sugar 8 642
Corn Potato Wheat
7 899
8 000 7 031
cane beet 8 642
m3/t
7 899
8 000 7 031
4 000 3 605
4 000 3 605 Biopolymers, facts and statistics 2021 – 33

0
2.2.2 Polypropylene (Bio-PP) 1.20 ha
8 281 m³

Potato
0.48 ha 0.46 ha 1.06 ha 2.84 ha
28.83 t
7 368 m³ 3 778 m³ 9 060 m³ 20 614 m³

cane or beet or
35.15 t 28.56 t 7.41 t 11.28 t
Sugar Starch
4.57 t 5.19 t
H2O H2O
Hydrolysis
Enzymes Dextrins
Glucose*
4.57 t
or
H2O CO2
Fermentation
Yeast
H2O
Filtration
Stillage
Bio-
Ethanol
2.19 t
H2O
Dehydration
EtOH
0.35 t Ethene
1.05 t
0.70 t
Dimerization
Butene
0.70 t
Byproducts
Metathesis
0.05 t
1 Omega-Process (Shell) Propylene

* Conversion rates:
Starch – Glucose 88 % 1.00 t
Polymerization
Butene – Propylene 68 %
References: Andreeßen 2019; Hulea 2019;

Mahdaviani et al. 2010; Nessi et al. 2020; Bio-PP
Siracusa et al. 2020; Zou et al. 2018
1.00 t

35.15
35
Bio-PP – Feedstock requirements in t (different feedstocks) 30 28.56 28.83
25
35.15
35.15
35
35
20
30 28.56 28.83
28.83
30 28.56
15
25 11.28
25
biopolymer
feedstock/t/tbiopolymer 10
7.41
20
20
5
15
15
t tfeedstock
0 11.28
11.28
10
10
cane beet 7.41
7.41
5
5
0
0
Sugar
Sugar Sugar
Sugar Corn
Corn Potato
Potato Wheat
Wheat
2.84
2.8 cane
cane beet
beet
2.4
Bio-PP – Land use in ha (different feedstocks) 2.0 2.84

2.84
2.8
2.8
biopolymer ha/t biopolymer
1.6
2.4
2.4
1.20
1.2
1.06
2.0
2.0
0.8
1.6
ha/tbiopolymer
1.6 0.48 0.46

0.4
1.20
1.20
1.2
1.2 1.06
1.06
0
ha/t
0.8
0.8
cane beet
0.48
0.48 0.46
0.46
0.4
0.4
0
0
Sugar
Sugar Sugar
Sugar Corn
Corn Potato
Potato Wheat
Wheat
cane
cane beet
beet
Bio-PP – Water use in m3 (different feedstocks)

20 614
20 000
biopolymerm3/t biopolymer
16 000
12 000 20
20 614
614
20 000 9 060
20 000 8 281
8 000 7 368
16 000
/tbiopolymer
16 000
3 778
4 000
12 000
12 000
0 9
9 060
060 8
8 281
281 Wheat
mm3/t
7
7 368
3
8 000 368
8 000
cane beet
3
3 778
778
4 000
4 000
0
0
2.3 Bio-based polyamides (Bio-PA)
2.3.1 Homopolyamides 0.81 ha
5 569 m³
2.3.1.1 Bio-PA 6
Potato
0.32 ha 0.31 ha 0.71 ha 1.91 ha
19.39 t
4 950 m³ 2 538 m³ 6 093 m³ 13 864 m³

cane or beet or
23.62 t 19.19 t 4.99 t 7.59 t
Sugar Starch
3.07 t 3.49 t
H2O H2O
Hydrolysis
Enzymes Dextrins
Glucose*
3.07 t
or
H2O CO2, H2O

Fermentation
Microorg. Microbial
mass
Lysine*
2.15 t
H2O CO2, H2O

Fermentation
Microorg. Microbial
mass
Capro-
lactam*
1.00 t
* Conversion rates:
Starch – Glucose 88 % Catalyst Ring-opening
fermt. Sugar – Lysine 70 % polymerization
Lysine – Caprolactam 47 %
References: Brodin et al. 2017;

Endres & Siebert-Raths 2011; Frost 2005;
Kyulavska 2017; Shen et al. 2009; Bio-PA 6
Türk 2014; Winnacker & Rieger 2016
1.00 t

Bio-PA 6 – Feedstock requirements in t
25 23.62
Bio-PABio-PA
6 –6Feedstock
requirements in t (different feedstocks)
/t biopolymer
25 23.62
20 19.19 19.39
/t biopolymer
20 19.19 19.39
15
25 23.62
/t tbiopolymer
feedstock
15
10
20 19.19 19.39
7.59
t feedstock
10 4.99
5
15 7.59
4.99
5
t feedstock
0
10
7.59
0 cane beet 4.99
cane beet
0
cane beet
Bio-PA 6 – Land use in ha
Bio-PA 6 – Land use in ha (different feedstocks) (different feedstocks)
2.0 1.91
2.0 1.91
ha/t biopolymer
1.6
ha/t biopolymer
1.6
1.2
2.0 1.91
1.2 0.81
ha/t biopolymer
0.8
1.6 0.71
0.81
0.8 0.71
0.4
1.2 0.32 0.31
0.4 0.32 0.31 0.81

0
0.8 0.71
0 cane beet
0.4 Sugar
0.32 0.31
cane beet
0
Bio-PAcane beet use in m3
6 – Water
Bio-PA 6 – Water use in m3 (different feedstocks) Bio-PA 6 – Water use in m3
Bio-PA 6 – Water use in m3 13 864
13 864
12 000
12 000 13 864
10 000
10 000
m3/t biopolymer
8 000
12
m3/t biopolymer
8 000 6 093
6 000
10 5 569
4 950
6 093
6 000 5 569
m3/t biopolymer
4
8 000 4 950
2 538
4 000 6 093
2
6 000 5 569
4 950 2 538
2 000
0
4 000
2 538
0 cane beet
cane beet
0
Sugar Sugar Corn Potato Biopolymers, facts and statistics 2021 – 37
Wheat
cane beet
2.3.1 Homopolyamides
2.3.1.2 Bio-PA 11
3.97 ha
58 891 m³
Castor
bean
(seeds)
5.95 t
Castor
oil1
2.38 t
Hydrolysis
Ricinoleic
acid
2.02 t
Heptanal
Pyrolysis
Undecane
acid*
1.01 t
Ammonia Catalytic H2
0.09 t conversion 0.01 t
Amino-
undecane
acid
1.09 t
H2O
1
one harvest per year Polycondensation
0.09 t
* Conversion rates:
Ricinoleic acid – Undecane acid 50 %
Bio-PA
References: Devaux et al. 2011; Diamond et al. 1965;
Endres & Siebert-Raths 2011; Kyulavska 2017; Mubofu
11
2016; Radzik et al. 2020; Shen et al. 2009; Siyuan et al. 1.00 t
2019; Türk 2014; Winnacker & Rieger 2016

2.3.2 Copolyamides
2.3.2.1 Bio-PA 4.10 – Bio-PA 5.10 – Bio-PA 6.10
2.60 ha
38 596 m³
Castor
bean
(seeds)
3.9 t 2.45 ha
36 366 m³
Castor Castor
bean
oil1 (seeds)
1.56 t 3.68 t 2.35 ha
34 884 m³
Hydrolysis
Castor Castor
bean
oil1 (seeds)
1.47 t 3.53 t
Ricinoleic
acid
1.33 t Hydrolysis
Castor
oil1
NaOH Alkaline 2-Octanol 1.41 t
Ricinoleic
cracking Sodium
acid
1.25 t Hydrolysis
Sebacic
acid* NaOH Alkaline 2-Octanol
cracking
Ricinoleic
0.80 t Sodium
acid
1.20 t
TMDA H2O
Polycondensation
0.35 t 0.15 t Sebacic
acid* NaOH Alkaline 2-Octanol
0.75 t cracking Sodium
Bio-PA
4.10 PMDA H2O
1.00 t Polycondensation
0.38 t 0.13 t Sebacic
acid*
0.72 t
Bio-PA
5.10
HMDA H2O
1.00 t Polycondensation
0.41 t 0.13 t
1
one harvest per year
* Conversion rates: Bio-PA

