Received: 15 June 2022 Revised: 13 March 2023 Accepted: 14 March 2023

DOI: 10.1111/raq.12816

REVIEW

Circular and lower impact mussel and seaweed aquaculture by

a shift towards bio-based ropes

Leire Arantzamendi 1 | Marga Andrés 1 | Oihane C. Basurko 1 | María José Suárez 2

1
AZTI, Marine Research, Basque Research and
Technology Alliance (BRTA), Herrera Kaia.
Portualdea z/g, 20110 Pasaia, Gipuzkoa, Spain
2
GAIKER Technology Centre, Basque Research
and Technology Alliance (BRTA), Parque
Tecnolo
gico Edificio 202, 48170 Zamudio,
Bizkaia, Spain
Correspondence
Leire Arantzamendi, AZTI, Marine Research,
Basque Research and Technology Alliance
(BRTA), Herrera Kaia. Portualdea z/g, 6 20110
Pasaia, Gipuzkoa, Spain.
Email: larantzamendi@azti.es
Funding information
EU's EASME with EMFF funds of
BlueEconomy-2018 (BIOGEARS),
Grant/Award Number: 863708; AZTI, Marine
Research, Basque Research and Technology
Alliance (BRTA), Grant/Award Number: 1150
Abstract
Worldwide, current mussel and seaweed aquaculture practices contribute to the
increase of fossil fuel-based plastic gears at sea, leading to marine litter and microplastics
generation. Smart aquaculture has a great potential for shifting towards the use of lower
impact bio-based and biodegradable gears. This review defines the value chain of bio-
gears as more sustainable gears for mussel and seaweed aquaculture, and sustainability
issues covering technology, environmental impacts, economy-market, policy, and social
drivers for their potential implementation. Fit to purpose durability and functionality
attributes, end-of-life (EoL) options and environmental benefits are key features for com-
petitiveness of biogears versus conventional fossil fuel-based aquaculture gears. EoL
management for collection, sorting and logistics of biogears to recycling facilities is
needed for the up cycling of bio-based materials thus ensuring application of principles
of circularity. The selection of the biopolymers for recyclability, improvement of the
polymerisation and recycling processes together with the enhanced deployment of recy-
cling facilities are considered as key factors for eco-designing of circular biogears. Cur-
rent policies supporting bio-based plastics in marine applications and social benefits, as
environmental sustainability, healthy products, and circular business opportunities, are
likewise added value for the development and use of biogears. Overall, biogears can
reduce environmental negative impacts in mussel and seaweed productions, while
enabling circular use of bio-based materials and sustainable circular bioeconomy.

KEYWORDS
biodegradable, bioeconomy, biopolymer, compostable, end of life

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N especially in off the coast and offshore areas.8,9 Longline productions of

Global population is expected to head to 10 billion by 20501–4 and per
capita seafood supply is expected to increase significantly over the
medium term.3,5 Derived from the stagnation of capture fisheries over
the last three decades, 6,7
aquaculture is called to filling the global sea-
food demand gap. There is enough space worldwide with suitable condi-
tions to increase aquaculture production in most coastal regions and
bivalves, have low environmental impact and can provide the balance
between aquaculture development in sound environment and promote
employment in the coastal zones.10 These types of aquaculture produc-
tions could increase the social acceptance of aquaculture, as knowing
that ‘clean’ aquaculture activities will be positively perceived by the pub-
lic than activities that are considered to have adverse environmental
impacts.11 Similarly, algae sector (macroalgae and microalgae) is

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2023 The Authors. Reviews in Aquaculture published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

1010 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/raq Rev Aquac. 2023;15:1010–1019.


ARANTZAMENDI ET AL.
considered as a promising bioeconomy sector having a significant role in
addressing aquaculture expansion12 and promote environmentally
friendly farming practices such as Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture
(IMTA).13,14 IMTA of bivalve and seaweed species, apart from biomass
production, can favour nutrient and carbon sequestration and thus con-
tribute to climate change mitigation and provide ecosystem services.15–
17
Thus, mussel and seaweed are pointed out as candidate species for
growing aquaculture sector worldwide, with low environmental impact,
while providing consumers with high quality and nutritive seafood.
Mussel and seaweed are cultured in ropes suspended mainly from
raft and longline systems made of non-biodegradable fossil-based plas-
tics.18 The expansion of mussel and seaweed productions, including
IMTA, would correspondingly increase the rope demand and use in
marine environments. Heavy weather conditions, mismanagement of
gears in aquaculture productions, the inadequate waste collection facili-
ties at harbours and subsequent management possibilities, may result in
plastic waste and marine litter generation.19 Available data show that
from an annual discharge of more than 50,000 tons plastic waste, a
range between 3000 and 41,000 t/year are discarded from aquaculture
production in the Northeast-Atlantic across the European Economic
Area.19 Additionally, the degradation of plastics in high-energy condi-
tions, makes offshore aquaculture a source to microplastic (MP) genera-
20
tion and accumulation, a serious threat to mariculture species. As
being extremely persistent, MPs have been found in farmed finfish21 but
also in several non-fed aquaculture species such as mussels and macroal-
gae,22,23 which can become potential harm to human health.24,25
Current strategies aim to reduce plastic waste and MPs entering
the oceans with an expected 50% reduction of marine litter and 30%
reduction of MPs released into the environment by 2030.26 To achieve
this goal, bio-based and/or biodegradable polymers are proposed as
solutions for substituting hitherto conventional plastic materials in both
fisheries and aquaculture gears. Additionally, biodegradable polymers
are also deemed as solutions for a Circular Economy of Plastics.27 In this
context, fossil fuel-based plastics have been substituted by biopoly-
28–32
mers in some fishing and aquaculture gears but are still lacking in
the market. We hypothesise that aquaculture gears manufactured with
bio-based and biodegradable plastics, referred to as ‘biogears’ herein-
after in this review, could be eco-friendlier solutions for the expansion
of aquaculture. This study aims at identifying the main drivers for their
implementation and their value chain under a circular economy
approach, or ‘circular biogears’. Offshore mussel and seaweed sectors
were targeted as potential users and promising sectors for a low envi-
ronmental impact expansion of aquaculture worldwide.
2 | BIODEGRADABLE ROPES AND
BIOGEARS IN MARINE MACROALGAE AND
B I V A L V E A Q U A C U L T U R E— A STA R T I N G
POI NT
2.1 | Technology
Nowadays, fish and molluscs are the most important commercial
marine aquaculture species in Europe,33 although at a global-level
17535131, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.12816 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [19/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1011
macroalgae production predominates.5 Unlike fishing gear, there is no
internationally agreed classification of aquaculture gear. Due to the
biotic and abiotic factors prevailing in the marine environment (high
salinity, temperature variation, ultraviolet radiation, moisture uptake,
etc.) aquaculture gears that are resistant to physical stress and corro-
sion are required. Thus, technically, the substitution potential of fossil
fuel-based gears by biogears in these sectors would depend on the
durability and functionality of bio-based materials used in balance
with their biodegradability in the marine environment.
Huntington et al.19 described plastic materials used in rafts flota-
tion tools or gears, such as expanded polystyrene and high-density
polyethylene (HDPE). In longline systems, which can be adapted to
bivalve and seaweed productions, fossil fuel-based plastics are used in
ropes within different components of the longline, such as the main
line, mooring system, and in connections to the main line components
(e.g., polyester, polypropylene [PP], polyamide, etc.). These ropes have
different technical characteristics depending on the component and
their functionality within the longline system (Table S1). Buoys and
nets are also manufactured with fossil fuel-based plastics, although
other components as chains, shackles and blocks used as connection
or ballast type gears are manufactured with stiffer materials as steel
or concrete (Table S1). Likewise, similar materials are used in similar
type of gears in HDPE cages systems used for marine finfish
production.34
Biodegradable or bio-based gears are scarcely used in aquacul-
ture, as are not available in the market. Cotton socks are used for
seeding and thinning-out operations to allow a better attachment of
mussel to the rope, although they fully degrade in a couple of weeks
in the marine environment. Especially in offshore aquaculture, the
high energy and the effects of single or combined ageing conditions
that may contribute towards the degradation of thermal and mechani-
cal properties (strength and stiffness) of bio-based composites, limit-
ing their durability.35 For marine applications, biopolymers or
improved biopolymer blends could be considered to achieve similar
mechanical characteristics as those currently used polymers,36 such
as: PP, polyethylene (PE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), or HDPE
in aquaculture ropes and gears (Table S1). Natural fibres have also
been used to reinforce biopolymers such as polylactic acid (PLA) and
polybutylene succinate (PBS) to gain in stiffness.37,38
However, there is limited published data available on literature
about the functionality or durability of bioplastic materials in marine
environments.35 From the life cycle assessment (LCA) perspective bio-
gears manufactured using bioplastics like PLA or PBS (biodegradable
in industrial composting conditions at temperatures higher than
50 C), rather than PHA (polyhydroxyalkanoate) or polystarch or cellu-
lose composites (biodegradables by enzymatic mechanisms rather
than non-enzymatic hydrolysis) are expected to have more durability
in the marine environment. Functionality could be estimated by com-
paring thermal or mechanical properties of some bioplastics with cur-
rent materials used in aquaculture gears such as LDPE or PP.36–38
Biodegradation studies in marine conditions can also be used as
an estimation of bioplastic functionality, if measured according to
recognised standards such as ISO 23977. Nonetheless, stability of
properties under marine environment should be tested case-by-case,

1012
and preferably in real use conditions. Moreover, most of biodegrad-
able materials are compounds based on PLA, PBS, or even on PHBV
(poly(hydroxybutyrate-co-hydroxyvalerate)) which are certified as bio-
degradable only under specific conditions, such as high temperatures
in industrial composting facilities.39,40 Studies on the degradation of
five commercial bioplastics (PLA-based blends, PBS, and PHBV at rel-
 
evant seawater temperatures between 5 C and 30 C) showed that
enzymatic degradation at temperatures below 20 C is low, which sug-
gests only a marginal degradation in the marine environments.41 How-
ever, results also showed that under appropriate sample morphology
and environmental conditions, (temperature, moisture, microorgan-
isms, nutrients, salinity, and others), PHA can be totally degraded
within 28 days in fresh and seawater environment.41
The choice on the biopolymer regarding biodegradability/func-
tionality depends on the application. In the case of short-term use
products, preference will be given to biodegradable polymer compos-
ites due to their short EoL and climate neutrality. In long-term struc-
tural applications, when the key factor is high durability and long
service lifetime, preference has also been given to traditional high-
performance composites paying less attention to the environment-
friendliness of these materials.29 Concerning functionality most of
commercially available bioplastics have been compounded to achieve
the processability and functionality specifications of the commodity
42,43
fossil fuel-based counterpart thermoplastics (e.g., PE, PP, or PS).
Therefore, both durability and functionality of polymers should be
assessed case by case in real conditions in order to be considered as
more sustainable alternative solutions. In this context, biogears versus
conventional ropes have been shown to promote significantly higher
mussel production yields while maintaining mechanical and functional
properties over a one-year production cycle.30 Likewise, these results
support that rope-type biogears of similar mechanical and functional
characteristics could be used in other type of gears in mussel, sea-
weed or fish productions. Likewise, biogears could be extended to net
type of gears (i.e., mesh, nets, and bags for oyster and bivalve spat col-
lectors and anti-bird nets in fish sea cages and ponds), if processable
to textile yarns. Depending on their processability (roto moulding,
extrusion, 3D printing, etc.), bio-based plastics could substitute con-
ventional plastics also in other types of gears, such as of flotation in
cage collars or pipes of floating HDPE fish cages or in buoys widely
34
used in inland, pond and marine aquaculture productions. However,
based on these results, biogears should not be so recommendable for
long term and structural gears (mooring and grid systems) or connec-
tion or ballast type of gears, giving the preference to currently used
stiffer materials as high-performance polymers, steel, or concrete.
2.2 | Environment
Low-trophic aquaculture of non-fed species such as algae and mussels
contributes towards circular economies by the mitigation of environ-
mental problems such as eutrophication and climate change through
10,44–46
the uptake of nutrients and carbon. IMTA cultures, aiming to
reduce the input of fish wastes by culturing other species of low
17535131, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.12816 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [19/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ARANTZAMENDI ET AL.
trophic levels are also proposed as lower impact solutions.47,48 Nowa-
days, IMTA systems are used by 10% of the European aquaculture
companies.12 Brown algae species Alaria esculenta and Saccharina
latissima, and bivalve species Mytilus edulis and Aequipecten opercularis
constitute the only IMTA species cultured at a commercial level.49
Brown algae species are being commercially produced in countries
such as Norway, Ireland, United Kingdom, and Denmark in co-cultiva-
tion with fish, and in co-cultivation with mussel in Portugal (longlines)
and especially in north-west Spain (Galicia) in culture areas with a high
density of floating rafts.50,51 In this context, the upscaling of IMTA
productions, or of seaweed or mussel monocultures, would lead to an
increase in the demand of biogears.
Mussel farming has already been examined in an LCA perspective
in Spain,52 France,53 in Algeria,54 and in Italy,55 although they are still
scarce compared with studies in other aquaculture species. Using
LCA, Tamburini et al. demonstrated that nylon ropes and HDPE socks
used in mussel longline production contributed to all impact catego-
ries studied, generating a higher environmental impact than the vessel
used for farming operations on a mussel production cycle.55 Further-
more, substituting HDPE socks by hemp textile socks significantly
reduced the environmental impact of mussel production, together
with the use of plastic in aquaculture practices and their potential of
generating marine litter.55
Annually, 22,809 tons of plastic coming from aquaculture gears
may be lost at sea by European countries.19 Rough weather, farmer
behaviour, inadequate access to recycling facilities, low price of con-
sumable plastics and high cost of recycling are main pathways for gen-
eration of the aquaculture-related litter.56 Researchers have started to
monitor and report the occurrence of aquaculture-related items in
beaches and seawater, and while fishing and aquaculture-derived
marine litter was reported until not so recently together, the newest
monitoring schemes already include aquaculture-derived litter as cate-
gories to be reported to.57 In a mussel longline production cycle, it
was estimated that from the net plastic loss a loss of 0.1 m per kg of
mussel produced were lost to.55 Marine litter can be ingested by ani-
mals, cause entrapment and entanglement of animals, physical impacts
on the benthos, disruption, and loss of coastal areas, and potential
human exposure to MPs and chemicals through the food chain.19 MPs
(which generally refer to plastics smaller than 5 mm in size58), have
the potential to enhance the bioaccessibility of co-contaminants
adsorbed onto the surface of particles, inducing extra-toxicological
effects in the biota. MP accumulation has been observed in many
aquaculture environments.59–61 Overall, ecotoxicity aspects of bio-
plastic particles on the ecosystems biota as resulted of the biodegra-
dation process, has been increasingly studied in the last 5 years.
However, most of the published studies are focused on the impact on
the terrestrial ecosystems,62 reporting that bioplastics like PHA63 and
PLA64 did not affect the germination activity or in soil or plant growth.
In addition, other studies have shown no effect of PLA in soil nitrifica-
tion65 or an overall effect of bioplastics in the biochemical activity of
microorganisms, especially of nitrifying bacteria.66 Considering eco-
toxicity in soil, PLA-based bioplastics did not cause mortality to earth-
worms as to all 10 organisms in small scale-terrestrial model