Ricinoleic acid – Sebacic acid 60 % 6.10
1.00 t
Endres & Siebert-Raths 2011; Kyulavska 2017;
1
Mubofu 2016; Radzik et al. 2020; Shen et al. 2009;
Siyuan et al. 2019; Türk 2014; Winnacker & Rieger 2016
* Conversion rates:
Ricinoleic acid – Sebacic acid 60 %
References: Devaux et al. 2011; Diamond et al. 1965; Endres & Siebert-Raths 2011; Kyulavska 2017;
Mubofu 2016; Radzik et al. 2020; Shen et al. 2009; Siyuan et al. 2019; Türk 2014; Winnacker & Rieger 2016

2.3.2 Copolyamides 3.92 ha
58 143 m³
2.3.2.2 Bio-PA 10.10
Castor
bean
(seeds)
5.88 t
Castor
oil1
2.35 t
Hydrolysis
Ricinoleic
acid
2.00 t
NaOH Alkaline 2-Octanol

cracking Sodium
0.60 t Sebacic
acid*
NH3
Reaction 1.20 t
0.10 t
Ammo-
nium
sebacate
0.7 t
H2O
Dehydration
0.21 t 0.60 t
Decane-
dinitrile
0.49 t
H+: 0.02 t
Hydrogenation
KOH
Ni Catalyst
DMDA
1
0.51 t
H2O
* Conversion rates: Polycondensation
Ricinoleic acid – Sebacic acid 60 % 0.11 t

Endres & Siebert-Raths 2011; Kyulavska 2017;
Mubofu 2016; Radzik et al. 2020; Shen et al. 2009;
Bio-PA
Siyuan et al. 2019; Türk 2014; Winnacker & Rieger 2016 10.10
1.00 t

Bio-PA – Feedstock requirements in t
Bio-PA – Feedstock
(feedstock castor oil)requirements in t
(feedstock castor oil)
5.88 5.95
Bio-PABio-PA
variations – Feedstock requirements in t
6.0
5.95
– Feedstock requirements in t 6.0 5.88

5.0
5.0 (feedstock castor bean)
biopolymer
4.0 3.90 5.88 5.95
biopolymer
6.0 3.68
4.0 3.90 3.53
3.68
3.53
3.0
5.0
3.0
/t /t
biopolymer
t feedstock
2.0
4.0 3.90
t feedstock 2.0 3.68
3.53
1.0
3.0
1.0
t feedstock /t
0
2.0
0 Bio-PA Bio-PA Bio-PA Bio-PA Bio-PA
Bio-PA
4.10 Bio-PA
5.10 Bio-PA
6.10 Bio-PA
10.10 Bio-PA
11
1.0 4.10 5.10 6.10 10.10 11
0
Bio-PA Bio-PA Bio-PA Bio-PA Bio-PA
4.10
Bio-PA – Land5.10
use in ha6.10 10.10 11
Bio-PA – Land use in
(feedstock castor oil) ha
Bio-PA variations – Land use in ha (feedstock castor bean) 6.0
6.0
Bio-PA – Land use in ha
5.0
5.0
3.92 3.97
biopolymer
4.0
6.0
3.92 3.97
biopolymer
4.0
3.0
5.0
3.0 2.60 2.45
2.60 2.35
2.45
ha/t
2.35
3.92 3.97
ha/t biopolymer
ha/t
2.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
1.0 2.60 2.45 2.35
0
2.0
Bio-PA
4.10 Bio-PA
5.10 Bio-PA
6.10 Bio-PA
10.10 Bio-PA
11
1.0 4.10 5.10 6.10 10.10 11
0
Bio-PA Bio-PA Bio-PA Bio-PA Bio-PA
4.10 5.10 6.10 10.10 11
Bio-PABio-PA
variations
Bio-PA
– Water use in–mWater use in m3 (feedstock castor bean)
– Water use in m
3
3
60 000 58 143 58 891
60 000 58 143 58 891
Bio-PA – Water use in m3
50 000
50 000
biopolymer
40
60 000
000 38 596 58 143 58 891
36 366
biopolymer
40 000 38 596 34 884

36 366
34 884
30 000
50 000
30 000
/t3/t
m3/t biopolymer
20 000
000 38 596
m3m
40
20 000 36 366
34 884
10
30 000
000
10 000
0
20 000
Bio-PA
4.10 Bio-PA
5.10 Bio-PA
6.10 Bio-PA
10.10 Bio-PA
11
10 000 4.10 5.10 6.10 10.10 11
0
Bio-PA Bio-PA Bio-PA Bio-PA Biopolymers, facts and statistics 2021 – 41
Bio-PA
4.10 5.10 6.10 10.10 11
2.4 Polyurethanes
0.32 ha
4 701 m³
Castor
bean
(seeds)
0.48 t 0.37 ha
5 443 m³
Castor Castor
bean
oil1 (seeds)
0.19 t 0.55 t
MeOH, CO Transesterification, MeOH

Castor
H2, Catalyst epoxidation Glycerine
oil1
0.22 t
Natural
oil polyols MeOH, CO Transesterification, MeOH
0.50 t H2, Catalyst epoxidation Glycerine
Isocyanates
Polyaddition
0.50 t Natural
oil polyols
0.60 t
Bio-PUR
Rigid foam
Isocyanates
1.00 t Polyaddition
0.40 t
Bio-PUR
Flexible foam
1.00 t
1
References: Andreeßen 2019; Endres & Siebert-Raths 2011; Shen et al. 2009

Bio-PUR – Feedstock requirements in t
Bio-PUR
(feedstock– castor
Feedstock
oil) requirements in t
Bio-PUR variations – Feedstock requirements in t

0.6
(feedstock castor bean) 0.55
0.6
0.5 0.48
0.6 0.55
0.55
/t biopolymer
0.5 0.48
0.4
0.5 0.48
biopolymer
0.4
biopolymer
0.3
0.4
t feedstock
0.3
0.2
0.3
/t /t
t feedstock 0.2
0.15
t feedstock
0.2
0.15
0
0.15 Bio-PUR Bio-PUR
rigid foam flexible foam
0
0 Bio-PUR Bio-PUR
Bio-PUR
rigid foam Bio-PUR
flexible foam
Bio-PUR – Land use in ha

Bio-PUR – Land use in ha
Bio-PUR
0.5 Land use
oil) in ha
Bio-PUR variations – Land use in ha (feedstock castor bean)
0.5
0.4
0.5 0.37
ha/t biopolymer
0.32
0.4
0.3
0.37
0.4
0.37
biopolymer
0.32
biopolymer
0.3 0.32
0.2
0.3
0.2
ha/t
0.1
0.2
ha/t
0.1
0
0.1
Bio-PUR Bio-PUR
0
0 Bio-PUR Bio-PUR
Bio-PUR
rigid foam Bio-PUR
flexible foam
Bio-PUR – Water use in m3