ARANTZAMENDI ET AL.
ecosystem experiment.62 However, until now, there is little evidence
that bio-based MPs will induce significant effects in aquatic organism,
especially at environmental relevant concentrations (<1 μg L 1
, framework support the use of bio-based and biodegradable plastics
0.001 mg L 1
or 1  109 MPs/L).35 In fact, a recent study, focused on
the identification and quantification of MPs on composting according
to EN 131432, has validated that, if correct composted, bioplastics do
not contribute to pollution due to MPs.67
Apart from the ecotoxicity effect of particles (as of MPs), the
effect of chemical content in bioplastic leachates is currently now one
of the main fields of interest. Information about the effect of addi-
tives, chemicals or non-intentionally added substances from bioplas-
tics is very limited. Additives such as antioxidants, stabilisers, or
plasticisers can used in bioplastics compounds and are normally poly-
mer specific. The effect of contents of polyester-based bioplastics
leachates and their biological effects on marine organism have been
recently studied. Some of these studies have been focused on early
larvae stages and more recently in expositions to adult mussel trough
in vitro and in vivo techniques.68 In general, toxicity from bioplastic
leachates depends on polymeric composition and is less prevalent in
raw materials than in final product.69 Some studies point out that from
the toxicological point of view bioplastics can be similar to conven-
tional plastics.69 These incipient studies, though, seem also to agree
on that there is a need to focus more on aspects related with chemical
safety when formulating bio-based compound for marine applications.
A broarder estimation of environmental benefits provided by bio-
plastics with respect to marine litter and MP reduction is still lacking
in the literature to compare biogears versus conventional aquaculture
gears. For that purpose, the inclusion of marine litter and MPs related
impacts should be considered in decision-making environmental
impact assessment tools such as LCA. Likely, other benefits such eco-
70 16
nomic or ecosystem service provisioning studied in IMTA produc-
tions could be considered also using biogears. In some cases, using
LCA as decision-making tool, have led to a balance between environ-
mental benefits and higher prices of natural fibres (1.8–2.5€/kg hemp
fibre vs. 0.7–1.1€/kg HDPE), resulting in the substitution of 50% of
HDPE by hemp fibre in mussel socks to reduce 50% instead of 100%
55
of the environmental impact.
2.3 | Economy and market
The life of use for mussel and seaweed ropes can be vary site-by-site.
For example, the maintenance and replacement frequency for mussel
and seaweed offshore culture can depend on the rough weather and
environmental conditions of the culture area, which can impact on
their durability and, thus, on their cost-efficiency.
Additionally, substitution of fossil fuel-based ropes by biogears is
challenging due to the current higher cost of bioplastics compared
with conventional plastics71 and the tight profitability of the mussel
farms.72 This can make it difficult to achieve the market equilibrium
because industry can be reluctant to support the over-costs of bio-
gears if those are not translated to the price of aquatic products.
There are studies that point out that the price of bio-based polymers
17535131, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.12816 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [19/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1013
may decrease in the medium and long term because the bioplastics
are rapidly growing in popularity71,73 and the current European policy
on marine gear applications.74
Regarding the supply of bioplastics, nowadays the worldwide pro-
duction of 100% bio-based polymers is currently 2 million tonnes
per year with biodegradable plastic accounting for two-thirds of that
amount, while total fossil fuel-based plastic production is currently
>380 million tonnes per year.75 The bioplastic annual growth rate in
Europe is 10%, mainly driven by upcoming market regulations and
increased consumer demand for sustainable products. Global growth
could reach 10%–20% if bioplastics were subsidised. Currently, the
production costs and market price for biopolymers, more specifically
for PLA, are higher than conventional polymers such as PP or PE.
Nowadays, fossil fuel-based polymers price (i.e., PP) in the market
ranges between 0.9 and 2.7€/kg, while bio-based material market
price can be in a range from 1.9 to 6€/kg.75–77 Future trends, consid-
ering the growing volumes of PLA production, will lead to efficiency
improvements and production cost reduction and, consequently it is
stated that77 in the long run the production costs of biopolymers
could decrease from more than 2 to 0.33–0.75€/kg.78
This decrease will however be highly dependent on the raw mate-
rial availability. The production of crops for bioplastics production can
cause land use, deforestation, carbon losses inside or outside the region
(in the case of EU) linked to the bioplastic market demand, GHG emis-
sions, water depletion or acidification.79 Without competing with food
production purposes, the production of crops to obtain some commer-
cially important polymers (i.e., starch and PLA) is being carried out.80
Today corn and sugarcane are the dominant plant sources for PLA pro-
duction, although a variety of innovative resources to produce PLA
have also been under discussion.78 The use of renewable resources as
biomass and biowaste as feedstock could increase cost-effectiveness
of biopolymer production.81 Research and innovations are increasingly
exploring the opportunities to use biowaste as new source of high-
value products, such as volatile fatty acid biofuels or bioplastics.82
Larger production scales could also reduce prices,75 but invest-
ment and scaling of bioplastic technologies; however, remains a high-
risk business, due to the uncertain demand owing to high prices and
undefined EoL treatment. Furthermore, the use of bio-based ropes
especially in expanding aquaculture industries such as algae in Europe
and wordwide could also increase biogears demand.
On a circular economy approach, pursuing cost-efficiency, reuse,
and recyclability of biogears should be addressed. For example, the
cost of the conditioning of the ropes after their use in culture may be
high, but scaling-up the conditioning process83 and enhancing the
recycling of biopolymers could lower the price of the secondary raw
materials produced. In this sense, the best valorisation options in a cir-
cular value chain perspective should be considered, using different
methodologies, as multi-criteria decision-making analysis described by
Lokesh et al.81 Biogears profitability could result from a disruptive
effect in their value chain, by interlinking innovative products and
new value chains from one sector into another, as a function of bio-
gears EoL possibilities.

1014
It is also noted that the low financial adaptive capacity in the first
stages of the value chain,84 could compromise biogears implementa-
tion by aquaculture producers. However, it should not be ignored that
eco-intensification across circular economy solutions, such as bio-
gears, may provide the ultimate chance for EU aquaculture to develop
its full potential in the supply of aquatic products.85
2.4 | Social: consumers' and stakeholders'
perception
Shifting consumer demand based on the awareness of the need to
ensure sustainable production and consumption is expected to be a
major factor driving future markets in the EU. Extensive longline pro-
duction of bivalves could be more accepted by the public than activi-
ties that are shown to cause detrimental environmental impacts.11
However, even considering the low environmental impact of mussel
productions and their capacity to filter water and even sequestrate
CO2, these environmental benefits have not driven a price increase of
mussel, as ex-farm prices are relatively low and have been stagnant
for some years in most EU countries.86 IMTA production arises as an
opportunity to improve the perception of the consumers and push up
the price of mussels, as reducing the ecological impacts of aquaculture
operations, improving social perceptions of aquaculture and providing
financial benefits for aquaculture producers via product diversifica-
tion.70 The use of biogears, allowing a better EoL management of the
aquaculture gears and the consumer awareness on the generation of
new circular value chains could be another step forward for a better
acceptability of more sustainably produced aquaculture products.
3 | ECO - DES I GN OF BI OGEARS FOR
I M P L E M E N T A T I O N O F C I RC U L A R I T Y
PRINCIPLES IN AQUACULTURE
As part of the current policy, strategy, and legislative framework, and
the circular economy principles (see Section 5), eco-design of ‘circular
biogear’ is the most important step to minimise environmental impact
on ecosystems at different levels. This may involve design for extend-
ing their functionality in use, design to promote reuse, design, and
design for recycling and upcycling. Eco-design involves using alterna-
tive and lower impact renewable biomass or bio-waste as feedstock
for biopolymer production or even materials with biodegradability
potential in case of accidental spills or difficult waste management.
However, current discussion on biodegradable plastics do not accept
to consider the environment as a waste treatment system, suggesting
selected applications with respect to their use, end-of-life (EoL), and
87
biodegradability in the environment.
Tools as LCA could be used for decision-making select the ade-
quate biopolymer for circularity, with respect to EoL possibilities.88
From a circular economy perspective, chemical recycling is a promis-
ing EoL option for PLA/PBS blends, as biopolymers are broken down
(i.e., by lipase) into molecules that re-fed to polymerisation
17535131, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.12816 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [19/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ARANTZAMENDI ET AL.
reactions.89 Recent LCA studies on PLA waste recycling have shown
that all recycling technologies (mechanical, solvent based, or chemical)
promote environmental benefits, leading to 0.3–1.2 times higher sav-
ings of GHE (Greenhouse gas emissions) compared with the PLA
incineration.90 However, currently PLA is mainly composted or land-
filled, and if biodegradability in landfilling is considered, higher GHE
can be expected compared with HDPE or LDPE (as EoL emissions of
PLA are considered).91 To make PLA a low-carbon material, the opti-
misation of production processes (already well optimised for PE prod-
ucts) and the development of proper recycling infrastructures are
needed to obtain new PLA products with acceptable properties from
PLA recyclates, and to overall reduce PLA environmental impact.91
Drop-in bioplastics processed on standard equipment (such as bioPE)
and cost-competitive ones (such as PLA blends and cellulose) are
likely seen to have the lowest barriers to adoption in existing markets.
For some popular bioplastics based on PLA and PHA, however,
demand currently exceeds the supply as increasing number of stake-
holders in the food industry seek to use these materials in their pack-
aging, albeit often without clear recycling options in mind.75 Recent
reviews target eco-design of biobased and recyclable polymers for the
substitution of conventional plastics.76
Compounds based on biopolymer blends could be used to
improve the mechanical, functional and EoL possibilities through dif-
ferent routes, as mechanical, chemical, or organic recycling to achieve
biomaterial circularity.92 This is a potential added value gain of bio-
gears with respect to conventional gears, as solutions to the current
techno-economical hurdles for efficient recycling of aquaculture and
fishing gears. Currently, the high mix of materials, state of degrada-
tion, and the presence of increase difficulties for disassembling and
separation of materials during recycling, be it mechanical or chemical
at their EoL.93 For fishing gears as nets, mechanical recycling is a more
common process used, where the nets are mechanically shredded and
melted back down to pellets. The process is more widely available but
does not result in the same high-quality recyclates as when using the
chemical recycling, showing limits to its processability by injection,
extrusion or roto moulding.93 Correspondingly, mechanical recycling is
more often used than chemical recycling in bio-based materials such
as PLA, although composting or landfilling is the most used EoL
option, the latter resulting in higher environmental impacts.91
Manufacturing biogears with bio-based polymers, allow their bio-
degradability under controlled conditions (58 C), but not at self-com-
posting conditions. Compostability is the same as biodegradability,
but under aerobic conditions for 6–12 weeks.94,95 As Biogears are
compostable at their EoL, there is an advantage over fossil fuel-based
plastics, which are non-compostable. Contrarily to conventional plas-
tics, bioplastics, if properly composted, do not contribute to increase
in MP pollution in the produced compost,67 which can be further con-
sidered another added value of biogears. Besides, the improvement of
mechanical and chemical recycling processes of bioplastics as well as
the increase of the currently available infrastructures would enhance
the recyclability potential of biogears, also reducing their environmen-
tal impacts. After mechanical or chemical recycling, biogears could be
transformed into secondary raw materials to produce new

ARANTZAMENDI ET AL.
FIGURE 1 Circular bio-based value chain generated by using biogears in mussel and seaweed aquaculture.
aquaculture gears (even if only in low proportions), reducing virgin
bioplastics use. Adequate recyclate inclusion levels in new biogears
should also be assessed as a measure to reduce the use of fossil
resources (in the production of new bioplastics) and to maintain bio-
plastics in the material loop for a longer time. Likely, as high energy
consuming, polymerisation processes for bioplastic production should
be improved.91 Thus, in terms of cost-efficiency and reduction of
environmental impact of biogears, biopolymers should be selected for
recyclability, the production (polymerisation) and recycling processes
improved, and the deployment of recycling facilities enhancement. As
for any other aquaculture gear,83,93 an adequate EoL management
should be assured for biogears. So, after their use, collection, sorting,
and deposit at port facilities and transport logistics to recycling facili-
ties should be managed to improve their cost-efficiency and reduce
their environmental impacts.
4 | S C O P E OF BI O G E A R S I N A C I R C U L A R
BIOECONOMY VALUE CHAIN
The value proposition of biogears, with respect to conventional fossil-
based plastic ropes, relies on their EoL options. Conceptually, biogears
aims at reducing environmental impacts, focusing on reuse of bio-
based materials that will generate circular bioeconomy (Figure 1). Var-
ious EoL solutions are proposed, such as reuse of biogears in aquacul-
ture (or in other rope applications in marine sectors), and in organic,
mechanical, or chemical recycling. By organic recycling, valorisation of
materials to heat/biogas or compost can be achieved, which could be
used in the obtention of renewable resources (crops, agriculture appli-
cations, etc.). These secondary raw materials could enter other value
17535131, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.12816 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [19/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1015
chains to generate bioproducts (biocompounds, food, and feed ingre-
dients, nutraceutical, food, etc.) or carbohydrates (sugars, cellulose,
and starch) extracted from natural resources which can be used as
building blocks for new biopolymer productions. By mechanical or
chemical recycling, biogears could be either valorised into biopolymers
or used as secondary raw materials for the manufacturing of new
aquaculture ropes or into other products generating interlinks with
other sectors (automotive, biotech, ICT sectors, etc.). Overall, bio-
based materials used to manufacture biogears could achieve circular-
ity through entering different valorisation processes thus generating
new bio-based value chains (Figure 1).
5 | P O L I C I E S E N C O U R A G I N G BI O G E A R S
AND BIOPLASTIC DEVELOPMENT SECTOR—
FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES
A set of strategies and policies closely related to the implementation
of biogears in aquaculture is that on plastics, actively updated, as pol-
lution of the marine environment due to plastic materials is one of the
most severe environmental problems humanity faces in the 21st cen-
tury. The European Commission on 30 November 2022 communi-
cated the EU policy framework on bio-based, biodegradable, and
compostable plastics as part of a Circular Economy Package.74 It is
based on the European Green Deal, the Circular Economy Action Plan,
and the EU Plastics Strategy. It also contributes to the aims of the
Zero Pollution and EU Soil Strategy. In parallel, the European Strategy
for Plastics in a Circular Economy has established as reference frame-
work, the setting of specific targets for the use of recycled materials
(of at least 50% in packaging) and bio-based solution towards 2030. In