Bio-PUR – Water use in m3
Bio-PUR variations – Water use in m3 (feedstock castor bean)
Bio-PUR
Water oil)
use in m3
6 000
5 443
4 701
m3/t biopolymer
6
4 000
500 5 443
6 000
5 443
4 701
biopolymer
4
3 500
000 4 701
biopolymer
4 500
3
1 000
500
3 000
/t3/t
1 500
m3m
0
1 500 Bio-PUR Bio-PUR
0
0 Bio-PUR Bio-PUR
Bio-PUR
rigid foam Bio-PUR
flexible foam
2.5 Polysaccharide polymers
2.5.1 Cellulose-based polymers (Cellulosics)
2.5.1.1 Regenerated cellulose

1.52 ha
Wood
2.50 t
Pulping process
Cellulose
1.00 t
NaOH Solving,
2.38 t bulging
Alkali-
cellulose
3.38 t
CS2
Sulfidation
0.14 t
Cellulose-
xanthate
3.52 t
H2SO4 CS2, NaSO2

Polymerization
1.15 t H2O
Regene-
rated
cellulose
1.00 t
References: Endres & Siebert-Raths 2011; Sayyed et al. 2019; Xiaoya et al. 2020

2.5.1 Cellulose-based polymers (Cellulosics)
2.5.1.2 Cellulose diacetate

0.82 ha
Wood
1.33 t
Pulping process
0.82 ha
Cellulose
Wood
0.53 t
1.33 t
Acetic acid H2O
Esterification
0.38 t 0.11 t
Pulping process
Plasticizer Cellulose
0.20 t
diacetate Cellulose
1.00 t
0.53 t
Acetic
anhydride Acetic acid
Esterification
0.64 t 0.37 t
Plasticizer Cellulose
0.20 t
diacetate
1.00 t
References: Endres & Siebert-Raths 2011; Sayyed et al. 2019

Cellulosics – Feedstock requirements in t
(feedstock wood)
(feedstock wood)
(feedstock wood)
2.50
2.5 2.50
2.5
biopolymer
biopolymer
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5 1.33
1.33
/t/t
t feedstock
1.0
t feedstock
1.0
0.5
0.5
0
0 Cellulose Regenerated
Cellulose
diacetate Regenerated
cellulose
diacetate cellulose
Cellulosics – Land use in ha

Cellulosics – Land use in ha
Cellulosics – Land use in ha (feedstock wood)
(feedstock wood)
(feedstock wood)
2.0
2.0
1.6 1.52
1.6 1.52
biopolymer
biopolymer
1.2
1.2
0.82
0.8 0.82
ha/t
0.8
ha/t
0.4
0.4
0
0 Cellulose Regenerated
Cellulose
diacetate Regenerated
cellulose
diacetate cellulose

2.5.2 Starch-based polymers
2.5.2.1 Thermoplastic starch (TPS)

0.17 ha
1 197 m³
Potato
0.15 ha 0.41 ha
4.17 t
1 309 m³ 2 979 m³
Corn or
Wheat
1.07 t 1.63 t
Starch
0.75 t
Plasticizer Destruction
0.25 t (Extrusion)
TPS*
1.00 t
* Starch content 75 %
References: Endres & Siebert-Raths 2011; Iffland et al. 2015

2.5.2 Starch-based polymers
2.5.2.2 Starch blends

0.05 ha
362 m³
Potato
0.05 ha 0.13 ha
1.26 t
397 m³ 902 m³
Corn or
Wheat
0.09 ha
0.32 t 0.49 t 606 m³
Potato
Starch 0.08 ha
2.11 t
0.21 ha
663 m³ 1 509 m³
0.23 t
Corn or
Wheat 0.13 ha
Plasticizer Destruction
(Extrusion) 0.54 t 0.83 t 856 m³
0.07 t
Potato
TPS* Starch 0.11 ha 0.30 ha
2.98 t
937 m³ 2 132 m³
0.30 t
0.38 t
Polymers Corn or
Wheat
Extrusion
0.70 t Plasticizer Destruction
0.12 t (Extrusion) 0.77 t 1.17 t
Starch
blend
30/70**
1.00 t TPS* Starch
0.50 t 0.54 t
Polymers
Extrusion Plasticizer
0.50 t Destruction
0.16 t (Extrusion)
Starch
blend
50/50**
1.00 t
TPS*
0.70 t
Polymers
Extrusion
0.30 t
Starch
blend
70/30**
1.00 t
* Starch content 75 %
** Ratio TPS/Polymer
References: Endres & Siebert-Raths 2011; Iffland et al. 2015

Starch-based polymers – Feedstock requirements in t
Starch-based polymers – Feedstock requirements in t
Starch-based
(different
Starch-based
TPS
polymers
feedstocks) – Feedstock
polymers – Feedstock
Starch requirements
requirements
Starchin t Starch
in t 5
(different(different
feedstocks)
4.17
feedstocks) blend 30/70 blend 50/50 blend 70/30
/t biopolymer
4
5
TPS Starch Starch Starch
4.17 2.98
3
5 blend 30/70 blend 50/50 blend 70/30
/t biopolymer
4 TPS Starch Starch Starch
4.17 blend 30/70 blend 50/50
2.11 blend 70/30
/t tbiopolymer
feedstock
2
4
1.63 2.98
3
1.26 1.17
1.07
0.83 2.98
1
3 2.11 0.77
t feedstock
2 0.49 0.54
1.63 0.32
2.11
t feedstock
1.26 1.17
0
2 1.07 1.63
Corn Potato Wheat Corn Potato Wheat Corn Potato Wheat Corn
1 0.83 0.77 Potato Wheat
1.26 0.49 0.54 1.17
1.07 0.32
1 0.83 0.77
0 0.49 0.54
Corn Potato Wheat 0.32 Potato Wheat
Corn Corn Potato Wheat Corn Potato Wheat
0
Corn Potato Wheat Corn Potato Wheat Corn Potato Wheat Corn Potato Wheat
Starch-based polymers – Land use in ha
Starch-based polymers – Land use in ha
Starch-based
(different polymers
feedstocks)
TPS
Starch-based
– Land useStarch
Starchuse in ha
polymers – Land
in ha (different
Starch
feedstocks)
0.5 blend 30/70 blend 50/50 blend 70/30
0.41
0.4 TPS Starch Starch Starch
0.5 blend 30/70 blend 50/50 blend 70/30
ha/t biopolymer
TPS Starch Starch Starch 0.30

0.3
0.5 0.41 blend 30/70 blend 50/50 blend 70/30
0.4
0.41 0.21
biopolymer
0.2
0.4 0.17 0.30
0.3 0.15
biopolymer
0.13 0.13
0.11 0.30
0.1
0.3 0.08 0.09 0.21
0.2 0.17 0.05 0.05
ha/t ha/t
0.15 0.21
0.13 0.13
0
0.2 0.17 0.11
0.1 Corn
0.15 Potato Wheat Corn Potato Wheat Corn
0.08 Potato
0.09 Wheat Corn Potato Wheat
0.05 0.05 0.13 0.13
0.11
0.1 0.08 0.09
0 0.05 0.05
0
Starch-based polymers
Starch-based – Water
polymers – Water use in m use in m3 (different feedstocks) 3
Starch-based polymers – Water use in m3
Starch-based polymers
2 979 –blend
Water use in m3 blend 50/50
30/70 blend 70/30
3 000
2 500
3 000
2 979 blend 30/70 blend 50/50 blend 70/30
TPS Starch Starch Starch 2 132
2 979 blend 30/70 blend 50/50 blend 70/30
m3/t biopolymer
2 000
3
2 500
1 509 2 132
1 500
2
1 309
/t biopolymer
2 000 1 197
2 132
biopolymer
1 000
2 902 937
1 509 856
1 500
1 309 663 606
1 197 1 509
1 500 397 362
1 000 1 309 937
3
902
m3/t m
1 197 856
663 606
0
1 000 902 937
Corn Potato Wheat Corn 856 Wheat
500 362 Wheat
397 Potato Corn Potato Wheat Corn Potato
663 606
500 397 362
0
Corn Potato Wheat Corn Potato Wheat Corn Potato Wheat
Biopolymers, factsCorn
and Potato Wheat
statistics 2021 – 49
0
2.6 Polyvinyl chloride (Bio-PVC)
0.50 ha
2.6.1 Bio-PVC-U (unplasticized) 3 462 m³
Potato
0.21 ha 0.19 ha 0.44 ha 1.19 ha
12.06 t
3 144 m³ 1 612 m³ 3 788 m³ 8 619 m³