1016
addition, European Commission, recognises the potential that biode-
gradable plastics can offer in certain applications as well as the need
to research and innovation in materials that are fully biodegradable in
marine and freshwater while being safe for environment and
ecosystems.
As result of this legislative framework, eco-design of marine and
aquaculture gears is a key factor to minimise environmental impact on
ecosystems by different strategies as: extending their functionality in
use, promoting reuse and recyclability, or being designed with alterna-
tive and less impacting bio-based or biodegradable materials, while
improving their waste collection and EoL management. Nowadays,
biopolymers are more and more used to substitute fossil fuel-based
plastics in aquaculture gears as ropes for mussel and seaweed cul-
ture30 and oyster collectors,31 and to substitute metal in cages and
32
trays for oysters and sea cucumber under IMTA. It is encouraging to
note that major farms in Scotland and the Netherlands are replacing
plastic gears with gears made from biodegradable materials, such as
biodegradable socks in off-bottom mussel culture.56 Thus aquaculture
industry aided by administrations and current policies can drive the
transformation towards using biogears versus conventional gears, and
by adapting the producers and consumer's attitude towards a more
environmentally sustainable production and consumption of aquacul-
10
ture products.
Finally, on a life cycle environmental performance perspective,
the environmental benefits supported by biogears (marine litter, MPs,
and ecosystem services) could be used to assess the PEFCR (Product
Environmental Footprint Category Rules) of aquaculture ropes. PEFCR
are the rules which should be applied to measuring the environmental
footprint of EU products using LCA, to harmonise environmental foot-
printing of products.96 Overall, the development of PEFCR for bio-
gears should serve to calculate PEF (Product Environmental Footprint)
under a LCA perspective. The environmental benefits of biogears ver-
sus conventional gears, by comparison of their PEFs, could be capita-
lised and used for market differentiation, competitiveness, and
acceptance.
6 | C O N CL U S I O N S
New bio-based and biodegradable ropes, termed or ‘biogears’, hold
much promise for reducing aquaculture impact on the environment
and producing new circular business opportunities in blue bioecon-
omy. The current market price of bioplastics is higher than that of cur-
rently used conventional plastics, but the environmental benefits of
bioplastics strongly encourage the use of biogears. The rapid increase
of the use of bioplastics in many other sectors (single-use plastic
assets, food packaging, automotive, etc.), could enhance production
efficiency and capacity, improve their technical performance, and help
turning bioplastics into more competitive alternatives in the market.
Overall, current market, technology, social, and policy drivers are
promising context for their implementation in the aquaculture sector.
Biogears management after their use in aquaculture is a gap that
needs to be addressed. The possibility for organic recycling of
17535131, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.12816 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [19/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ARANTZAMENDI ET AL.
biogears should be also considered as an environmental added value
compared with conventional plastic gears, making biogears fully sus-
tainable. The development of PEFCR and PEF are encouraged to dif-
ferentiate biogears from conventional gears in the market and
increase their competitiveness and acceptance. Finally, policy-driven
actions for social awareness and incentives to biogears and aquacul-
ture producers, EoL aquaculture gear managers, recyclers (and invest-
ment in recycling technologies and infrastructures), and consumers
should be considered to shift towards the industry implementation of
circular biogears.
AUTHOR CONTRIBU TIONS
Leire Arantzamendi: Conceptualization; formal analysis; supervision;
validation; visualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and
editing. Marga Andrés: Conceptualization; formal analysis; supervi-
sion; validation; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing.
Oihane C. Basurko: Conceptualization; formal analysis; supervision;
validation; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Ma
José Suárez: Conceptualization; formal analysis; supervision; valida-
tion; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing.
AC KNOW LEDG EME NT S
This study has been funded through the EU's EASME with EMFF
funds of BlueEconomy-2018 (BIOGEARS project, grant agreement no.
863708). This article contribution no. 1150 AZTI, Marine Research,
Basque Research and Technology Alliance (BRTA).
CONFLIC T OF INTER E ST STATEMENT
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are
responsible for the content and the writing of this article.
DATA AVAILABILITY STAT EMEN T
In this article no repository data has been used.
OR CID
Leire Arantzamendi https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0583-9617
RE FE RE NCE S
1. Tilman D, Clark M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and
human health. Nature. 2014;515(7528):518-522. doi:10.1038/
NATURE13959
2. Springmann M, Wiebe K, Mason-D'Croz D, Sulser TB, Rayner M,
Scarborough P. Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet
strategies and their association with environmental impacts: a
global modelling analysis with country-level detail. Lancet Planet
Health. 2018;2(10):e451-e461. doi:10.1016/S2542-5196(18)
30206-7
3. Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, et al. Food in the Anthropocene:
the EAT–lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food
systems. Lancet. 2019;393(10170):447-492. doi:10.1016/S0140-
6736(18)31788-4
4. Gephart JA, Henriksson PJG, Parker RWR, et al. Environmental per-
formance of blue foods. Nature. 2021;597(7876):360-365. doi:10.
1038/s41586-021-03889-2
5. Food and Agriculture Organization. 2020 ed of The State of World
Fisheries and Aquaculture. Nat Resour. 2020;35(3):4-13.