cane or beet or
15.00 t 12.19 t 3.10 t 4.72 t
Sugar Starch
1.95 t 2.17 t
H2O H2O
Hydrolysis
Enzymes Dextrins
Glucose*
1.95 t
or
H2O CO2
Fermentation
Yeast
H2O
Rectification
Stillage
Bio-
Ethanol*
0.94 t
H2O 0.29 t
Dehydration
EtOH 0.20 t
Ethene
0.45 t
Chlorine
Direct chlorination
1.13 t
1,2-
Dichlor-
oethane
1.58 t
Hydrogen
chloride
Vinyl chloride
production 0.59 t
1 Omega-Process (Shell)
Vinyl
chloride
1.00 t
* Conversion rates:
Starch – Glucose 88 % Polymerization
Ethanol – Ethene 48 % 1 Omega-Process (Shell)
Bio-PVC
References: Alvarenga et al. 2013; Shen et al. 2009 hard
1.00 t

0.35 ha
2.6.2 Bio-PVC-P (plasticized) 2 425 m³
Potato
0.14 ha 0.14 ha 0.31ha 0.83 ha
8.44 t
2 209 m³ 1 132 m³ 2 653 m³ 6 037 m³

cane or beet or
10.54 t 8.56 t 2.11 t 3.30 t
Sugar Starch
1.37 t 1.52 t
H2O H2O
Hydrolysis
Enzymes Dextrins
Glucose*
1.37 t
or
H2O CO2
Fermentation
Yeast
H2O
Rectification
Stillage
Bio-
Ethanol*
0.66 t
H2O: 0.20 t
Dehydration
EtOH: 0.14 t
Ethene
0.32 t
Chlorine
Direct chlorination
0.79 t
1,2-
Dichlor-
oethane
1.11 t
Hydrogen
chloride
Vinyl chloride
production 0.41 t
Vinyl
chloride
0.70 t
* Conversion rates:
Starch – Glucose 88 % Polymerization
Plasticizer Bio-PVC
References: Alvarenga et al. 2013; Shen et al. 2009 soft
0.30 t
1.00 t

12
16
10 15.00
Bio-PVC-hard – Feedstock requirements in t 14

8
12.19 12.06
(different
12 feedstocks)
18
6
4.72
16
10 15.00
4
3.10
14
8
2
12.19 12.06
12
6
0
4.72
10
4 cane beet
3.10
8
6
0
Sugar Sugar Corn Potato 4.72
Wheat
4 cane beet
3.10
0
cane beet 1.19
1.2
Bio-PVC-hard variations – Land use in ha

1.0
(different
0.8
feedstocks)
1.19
1.2
ha/t biopolymer
0.6
0.50
0.44
1.0
0.4
0.21
0.8 0.19
0.2
1.19
1.2
ha/t biopolymer
0.6
0 0.50
Sugar Sugar Corn
0.44 Potato Wheat
1.0
0.4 cane beet
0.21
0.8 0.19
0.2
ha/t biopolymer
0.6
0 0.50
Sugar Sugar Corn
0.44 Potato Wheat
0.4 cane beet
0.21
0.19
0.2
Bio-PVC-hard variations – Water use in m3
0
cane beet 8 619
m3/t biopolymer
8 000
6 000
3 788
4 000
3144 3 462
8 619
m3/t biopolymer
8 000
2 000 1 612
6 000
0
4 000 cane beet 3 788
3 462
3144 8 619
52 – Biopolymers,
8 000 facts and statistics 2021
polymer
2 000 1 612
10
8.56 8.44
14
8
Bio-PVC-soft – Feedstock requirements in t

12
6
10.54
(different
10
18
4 feedstocks)
8.56 3.30
8.44
168 2.11
2
146
0
124 cane beet 3.30
10.54 2.11
102
8.56 8.44
0
8
cane beet
6
4
3.30
2.11
2
1.2
0
1.0 cane beet
0.83
0.8
Bio-PVC-soft variations – Land use in ha

1.2
0.6
1.0
0.4 0.35
0.31
0.83
0.8
0.2 0.14 0.14
0.6
0
0.4
1.2 cane beet 0.35
0.31
0.2
1.0 0.14 0.14
0.83
0
0.8
cane beet
0.6
Bio-PVC-soft variations – Water use in m3

0.4
0.31
0.35
(different
0.2 feedstocks)
0.14 0.14
0
8 000
cane beet 6 037
6 000
4 000
2 653 2 425
8 000 2 209
2 000
1 132
6 037
6 000
0
4 000 cane beet
2 653 2 425
2 209
2 000
1 132
0
8 000 Biopolymers, facts and statistics 2021 – 53
cane beet 6 037
2.7 Bio-based polyacrylates
0.32 ha
2.7.1 Poly(methyl methacrylate) (Bio-PMMA) 2 202 m³
with biobased ethylene Potato

0.13 ha 0.12 ha 0.28 ha 0.76 ha
7.67 t
1 951 m³ 1 000m³ 2 409 m³ 5 481 m³

cane or beet or
9.31 t 7.56 t 1.97 t 3.00 t
Sugar Starch
1.21 t 1.38 t
H2O H2O
Hydrolysis
Enzymes Dextrins
Glucose*
1.21 t
or
H2O CO2
Fermentation
Yeast
H2O
Filtration
Stillage
Bio-
Ethanol
0.58 t
H2O
Dehydration
EtOH
Ethene
0.28 t
Carbon monoxide:
0.28 t
Hydroesterification
Methanol:
0.32 t
MeP1
0.88 t
Formaldehyde Byproducts
Condensation
0.30 t 0.05 t
1
MeP = Methylpropionate
MMA2
2
MMA = Methylmethacrylate
1.00 t
* Conversion rates:
Polymerization
1 Omega-Process (Shell) Bio-
References: Barnicki 2012;
PMMA
Lebeau & Lynch 2020; Veith et al. 2020
1.00 t

Bio-PMMA – Feedstock requirements in t (different feedstocks) 12.5
/t biopolymer
10 9.31 t
12.5
7.56 t 7.67 t
biopolymer
12.5
7.5
biopolymer
feedstock
10 9.31 t
10
5
9.31 t
7.56 t 7.67 t
/tt/t
t feedstock 7.5 7.56 t 7.67 t 3.00 t
7.5 1.97 t
2.5
t feedstock
5
5
0
3.00 t
3.00 t
2.5 1.97 t
2.5
cane beet 1.97 t
0
Sugar
cane Sugar
cane beet
0.8
Bio-PMMA – Land use in ha (different feedstocks)