ARANTZAMENDI ET AL.
6. World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Published online 2018. Accessed
February 24, 2022. http://www.fao.org/publications.
7. Macleod MJ, Hasan MR, Robb DHF, Mamun-Ur-Rashid M. Quantify-
ing greenhouse gas emissions from global aquaculture. Sci Rep. 2020;
10(1):11679. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-68231-8
8. Gentry RR, Lester SE, Kappel CV, et al. Offshore aquaculture: spatial
planning principles for sustainable development. Ecol Evol. 2017;7(2):
733-743. doi:10.1002/ece3.2637
9. Weiss CCV, Menendez M, Ondiviela B, Guanche R, Losada nigo J,
Juanes J. Climate change effects on marine renewable energy
resources and environmental conditions for offshore aquaculture in
Europe. ICES J Mar Sci. 2020;77:3168-3182. doi:10.1093/icesjms/
fsaa226
10. Alonso AA, Álvarez-Salgado XA, Antelo LT. Assessing the impact of
bivalve aquaculture on the carbon circular economy. J Clean Prod.
2021;279:123873. doi:10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.123873
11. Galparsoro I, Murillas A, Pinarbasi K, et al. Global stakeholder vision
for ecosystem-based marine aquaculture expansion from coastal to
offshore areas. Rev Aquacult. 2020;12(4):2061-2079. doi:10.1111/
RAQ.12422
12. Araújo R, Vázquez Caldero
n F, Sánchez Lo

pez J, et al. Current status
of the algae production industry in Europe: an emerging sector of the
blue bioeconomy. Front Mar Sci. 2021;7:1-24. doi:10.3389/fmars.
2020.626389
13. Buck BH, Buchholz CM. The offshore-ring: a new system design for
the open ocean aquaculture of macroalgae. J Appl Phycol. 2004;16(5):
355-368. doi:10.1023/B:JAPH.0000047947.96231.ea
14. Carras MA, Knowler D, Pearce CM, Hamer A, Chopin T, Weaire T. A
discounted cash-flow analysis of salmon monoculture and integrated
multi-trophic aquaculture in eastern Canada. Aquac Econ Manag.
2019;24(1):43-63. doi:10.1080/13657305.2019.1641572
15. Buck BH, Troell MK, Krause G, Angel DL, Grote B, Chopin T. State of
the art and challenges for offshore integrated multitrophic aquacul-
ture (IMTA). Front Mar Sci. 2018;5:165. doi:10.3398/fmars.2018.
00165
16. Schatte Olivier A, Jones L, Vay LL, Christie M, Wilson J, Malham SK.
A global review of the ecosystem services provided by bivalve aqua-
culture. Rev Aquacult. 2020;12(1):3-25. doi:10.1111/raq.12301
17. Barrett LT, Theuerkauf SJ, Rose JM, et al. Sustainable growth of non-
fed aquaculture can generate valuable ecosystem benefits. Ecosyst
Serv. 2022;53:101396. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101396
18. Mascorda Cabre L, Hosegood P, Attrill MJ, Bridger D, Sheehan EV.
Offshore longline mussel farms: a review of oceanographic and eco-
logical interactions to inform future research needs, policy and man-
agement. Rev Aquac. 2021;13(4):1864-1887. doi:10.1111/raq.
1254919
19. Huntington T. Marine litter and aquaculture gear – white paper.
Aquaculture Stewardship Council. 2019 (November);20.
20. Zhou A, Zhang Y, Xie S, et al. Microplastics and their potential effects
on the aquaculture systems: a critical review. Rev Aquacult. 2021;13
(1):719-733. doi:10.1111/RAQ.12496
21. Sherrington C, Darrah C, Hann S, Corbin M. Study to support the
development of measures to combat a range of marine litter sources
report for European Commission DG Environment. Published Online.
2016.
22. Zhao J, Ran W, Teng J, et al. Microplastic pollution in sediments from
the Bohai Sea and the Yellow Sea, China. Sci Total Environ. 2018;
640–641:637-645. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.346
23. Danopoulos E, Jenner LC, Twiddy M, Rotchell JM. Microplastic con-
tamination of seafood intended for human consumption: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect. 2020;128(12):
126002. doi:10.1289/EHP7171
24. FAO. Microplastics in fisheries and aquaculture. 2017. http://www.
fao.org/3/a-i7677e.pdf;615.
17535131, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.12816 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [19/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1017
25. Barboza LGA, Dick Vethaak A, Lavorante BRBO, Lundebye AK,
Guilhermino L. Marine microplastic debris: an emerging issue for food
security, food safety and human health. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;133:
336-348. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.047
26. European Commission. Pathway to a healthy planet for all. EU action
plan: “towards zero pollution for air, water and soil” COM(2021) 400
Final. Published online, 2021:22. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.
html?uri=cellar:a1c34a56-b314-11eb-8aca-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/
DOC_1&format=PDF.
27. Crippa M, Solazzo E, Guizzardi D, Monforti-Ferrario F, Tubiello FN,
Leip A. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropo-
genic GHG emissions. Nat Food. 2021;2(3):198-209. doi:10.1038/
s43016-021-00225-9
28. Grimaldo E, Herrmann B, Jacques N, Vollstad J, Su B. Effect of
mechanical properties of monofilament twines on the catch efficiency
of biodegradable gillnets. PLOS One. 2020;15(9):e0234224. doi:10.
1371/journal.pone.0234224
29. Starkova O, Gagani AI, Karl CW, Rocha IBCM, Burlakovs J,
Krauklis AE. Modelling of environmental ageing of polymers and poly-
mer composites—durability prediction methods. Polymers (Basel).
2022;14(5):907. doi:10.3390/polym14050907
30. Arantzamendi L, Andrés M, Basurko OC, et al. Biobased ropes (BIO-
GEARS) use in longline vs. raft mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis:
towards a lower impact aquaculture. In: Extended abstracts from the
V Cross border conference on climate and coastal change. UHINAK
2022. 16-17 November, Ficoba, Irun. Revista de Investigacio
n Marina,
AZTI, 28(2): 82–83. 2022.
31. Nitsch CK, Walters LJ, Sacks JS, Sacks PE, Chambers LG. Biodegrad-
able material for oyster reef restoration: first-year performance and
biogeochemical considerations in a coastal lagoon. Sustainability.
2021;13(13):7415. doi:10.3390/su13137415
32. Pavia FC, Brucato V, Mistretta MC, Botta L. A biodegradable, bio-
based polymer for the production of tools for aquaculture: proces-
sing, properties and biodegradation in sea water. Published Online
2023.
33. Guillen J, Virtanen J. Scientific, technical and economic Committee
for Fisheries (STECF) the EU aquaculture sector – Economic Report;
vol 2020. 2020. doi:10.2788/677322
34. Cardia F, Lovatelli A. Aquaculture operations in floating, vol. 593.
2015. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4508e.pdf
35. Curto M, Le Gall M, Catarino AI, et al. Long-term durability and eco-
toxicity of biocomposites in marine environments: a review. RSC Adv.
2021;11(52):32917-32941. doi:10.1039/d1ra03023j
36. Sidek IS, Draman SFS, Abdullah SRS, Anuar N. Current development
on bioplastics and its future prospects: an introductory review.
INWASCON Technol Mag. 2019;1:3-8. doi:10.26480/itechmag.01.
2019.03.08
37. RameshKumar S, Shaiju P, O'Connor KE, P RB. Biobased and biode-
gradable polymers – state-of-the-art, challenges and emerging trends.
Curr Opin Green Sustain Chem. 2020;21:75-81. doi:10.1016/j.cogsc.
2019.12.005
38. Jian J, Xiangbin Z, Xianbo H. An overview on synthesis, properties
and applications of poly(butylene-adipate-co-terephthalate)–PBAT.
Adv Ind Eng Polym Res. 2020;3(1):19-26. doi:10.1016/J.AIEPR.2020.
01.001
39. Ruggero F, Gori R, Lubello C. Methodologies to assess biodegradation
of bioplastics during aerobic composting and anaerobic digestion: a
review. Waste Manag Res. 2019;37(10):959-975. doi:10.1177/
0734242X19854127
40. Folino A, Karageorgiou A, Calabrò PS, Komilis D. Biodegradation of
wasted bioplastics in natural and industrial environments: a review.
Sustainability. 2020;12(15):6030. doi:10.3390/su12156030
41. Miksch L, Köck M, Gutow L, Saborowski R. Bioplastics in the sea:
rapid in-vitro evaluation of degradability and persistence at natural