0.76
0.7
0.8
0.76
0.8
0.6 0.76
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.6
ha/t biopolymer
0.4
0.5 0.32
0.5
0.3 0.28
biopolymer
0.4
biopolymer
0.4
0.2 0.32
0.13 0.28 0.32
0.3 0.12
0.3 0.28
0.1
ha/t
ha/t
0.2
0.2
0 0.13 0.12
Sugar
0.13 Sugar
0.12
Corn Potato Wheat
0.1
0.1
cane beet
0
Sugar
cane Sugar
PHB–cane
Water use
beetin m3
Bio-PMMA – Water
PHB– Water use in m use in m (different feedstocks)
3
3
PHB– Water
(different use in m3
feedstocks)
6 000
5 481
5 000
6 000
6 000 5 481
m3/t biopolymer
4 000
5 481
5 000
5 000
3 000
2 409
biopolymer
4 000 2 202
biopolymer
4 000 1951
2 000
3 000
3 000 1 000 2 409
1 000 2 202
2 409
/t3/t
1951 2 202
2 000
m3m
1951
2 000
0
Sugar Sugar
1 000 1 000
1 000
cane beet
0
Sugar
cane Sugar
3 Market data and
land use facts
As already mentioned in the introduction, the focus of
attention is on “New Economy” bioplastics, including their
position at the market. To give the reader an impression of
the market share of these innovative and novel bioplastics
the following pages contain a summary of IfBB's research.
When considering the most important Old Economy biopla-

stics with their global production capacity of about 17 million
tonnes annually, it turns out that the share of New Economy
bioplastics is almost 10 times lower, i.e. 11 % of the market
volume of all bio-based plastics (Old and New Economy Bio-
plastics included), with rising tendency.
By size and large, Old and New Economy bioplastics (about

19 million tonnes) have a combined share of presently nearly
6 % of the global plastics market. The corresponding land use
of Old and New Economy bioplastics is currently at approxi-
mately 15.8 million hectares, which is equivalent to only 0.3
% of the global agricultural area or approximately 1 % of the
arable land. Comparing these figures reveals that New Eco-
nomy bioplastics, which tend to be the only focus of interest
in land use discussions, use up only 5 % of the area required
for all bio-based plastics combined.
Even though global forecasts predict a rapidly growing market

for these novel bioplastics in the next few years, the need for
agricultural areas will be still kept at a very low level. While
the market for new bioplastics has been growing during the
last years and a sustained growth is anticipated in the future,
it can be assumed that land use for New Economy bioplastics
by 2025 (2.9 million tonnes), for example, will be around
0.022 % of the global agricultural area or about 0.8 % of
the arable land (see figures on page 58 and pages 62/63).
Regardless of the significant growth rates, it should be
mentioned that the market share of these New Economy bio-
plastics is still hovering at less than 1 % of the global plastics
market and is likely not to exceed 2-3 % in the near future.
To make things even more compelling, it is a fact that bio-based

plastics, even after multiple material usage, can still serve as
an energy carrier. This means that additional crop lands, which

are currently used for direct energy production, could be set
aside for the production of bioplastics. Prior material usage of
biomass, as in the case of bioplastics, still permits subsequent
trouble-free energy recovery, whereas direct incineration of
biomass (and also crude oil-based products!) precludes an im-
mediate subsequent material usage. In this case, more arable
land for plant cultivation is needed and consequently another
photosynthesis process, in order to gain new resources once
again as feedstock for material usage.
Production capacities and land use

Old and New Economy bioplastics
12 000 000
Natural rubber
12 000 000
Natural rubber
56 000
Linoleum3
56 000
Linoleum3
833 000
New Economy bioplastics1
833 000
2 900 000
Cellulose2
2 900 000
Cellulose2
10 978
Natural
10 978 000
Natural rubber
140
Lin
140 000
Linoleum 3
2
New Ec
2 015 000
5 800
Cellulo
5 800 000
Cellulose2
1
PLA, PHA, PTT, PBAT, Starch blends, Drop-Ins (Bio-PE, Bio-PET, Bio-PA) and other
2
Material use excl. paper industry
3
Calculations include linseed oil only

3.1 New Economy bioplastics global production capacities
3 500
2 908
3 000
2 500
2 016 1 825
2 000
in 1 000 t
1 805
1 562
1 500 1 380
Forecast
1 121 1 240
1 000
841 995
1 083
500
684 776
539 567
0
2017 2018 2019 2020 2025
Bio-based/non-biodegradable
Biodegradable
Total capacity

3.2 New Economy bioplastics production capacities by
material type
2020
38.5%
38.5 % 24.4 %
24.4 %
Biodegradable
bio-based/non-biodegradable Biodegradable
bio-based/non-biodegradable polyesters4
polyesters4
12.8 %
12.8 %
Biodegradable
Biodegradable
starch blends
20.5 %% starch blends
61.5 %
61.5 % 20.5
PLA
PLA total
2.1 %
2.1
PHA
%
biodegradable
biodegradable 2.02
total
2.02
PHA
1.4 %
million
million
tonnes
1.4%
Regenerated
Regenerated
cellulose2
1.3 %
1.3 %
tonnes
0.2 % cellulose2
%
Others
Others 0.2
Cellulose
3.5 %
3.5 % Cellulose 1
derivatives
derivatives1
Bio-PP 30
Bio-PP 30 6.9 %
6.9 %3
6.6 %
6.6 %
8.4 %
Bio-PET 30
% Bio-PET 30
3
Bio-PA
Bio-PA
11.7 %
11.7 % 8.4
PTT
1
Biodegradable cellulose esters Bio-PE 5
PTT
2
Compostable hydrated cellulose foils Bio-PE5
3
Bio-based content amounts 30 %
4
Contains PBAT, PBS, PCL
5
Contains Bio-PE 30 and Bio-PE 100
2025
37.2 % %
20.5 %
20.5
37.2
bio-based/non-biodegradable
%
Biodegradable
Biodegradable
polyesters4
bio-based/non-biodegradable polyesters4
10.1 %
10.1
22.1 %
22.1 % %
Biodegradable
PLA Biodegradable
starch blends
62.8 %
PLA starch blends
%
62.8 total 8.9 %
8.9 %
biodegradable
biodegradable 2.91
total
2.91
PHA
PHA
million
million
tonnes 1.0
1.0 %%
2.7 %
2.7 %
tonnes Regenerated
Regenerated
cellulose2
Others
Others 0.2 %
0.2
cellulose2
%
6.7 %
6.7 % Cellulose
Cellulose 1
derivatives
Bio-PP 30
Bio-PP 30
6.1 % %
5.2 %
5.2 %derivatives
1
6.1 Bio-PET 303
Bio-PA
10.7 % 5.8 %
% 5.8 %Bio-PET 30 3
Bio-PA
10.7
Bio-PE 5 PTT
PTT
1
Biodegradable cellulose esters Bio-PE5
2
Compostable hydrated cellulose foils
3
Bio-based content amounts 30 %
4
Contains PBAT, PBS, PCL
5
Contains Bio-PE 30 and Bio-PE 100

10.3 %
South America
946 k
3.3 New Economy bioplastics production capacities 27.3
by region
551 kt t %
Europe
2020
304 k
t
in %
total
207 k 2.02
t 15.1 %
9 kt
million
10.3tons% North America
South America
946 k 27.3 %
551 kt t
0.4 % Europe
304 k
t
Australia/Oceania
46.9 %in %
Asia total
207 k 2.02
t 15.1 %
9 kt
million
tons North America
0.4 %
Australia/Oceania
46.9 %
Asia
2025
7.1 % 32.0 %
South America
Europe
1255 k
932 k t
506 k t
t in %
total
2.91
207 k million
t 9 kt
tons
7.1 % 17.4%%
32.0
South America North America
Europe
1255 k
932 k t
506 k t 0.3 %
t 43.2 % Australia/Oceania
in %
Asia total
2.91
207 k million
t 9 kt
tons
60 – Biopolymers, facts and statistics 2021 17.4 %