1018
temperatures. Front Mar Sci. 2022;9:920293. doi:10.3389/fmars.
2022.920293
42. Ibrahim NI, Shahar FS, Sultan MTH, Shah AUM, Safri SNA, Mat
Yazik MH. Overview of bioplastic introduction and its applications in
product packaging. Coatings. 2021;11(11):1423. doi:10.3390/
COATINGS11111423
43. Hubbe MA, Lavoine N, Lucia L, Chang D. Formulating bioplastic com-
posites for biodegradability, recycling, and performance: a review.
BioResources. 2021;16(1):83.
44. Wang H, Wang G, Gu W. Macroalgal blooms caused by marine nutri-
ent changes resulting from human activities. J Appl Ecol. 2020;57(4):
766-776. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13587
45. Thomas JBE, Sinha R, Strand Å, et al. Marine biomass for a circular
blue-green bioeconomy?: a life cycle perspective on closing nitrogen
and phosphorus land-marine loops. J Ind Ecol. 2022;26(6):2136-2153.
doi:10.1111/jiec.13177
46. Yadav G, Mathimani T, Sekar M, Sindhu R, Pugazhendhi A. Strategic
evaluation of limiting factors affecting algal growth – an approach to
waste mitigation and carbon dioxide sequestration. Sci Total Environ.
2021;796:149049. doi:10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2021.149049
47. Sanz-Lazaro C, Sanchez-Jerez P. Regional integrated multi-trophic
aquaculture (RIMTA): spatially separated, ecologically linked. J Environ
Manage. 2020;271:110921. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110921
48. Cutajar K, Falconer L, Massa-Gallucci A, et al. Culturing the sea
cucumber Holothuria polii in open-water integrated multi-trophic
aquaculture at a coastal Mediterranean fish farm. Aquaculture. 2022;
550:737881. doi:10.1016/J.AQUACULTURE.2021.737881
49. Kleitou P, Kletou D, David J. Is Europe ready for integrated multi-tro-
phic aquaculture? A survey on the perspectives of European farmers
and scientists with IMTA experience. Aquaculture. 2018;490:136-
148. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.02.035
50. Peteiro C, Freire Ó. Biomass yield and morphological features of the
seaweed Saccharina latissima cultivated at two different sites in a
coastal bay in the Atlantic coast of Spain. J Appl Phycol. 2013;25(1):
205-213. doi:10.1007/s10811-012-9854-9
51. Freitas JRC, Salinas Morrondo JM, Cremades UJ. Saccharina latissima
(Laminariales, Ochrophyta) farming in an industrial IMTA system in
Galicia (Spain). J Appl Phycol. 2016;28(1):377-385. doi:10.1007/
s10811-015-0526-4
52. Iribarren D, Hospido A, Moreira MT, Feijoo G. Carbon footprint of
canned mussels from a business-to-consumer approach. A starting
point for mussel processors and policy makers. Environ Sci Foreign Pol-
icy. 2010;13(6):509-521. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.05.003
53. Lourguioui H, Brigolin D, Boulahdid M, Pastres R. A perspective for
reducing environmental impacts of mussel culture in Algeria. Int J Life
Cycle Assess. 2017;22(8):1266-1277. doi:10.1007/s11367-017-1261-7
54. Aubin J, Fontaine C, Callier M, Roque d'orbcastel EE. Blue mussel
(Mytilus edulis) bouchot culture in Mont-St Michel Bay: potential miti-
gation effects on climate change and eutrophication. Int J Life Cycle
Assess. 2018;23(5):1030-1041. doi:10.1007/s11367-017-1403-y
55. Tamburini E, Turolla E, Fano EA, Castaldelli G. Sustainability of mussel
(Mytilus galloprovincialis) farming in the Po River delta, northern Italy,
based on a life cycle assessment approach. Sustainability. 2020;12(9):
3814. doi:10.3390/SU12093814
56. Skirtun M, Sandra M, Strietman WJ, van den Burg SWK, De
Raedemaecker F, Devriese LI. Plastic pollution pathways from marine
aquaculture practices and potential solutions for the north-East
Atlantic region. Mar Pollut Bull. 2022;174:113178. doi:10.1016/J.
MARPOLBUL.2021.113178
57. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Fleet D,
Vlachogianni T, Hanke G. A Joint List of Litter Categories for Marine
Macrolitter Monitoring Manual for the Application of the Classification
System. Publication Office; 2021. doi:10.2760/127473
17535131, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.12816 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [19/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ARANTZAMENDI ET AL.
58. Arthur C, Baker J, Bamford H. Proceedings of the international
research workshop on the occurrence, effects, and fate of microplas-
tic marine debris. 2009;(January):530.
59. Bordo
s G, Urbányi B, Micsinai A, et al. Identification of microplastics
in fish ponds and natural freshwater environments of the Carpathian
basin, Europe. Chemosphere. 2019;216:110-116. doi:10.1016/J.
CHEMOSPHERE.2018.10.110
60. Ma J, Niu X, Zhang D, et al. High levels of microplastic pollution in
aquaculture water of fish ponds in the Pearl River Estuary of Guang-
zhou, China. Sci Total Environ. 2020;744:140679. doi:10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2020.140679
61. Wang F, Wang B, Duan L, et al. Occurrence and distribution of micro-
plastics in domestic, industrial, agricultural and aquacultural wastewa-
ter sources: a case study in Changzhou, China. Water Res. 2020;182:
115956. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2020.115956
62. Liwarska-Bizukojc E. Application of a small scale-terrestrial model
ecosystem (STME) for assessment of ecotoxicity of biobased plastics.
Sci Total Environ. 2022;828:154353. doi:10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.
2022.154353
63. Arcos-Hernandez MV, Laycock B, Pratt S, et al. Biodegradation in a
soil environment of activated sludge derived polyhydroxyalkanoate
(PHBV). Polym Degrad Stab. 2012;97(11):2301-2312. doi:10.1016/J.
POLYMDEGRADSTAB.2012.07.035
64. Huerta-Lwanga E, Mendoza-Vega J, Ribeiro O, Gertsen H, Peters P,
Geissen V. Is the polylactic acid fiber in green compost a risk for Lum-
bricus terrestris and Triticum aestivum? Polymers (Basel). 2021;13(5):1-
10. doi:10.3390/polym13050703
65. Satti SM, Shah AA, Marsh TL, Auras R. Biodegradation of poly(lactic
acid) in soil microcosms at ambient temperature: evaluation of natural
attenuation, bio-augmentation and bio-stimulation. J Polym Environ.
2018;26(9):3848-3857. doi:10.1007/s10924-018-1264-x
66. Liwarska-Bizukojc E. Effect of (bio)plastics on soil environment: a
review. Sci Total Environ. 2021;795:148889. doi:10.1016/J.
SCITOTENV.2021.148889
67. Edo C, Fernández-Piñas F, Rosal R. Microplastics identification and
quantification in the composted organic fraction of municipal solid
waste. Sci Total Environ. 2022;813:151902. doi:10.1016/J.
SCITOTENV.2021.151902
68. Capolupo M, Rafiq A, Coralli I, et al. Bioplastic leachates characteriza-
tion and impacts on early larval stages and adult mussel cellular, bio-
chemical and physiological responses. Environ Pollut. 2023;319:
120951. doi:10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2022.120951
69. Zimmermann L, Dombrowski A, Völker C, Wagner M. Are bioplastics
and plant-based materials safer than conventional plastics? In vitro
toxicity and chemical composition. Environ Int. 2020;145:106066.
doi:10.1016/J.ENVINT.2020.106066
70. Knowler D, Chopin T, Martínez-Espiñeira R, et al. The economics of
integrated multi-trophic aquaculture: where are we now and where
do we need to go? Rev Aquacult. 2020;12(3):1579-1594. doi:10.
1111/raq.12399
71. Escobar N, Haddad S, Börner J, Britz W. Land use mediated GHG
emissions and spillovers from increased consumption of bioplastics.
Environ Res Lett. 2018;13(12):125005. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/
aaeafb
72. EUMOFA. Fresh mussel in the EU. Case study. 2019. doi:10.2771/
855734
73. Moshood TD, Nawanir G, Mahmud F, Mohamad F, Ahmad MH,
Abdul Ghani AA. Expanding policy for biodegradable plastic products
and market dynamics of biobased plastics: challenges and opportuni-
ties. Sustainability. 2021;13(11):170. doi:10.3390/su13116170
74. European Commission. EU policy framework on biobased, biodegrad-
able and compostable plastics. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/
system/files/2022-12/COM_2022_682_1_EN_ACT_part1_v4.pdf.