North America
3.4 New Economy bioplastics production capacities
by market segment
2020
1 200
1 200
non-biodegradable
non-biodegradable
PLA Bio-PET 30 2
biodegradable
PLA Bio-PET 30 2
biodegradable
1 000
bio-based/
1 000
bio-based/
Biodegradable
Biodegradable
Starch blends Bio-PE
Starch blends Bio-PE
800 Packaging –
800 Others1 Packaging
rigid –
Others1 Others3 Packaging –
Others3 flexible –
Packaging rigid
(incl. food
000t t
flexible (incl. food

serviceware)
600
inin11000
serviceware)
600
600
600 544
544
Textiles
400 Agriculture (incl.Textiles
non‐woven
Consumer (incl. non‐woven
400 Agriculture
and Consumer and fibers)
goods and fibers)
and
horticulture Automotive goods 261
Electrical Automotive 222
Electrical horticulture and
222 261
and Building 198 and
transports
200 and
electronic Building
and 198 transports
200 electronic and 109
Others (incl. casing) construction
Others (incl. casing) construction 109
35 16 29
35 16 29
0
0
1
Contains regenerated cellulose and biodegradable cellulose ester
2
Bio-based content amounts to 30 %
3
Contains durable starch blends, Bio-PC, Bio-TPE, Bio-PUR (except thermosets), Bio-PA, PTT
2025
1 200
1 200
Packaging –
non-biodegradable
Packaging – Packaging
rigid –
non-biodegradable
PLA Bio-PET 30 2
biodegradable
PLA Bio-PET 30 2 flexible –

Packaging rigid
biodegradable
1 000 flexible (incl. food

bio-based/
1 000 887 (incl. food

serviceware)
bio-based/
Biodegradable 887 serviceware)

Biodegradable
Starch blends Bio-PE 816
Starch blends Bio-PE 816
800
800 Others1
Others1 Others3
Others3
000t t
inin11000
600
600
Consumer
Consumer
goods Textiles
Agriculture
400 Agriculture goods
342 (incl.Textiles
non‐woven
and (incl. non‐woven
400 and
horticulture
Automotive
Automotive
342 and fibers)
Electrical and and fibers)
Electrical
and
horticulture
241 and 317
and Building 241
transports 317
electronic Building transports
200 Others electronic and 142
200 Others (incl. casing) and
construction 142
80 (incl. casing)
44 construction
80 44 38
38
0
0
1
Contains regenerated cellulose and biodegradable cellulose ester
2
Bio-based content amounts to 30 %
3
Contains durable starch blends, Bio-PC, Bio-TPE, Bio-PUR (except thermosets), Bio-PA, PTT

3.5 Land use for New Economy bioplastics 2020 and 2025
al land area 13.4

ob
bil
lio
Gl nh
a
For final land use estimation only the most commonly used crop was taken into
consideration. Yield data from FAO statistics served as a basis for calculation (global,
weighted average over the past 10 years). To approximate land use in this bottom-up
approach, the producer-specific production capacities of a type of bioplastics were
multiplied by the output data of the corresponding process routes. In case a pro-
ducer-specific feedstock type for was not known, the most commonly used crop for
this bioplastic type was taken into calculation.
In all of the calculations no allocation was made, which means land use was fully,
by 100 %, allocated to the raw materials for bioplastics and not split up between
various parallel side products such as proteins or straw in wheat. So this approach
leads to a rather conservative estimate.

icultural area
gr
la
5
bil
Globa
lion
ha = 100 %
Bioplastics
2020: 832 600 ha = 0.017 % **
2025: 1 123 900 ha = 0.022 % **
Material use
106 million ha = 2.1 % **
Biofuels
Pasture 53 million ha = 1.1 % **
3.5 billion ha Arable land*
1.4 billion ha
= 70 % ** = 28 % **
Food & Feed
1.24 billion ha
= 24.8 % **
* Also includes area growing permanent crops as well as approx. 1 % fallow land.
Abandoned land resulting from shifting cultivation is not included.
** Percentage compared to total agricultural area

4 References
Akanuma, Y., Selke, S., Auras, R.: A Clark, J., Farmer, T., Hunt, A., Sherwood, Frost, J.: Synthesis of caprolactam from
preliminary LCA case study: Comparison J.: Opportunities for Bio-Based Solvents lysine. Patent WO 2005/123669 A1,
of different pathways to produce Created as Petrochemical and Fuel 29.12.2005, https://patentimages.
purified terephthalic acid suitable for Products Transition towards Renewable storage.googleapis.com/51/da/13/
synthesis of 100 % bio-based PET; in: Resources; in: International Journal b0c9223b7bc928/WO2005123669A1.
The International Journal of Life Cycle of Molecular Sciences 16 (2015), pdf (09.07.2021).
Assessment 19 (2014), p. 1238-1246, p. 17101-17159, DOI: 10.3390/
DOI: 10.1007/s11367-014-0725-2. ijms160817101. Hajid, M., Zhao, X., Liu, D.: Production
of 2,5-furandicarboxylic acid (FDCA)
Alexander, A. G.: Sugarcane as a source Collias, D., Harris, A., Nagpal, V., Cottrell, from 5-hydroxymethyl furfural (HMF):
of biomas; in: Sansoucy, R., Aaarts, I., Schultheis, M.: Biobased Terephthalic A recent progress focusing on the
G., Preston, T. R. (ed.): Sugarcane as Acid Technologies: A Literature chemical-catalytic routes; in: Green
feed, series FAO Animal Production and Review; in: Industrial Biotechnology Chemistry 20 (2018), p. 5427-5453,
Health, vol. 72, Rome 1988, p. 46–60. 10 (2014), p. 91-105, DOI: 10.1089/ DOI: 10.1039/C8GC02680G.
ind.2014.0002.
Alvarenga, R. A. F., Dewulf, J., De Meester, Hoekstra, A. Y., Chapagain, A. K., Aldaya,
S., Wathelet, A., Villers, J., Thommeret, Devaux, J.-F., Lê, G., Pees, B.: Application M. M., Mekonnen, M. M.: The water foot-
R., Hruska, Z.: Life cycle assessment of Eco-Profile Methodology to Polyamide print assessment manual: setting the
of bioethanol-based PVC; in: Biofuels, 11, Colombes 2011. global standard, Enschede 2011.
Bioproducts and Biorefining 7 (2013),
p. 396-405, DOI: 10.1002/bbb.1398. Diamond, M. J., Binder, R. G., Applewhite, Hulea, V.: Direct transformation of
T. H.: Alkaline cleavage of hydroxy butenes or ethylene into propylene
Andreeßen, C., Steinbüchel, A.: Recent unsaturated fatty acids. I. Ricinoleic by cascade catalytic reactions; in:
developments in non-biodegradable acid and lesquerolic acid; in: Journal of Catalysis Science & Technology 9
biopolymers: Precursors, production the American Oil Chemists' Society 42 (2019), p. 4466-4477, DOI: 10.1039/
processes, and future perspectives; in: (1965), p. 882–884, DOI: 10.1007/ c9cy00870e.
Applied Microbiology and Biotechno BF02541184.
logy 103 (2019), p. 143–157, DOI: Hwang, K. -R., Jeon, W., Lee, S., Kim, M.
10.1007/s00253-018-9483-6. Eerhart, A. J. J. E., Faaij, A. P. C., Patel, -S., Park, Y.-K.: Sustainable bioplastics:
M. K.: Replacing fossil based PET with Recent progress in the production of
Anjani, K.: Castor genetic resources: biobased PEF; process analysis, energy bio-building blocks for the bio-based
A primary gene pool for exploitation; and GHG balance; in: Energy & Environ- next-generation polymer PEF; in: Chemi-
in: Industrial Crops and Products 35 mental Science 5 (2012), p. 6407- cal Engineering Journal 390 (2020),
(2012), p. 1–14, DOI: 10.1016/j. 6422, DOI: 10.1039/c2ee02480b. p. 124636, DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2020.
indcrop.2011.06.011. 124636.
Endres, H.-J., Siebert-Raths, A.: Enginee-
Barnicki, S. D.: Synthetic Orga- ring Biopolymers, München 2011. Iffland, K., Sherwood, J., Carus M.,
nic C hemicals; in: Kent, J. A. (ed.): Raschka, A., Farmer, T., Clark, J.: Defini-
Handbook of Industrial Chemistry Food and Agriculture Organization tion, Calculation and Comparison of the
and Biotechnology, New York 2012, of the United Nations (FAO): “Biomass Utilization Efficiency (BUE)” of
p. 423-530. Agribusiness Handbook, vol. 4: Sugar Various Bio-based Chemicals, Polymers
Beet, White Sugar, Rome 1999, and Fuels, Hürth 2015.
BeMiller, J. N., Whistler, R. L.: Starch: http://www.fao.org/3/ae377e/ae377e.
Chemistry and technology, London pdf (09.07.2021). Jang, Y.-R., Lim, Y.-H., Kim, K.: Effect of
2009. Content of Potato Tuber Component
Food and Agriculture Organization of and Potato Variety on the Bioethanol
Chen, G. G.-Q.: Industrial Production the United Nations (FAO): Definition and Production; in: Korean Journal of Crop
of PHA; in: Chen, G. G-Q. (ed.): Plastics classification of commodities (1994), Science 56 (2011), p. 273-278 DOI:
from Bacteria: Natural Functions and http://www.fao.org/es/faodef/fdef03e. 10.7740/kjcs.2011.56.3.273.
Applications, Microbiology Monographs, HTM (09.07.2021).
vol. 14, Berlin 2010, p. 121-132, DOI
10.1007/978-3-642-03287_5_6.

Jian, J., Xiangbin, Z., Xianbo, H.: An Mahdaviani, S. H., Sizdvar D., Parvari, Nghiem, P. N., Kleff, S., Schwegmann, S.:
overview on synthesis, properties and M.: Selective Ethylene Dimerization Succinic Acid: Technology Development
applications of poly(butylene-adipate- Toward 1-butene by a New Highly Effi- and Commercialization; in: Fermentation
co-terephthalate)–PBAT; in: Advanced cient Catalyst System and Determination 3, 26 (2017), DOI: 10.3390/fermenta
Industrial and Engineering Polymer of Its Optimum Operating Conditions tion3020026.
Research 3 (2020), p. 19-26, DOI: in a Buchi Reactor; in: International
10.1016/j.aiepr.2020.01.001. Journal of Chemical Engineering and Perez, R.: Sugar cane; in: Perez, R.:
Applications 1 (2010), p. 276-281. Feeding pigs in the tropics, vol. 132,
Jiang, X., Bai, Y., Chen, X., Liu, W.: A Rome 1997, p. 131-238.
review on raw materials, commercial Mekonnen, M. M., Hoekstra, A. Y.: The
production and properties of lyocell green, blue and grey water footprint of Peters, M. W. T., Joshua, D., Jenni, M.,
fiber; in: Journal of Bioresources and crops and derived crop products; in: Manzer, L. E., Henton, D. E.: Integ-
Bioproducts 5 (2020), p. 16-25, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences rated process to selectively convert
DOI: 10.1016/j.jobab.2020.03.002. 15 (2011), p. 1577–1600, DOI: renewable isobutanol to p-xylene,
10.5194/hess-15-1577-2011. Patent US20110087000A1, https://
Kawabe, K.: Development of Highly patentimages.storage.googleapis.
Selective Process for Mono-Ethylene Memmo, G., Newlon, J. C., Tang, X.: com/34/3c/ba/eccd552d8e73b6/
Glycol Production from Ethylene Oxide Process for Sustainably Sourced p-Xylene. US20110087000A1.pdf (29.09.2021).
via Ethylene Carbonate Using Phospho- Senior Design Reports (CBE) 2018,
nium Salt Catalyst; in: Catalysis Surveys p. 108. Putri, D., Sahlan, M., Montastruc, L.,
from Asia 14 (2010), p. 111–115, Meyer, M., Negny, S., Hermansyah, H.:
DOI:10.1007/s10563-010-9094-4. Mohsenzadeh, A., Zamani, A., Taherzadeh, Progress of fermentation methods for
M. J.: Bioethylene Production from bio-succinic acid production using
Kootstra, M., Elissen, H., Huurman, S.: Ethanol: A Review and Techno-economical agro-industrial waste by Actinobacillus
PHA’s (Polyhydroxyalkanoates): General Evaluation; in: ChemBioEng Reviews succinogenes; in: Energy Reports 6
information on structure and raw 4 (2017), p. 75-91, DOI: 10.1002/ (2020), p. 234-239, DOI: 10.1016/j.
materials for their production, a running cben.201600025. egyr.2019.08.050.
document for “kleinschalige bioraffinage
WP9: PHA”, Wageningen Plant Research Mubofu, E.: Castor oil as a potential Radzik, P., Leszczyńska, A., Pielichowski,
report 727, ACRRES-Wageningen UR, renewable resource for the production K.: Modern biopolyamide-based
Wageningen 2017. of functional materials; in: Sustainable materials: synthesis and modification;
Chemical Processes, 4, 11 (2016), in: Polymer Bulletin 77 (2020), p.
Kyulavska M., Toncheva-Moncheva N., p. 1-12, DOI: 10.1186/s40508-016- 501-528, DOI: 10.1007/s00289-019-
Rydz J.: Biobased Polyamide Ecomate- 0055-8. 02718-x.
rials and Their Susceptibility to Biode-
gradation; in: Martínez L., Kharissova O., Nakajima, H., Dijkstra, P., Loos, K.: Rojas-Barros, P., de Haro, A., Muñoz, J.,
Kharisov B. (ed.): Handbook of Ecomate- The Recent Developments in Biobased Fernández-Martínez, J. M.: Isolation of
rials, Cham 2019, DOI: 10.1007/978-3- Polymers toward General and Enginee- a Natural Mutant in Castor with High
319-68255-6_126. ring Applications: Polymers that are Oleic/Low Ricinoleic Acid Content in the
Upgraded from Biodegradable Polymers, Oil; in: Crop Science 44 (2004), p. 76–
Lebeau, J., Efromson, J. P., Lynch, M. Analogous to Petroleum-Derived 80, DOI: 10.2135/cropsci2004.7600.
D.: A Review of the Biotechnological Polymers, and Newly Developed;
Production of Methacrylic Acid; in: in: P
olymers 9 (2017), p. 523, Ryan, C.: An overview of Gevo's bio-
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotech- DOI: 10.3390/polym9100523. based isobutanol production process,
nology 8 (2020), p. 207, DOI: 10.3389/ Englewood 2019, https://gevo.com/
fbioe.2020.00207. Nessi, S., Sinkko, T., Bulgheroni, C., wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Gevo-WP_
Garcia-Gutierrez, P., Giuntoli, J., Isobutanol.1.pdf (09.07.2021).
Li, Y., Yang, L.-T.: Sugarcane Agriculture Konti, A., Sanye-Mengual, E., Tonini, D.,
and Sugar Industry in China; in: Sugar Pant, R., Marelli, L.: Comparative Life Sayyed, A., Deshmukh, N., Pinjari, D.: A
Tech 17 (2015), p. 1-8, DOI: 10.1007/ Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Alternative critical review of manufacturing proces-
s12355-014-0342-1. Feedstock for Plastics Production, ses used in regenerated cellulosic fibres:
Part 1: the Plastics LCAmethod, EUR viscose, cellulose acetate, cuprammoni-
30725 EN, Publications Office of the um, LiCl/DMAc, ionic liquids, and NMMO
European Union, Luxembourg 2021, based lyocell; in: Cellulose 26 (2019),
DOI:10.2760/271095, JRC125046. p. 2913-2940, DOI: 10.1007/s10570-
019-02318-y.