ARANTZAMENDI ET AL.
75. Rosenboom JG, Langer R, Traverso G. Bioplastics for a circular econ-
omy. Nat Rev Mater. 2022;7(2):117-137. doi:10.1038/s41578-021-
00407-8
76. McAdam B, Brennan Fournet MB, McDonald P, Mojicevic M. Produc-
tion of polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) and factors impacting its chemical
and mechanical characteristics. Polymers (Basel). 2020;12(12):1-20.
doi:10.3390/polym12122908
77. Rutitis D, Smoca A, Uvarova I, Brizga J, Atstaja D, Mavlutova I. Sus-
tainable value chain of industrial biocomposite consumption: influ-
ence of COVID-19 and consumer behavior. Energies. 2022;15(2):466.
doi:10.3390/en15020466
78. Wellenreuther C, Wolf A, Zander N. Cost competitiveness of sustain-
able bioplastic feedstocks – a Monte Carlo analysis for polylactic acid.
Clean. Eng Technol. 2022;6:100411. doi:10.1016/j.clet.2022.100411
79. Escobar N, Britz W. Metrics on the sustainability of region-specific
bioplastics production, considering global land use change effects.
Resour Conserv Recycl. 2021;167:105345. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.
2020.105345
80. Moretti C, Junginger M, Shen L. Environmental life cycle assessment
of polypropylene made from used cooking oil. Resour Conserv Recycl.
2020;157:104750. doi:10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2020.104750
81. Lokesh K, Ladu L, Summerton L. Bridging the gaps for a “circular”
bioeconomy: selection criteria, biobased value chain and stakeholder
mapping. Sustainability. 2018;10(6):1695. doi:10.3390/su10061695
82. Morone P, Caferra R, D'Adamo I, Falcone PM, Imbert E, Morone A.
Consumer willingness to pay for biobased products: do certifications
matter? Int J Prod Econ. 2021;240:108248. doi:10.1016/J.IJPE.2021.
108248
83. Andrés M, Delpey M, Ruiz I, et al. Measuring and comparing solutions
for floating marine litter removal: lessons learned in the south-east
coast of the Bay of Biscay from an economic perspective. Mar. For-
eign Policy. 2021;127:104450. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104450
84. Ponce Oliva RD, Vasquez-Lavín F, San Martin VA, et al. Ocean acidifi-
cation, consumers' preferences, and market adaptation strategies in
the mussel aquaculture industry. Ecol Econ. 2019;158:42-50. doi:10.
1016/J.ECOLECON.2018.12.011
85. Regueiro L, Newton R, Soula M, et al. Opportunities and limitations
for the introduction of circular economy principles in EU aquaculture
based on regulatory framework. J Ind Ecol. Published Online; 2021.
doi:10.1111/JIEC.13188
86. Avdelas L, Avdic-Mravlje E, Borges Marques AC, et al. The decline of
mussel aquaculture in the European Union: causes, economic impacts
and opportunities. Rev Aquacult. 2021;13(1):91-118. doi:10.1111/
RAQ.12465
87. Paul-Pont I, Ghiglione JF, Gastaldi E, et al. Discussion about suitable
applications for biodegradable plastics regarding their sources, uses
17535131, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.12816 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [19/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1019
and end of life. Waste Manag. 2023;157:242-248. doi:10.1016/j.
wasman.2022.12.022
88. Bishop G, Styles D, Lens PNL. Environmental performance compari-
son of bioplastics and petrochemical plastics: a review of life cycle
assessment (LCA) methodological decisions. Resour Conserv Recycl.
2021;168:105451. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105451
89. Coltelli MB, Danti S, Trombi L, et al. Preparation of innovative skin
compatible films to release polysaccharides for biobased beauty
masks. Cosmetics. 2018;5(4):70. doi:10.3390/cosmetics5040070
90. Maga D, Hiebel M, Thonemann N. Life cycle assessment of recycling
options for polylactic acid. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2019;149:86-96.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.05.018
91. Rezvani Ghomi E, Khosravi F, Saedi Ardahaei A, et al. The life cycle
assessment for polylactic acid (PLA) to make it a low-carbon material.
Polymers (Basel). 2021;13(11):1-16. doi:10.3390/polym13111854
92. Hatti-Kaul R, Nilsson LJ, Zhang B, Rehnberg N, Lundmark S. Design-
ing biobased recyclable polymers for plastics. Trends Biotechnol. 2020;
38(1):50-67. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2019.04.011
93. Best practice framework for the management of aquaculture gear.
Accessed February 28, 2022. https://prod.repository.
oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/1728.
94. Lambert S, Wagner M. Environmental performance of biobased and
biodegradable plastics: the road ahead. Chem Soc Rev. 2017;46(22):
6855-6871. doi:10.1039/c7cs00149e
95. Correa-Pacheco ZN, Daniel J, Ortega-Gudiño P, Antonio M, Barajas-
Cervantes A. PLA/PBAT and cinnamon essential oil polymer fibers
and life-cycle assessment from hydrolytic degradation. Polymers
(Basel). 2020;12(38):3-32.
96. Ojala E, Uusitalo V, Virkki-Hatakka T. Assessing product environmen-
tal performance with PEF methodology: reliability, comparability, and
cost concerns. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2016;21(8):1092-1105. doi:10.
1007/s11367-016-1090-0
SUPPORTING INF ORMATION
Additional supporting information can be found online in the Support-
ing Information section at the end of this article.
How to cite this article: Arantzamendi L, Andrés M,
Basurko OC, Suárez MJ. Circular and lower impact mussel and
seaweed aquaculture by a shift towards bio-based ropes. Rev
Aquac. 2023;15(3):1010‐1019. doi:10.1111/raq.12816