Shen, K., Haufe, J., Patel, M. K.: Product Van Putten, R.-J., van der Waal, J. C., de Yeboah, A., Ying, S., Lu, J., Xie, Y.,
Overview and Market Projection of Jong, E., Rasrendra, C. B., Heeres, E. J., Amoanimaa-Dede, H., Boateng, K.
Emerging Bio-Based Plastics, Final de Vries, H. G.: Furan-based platform G. A., Chen, M., Yin, X.: Castor oil
Report of Utrecht University to European chemicals of the future. Dehydration (Ricinus communis): a review on the
Bioplastics, Utrecht 2009. of hexoses as biosustainable product chemical composition and physico-
route; in: Chemical Review 113 chemical properties; in: Food Science
Siracusa, V., Blanco, I.: Bio-Polyethylene (2013), p. 1499-1597, DOI: 10.1021/ and Technology 2020, p. 1-15, DOI:
(Bio-PE), Bio-Polypropylene (Bio-PP) cr300182k. 10.1590/fst.19620.
and Bio-Poly(ethylene terephthalate)
(Bio-PET): Recent Developments in Veith, C. l., Diot-Néant, F., Miller, S., Yu, S., Cui, J., Zhong, C., Meng, J., Xue,
Bio-Based Polymers Analogous to Allais, F.: Synthesis and polymerization T.: Green Process without Thinning
Petroleum-Derived Ones for Packaging of bio-based acrylates: a review; in: Agents for Preparing Sebacic Acid via
and Engineering Applications; in: Polymer Chemistry 11 (2020), p. 7452- Solid-Phase Cleavage; in: ACS Omega 4
Polymers 12 (2020), p. 1641, DOI: 7470, DOI: 10.1039/D0PY01222J. (2019), p. 6697-6702, DOI: 10.1021/
10.3390/polym12081641. acsomega.9b00577.
Vink, E. T. H., Davies, S.: Life Cycle In-
Taffe, P.: Shell's Omega MEG process ventory and Impact Assessment Data for Zou, G., Xu, Y., Zheng, J., Jiang, F., Liu, X.:
kicks off in South Korea, https://web. 2014 Ingeo™ Polylactide Production; Investigation on converting 1-butene
archive.org/web/20081023133948/ in: Industrial Biotechnology 11/3 and ethylene into propene via metathe-
http://www.icis.com/Articles/2008/08/ (2015), p. 167-180, DOI: 10.1089/ sis reaction over W-based catalysts; in:
18/9148176/shells-omega-meg- ind.2015.0003. RCD Advances 15 (2018), p. 8372-
process-kicks-off-in-south-korea.html 8384, DOI: 10.1039/C7RA13776A.
(29.09.2021). Wang, X., Fu, Z., Shi, Y., Shi, J., Chen, Y.:
Synthesis of biodegradable poly(buty-
Türk, O.: Stoffliche Nutzung nachwach- lene adipate-co-butylene terephthalate)
sender Rohstoffe, Wiesbaden 2014. copolyester by direct eesterification-
polycondensation; in: Petrochemical
Van Heerden, C. D., Nicol, W.: Continuous Technology 39 (2010), p. 1273-1278.
succinic acid fermentation by Actino-
bacillus succinogenes; in: Biochemical Winnacker, M., Rieger, B.: Biobased
Engineering Journal 73 (2013), p. 5-11, Polyamides: Recent Advances in Basic
DOI: 10.1016/j.bej.2013.01.015. and Applied Research; in: Macromole
cular Rapid Communications 37
(2016), p. 1391-1413, DOI: 10.1002/
marc.201600181.

A large amount of additional information is also available at
www.ifbb-hannover.de
© IfBB – Institute for Bioplastics and Biocomposites

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY ND 4.0):
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/
Hochschule Hannover | Heisterbergallee 10 A

D-30453 Hannover | Germany
Phone: +49 511 9296-2268

Fax: +49 511 9296-99 2268
E-mail: info@ifbb-hannover.de
Published by IfBB – Institute for Bioplastics

and Biocomposites
ISSN (Print) 2363-8559

ISSN (Online) 2510-3431
EDITION 8, 2021
View publication stats

Biopolymers Facts Statistics 2021 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biopolymers Facts Statistics 2021 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Biopolymers facts and statistics 2021

Presentation · December 2021

Nico Becker Andrea Siebert-Raths

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2.1 Bio-based polyesters 8

2.2 Bio-based polyolefins 32

2.3 Bio-based polyamides (Bio-PA) 36

2.5 Polysaccharide polymers 44

2.6 Polyvinyl chloride (Bio-PVC) 50

2.7 Bio-based polyacrylates 54

3 Market data and land use facts 56

As an independent research-led expert institution for biopla-

One of our main concerns is to furnish a more rational basis

In recent years, many new types of bioplastics have emerged

Biopolymers, facts and statistics 2021 – 3

Old Economy New Economy

Chemical novel Drop-ins

The first man-made polymer materials were all based on modi-

By now, due to ecological concerns, limited petrochemical re-

Of particular interest today are new types of bioplastics, which

“New Economy” bioplastics divide up into two main groups.

4 – Biopolymers, facts and statistics 2021

The following methodical approach was chosen to ­establish the

The mass flows were first calculated without assuming allocations

The conservative calculation used in this publication delivers

Biopolymers, facts and statistics 2021 – 5

Corn Maize kernel Starch 7 t/ha 70 % 8 4.9 t starch/ha

Potatoes Potato tuber Starch 24 t/ha 18 % 8, 9 4.32 t starch/ha

Wheat Wheat grains Starch 3.97 t/ha 46 % 8 1.83 t starch/ha

Standing timber, 0.66 t cellulose/

1.5 t seeds/ha 0.6 t oil/ha

A large amount of additional information is also available at: www.ifbb-hannover.de.

6 – Biopolymers, facts and statistics 2021

select desired feedstock/crop, i.e.

0.09 ha 0.09 ha water usage for

Biopolymers, facts and statistics 2021 – 7

Sugar Sugar Corn Wheat

11.31 t 9.19 t 2.39 t 3.63 t

H2O CO2 H2O CO2

References: Endres & Siebert-Raths 2011; Iffland et al. 2015;

Sugar Sugar Corn Wheat

22.00 t 17.87 t 4.63 t 7.04 t

PHB* * Conversion rates:

0.4 0.30 0.29

8 000 4 610 5 168

Sugar Sugar Corn Wheat

6.62 t 5.37 t 1.39 t 2.11 t

References: Clark et al. 2015; Endres & Siebert-

12 – Biopolymers, facts and statistics 2021

100 % bio-based (PBS 100) 3 111 m³

Sugar Sugar Corn Wheat

13.15 t 10.69 t 2.79 t 4.24 t

H2O CO2 H2O CO2

References: Clark et al. 2015; Endres & Siebert-

Biopolymers, facts and statistics 2021 – 13

PBS bb SCA 4.24

8 000 3 111 7 746

Sugar Sugar Corn Wheat

1,4-BDO: 0.30 t H2O

Sugar Sugar Corn Wheat

7.54 t 6.13 t 1.59 t 2.41 t

The following methodical approach was chosen to establish the

References: Clark et al. 2015; Endres & Siebert-

References: Clark et al. 2015; Endres & Siebert-

References: Clark et al. 2015; Endres & Siebert-

References: Akanuma et al. 2014; Clark et al.

References: Akanuma et al. 2014; Clark et al.

References: Akanuma et al. 2014; Clark et al. H2O