Reprinted from

RESOURCE RECYCLING
www.resource-recycling.com

North Am ericas Recycling and Com posting Journal

Bio-based plastics:
Navigating the trade-offs
To move bio-plastics forward, several lifecycle issues surrounding these new products must be assessed beyond simple answers and easy fixes.

by Nina Bellucci Butler

io-based plastics will play a role in the path toward sustainability. As with most new developments though, integrating these new materials into popular usage will be complicated. From production of feedstock to end-of-life management, the trade-offs and impacts must be explored throughout a products lifecycle.

ity for some of the largest U.S. bio-based life. Nanotechnology may enable a plastic resin producers (e.g., NatureWorks PLA is to perform during a products life and then slowly working toward 300 million pounds degrade at a specified time, but the impact of per year), as compared to the more than 100 such nanoparticles on the environment is billion pounds of plastic produced in the U.S. unknown. each year. Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) are the Cost and limited performance capabilinewest family of biopolymers to approach ties, compared to conventional plastics, have commercialization. Through a joint venture restricted the expansion of bio-based plas- between Metabolix (Cambridge, MassachuBio-plastics in the tics. However, some bio-based resins recent- setts) and Archer Daniels Midland (Decatur, marketplace ly have become cost-competitive with con- Illinois), production of PHA is slated to be Cellulose and starch polymers have been ventional resins. And technological devel- online in 2008. Like PLA, PHA is produced around for nearly a century, but their use in opments, such as nanotechnology using sil- by fermentation; however, PHA is made packaging applications has grown only icon, may offer improved performance char- inside a living bacterial cell. According to recently, as they still face a steep growth curve Metabolix, the materials properties range acteristics. in order to achieve significant market share. One of the great conundrums with biofrom rigid thermoplastics to highly flexible Synthetic biopolymers and polylactic acid based plastic is the desire for the product to plastics. Metabolix plans to genetically mod(PLA) are being used in some plastic pack- be two things often at odds with each other: ify crops, such as switch grass, to "grow" age applications, but are still in the early Biodegradable, yet durable for the products plastics, raising concern about cross pollistages of commercialization. Bio-based and biodegradable plastics comprise less than one percent of the global Nina Bellucci Butler is a project manager at Moore Recycling Associates, Inc. (Sonoma, California). plastic market share. Consider current capac- She can be contacted at nina@moorerecycling.com.
Resource Recycling August 2007 1

nation with non-modified plants.

but at least the information necessary to make decisions that involve trade-offs is available. N e w p ro d u c ts fro m n e w Are we willing, for example, to accept genetically modified crops if it enables the U.S. to fe e d sto ck s Most bio-based plastic produced in the U.S. use a material made from renewable Bio-based Plastics produced using caris made from corn, although some compa- resources? bon that comes from contemporary (nonnies, such as Innovia (Tecumseh, Kansas) fossil) biological sources and may or may End-of-life issues and Eastman Chemical (Kingsport, Tennot be biodegradable. Carbon 14 signature nessee), make cellulose film and acetate from As consumption grows and plastics replace quantifies bio-based content. trees and cotton. Other crops promise high- other materials, plastic discards grow. Diser feedstock yield per acre, but corn remains carded plastic generally ends up in landfills, Biodegradable Biodegradable plastics are although an increasing amount is recycled or limited to plastics that convert to carbon the preferred feedstock at this time. dioxide, water and biomass through microOne acre produces about 10,248 pounds incinerated. Inaccuracies in reporting have of corn annually (or 183 bushels). Accord- many believing that landfills are clogged with bial digestion. They may or may not be bioplastic; however, according to the 2005 U.S. based. The American Society for Testing ing to NatureWorks (Minnetonka, MinEnvironmental Protection Agencys (Wash- and Materials (West Conshohocken, Pennnesota), 2.5 pounds of corn is used to prosylvania) has standards for bio-based and ington) waste characterization study, most duce one pound of resin. Growing enough waste is organic material, such as wood, yard biodegradability. corn to produce all the resin consumed Biopolymer Biopolymer is a term that trimmings, paper and food scraps. worldwide would require the landmass includes bio-based and some biodegradThe general public finds degradability a equivalent of about two or three mid-sized positive attribute, and is attracted to bio-based able plastics, as well as non-plastic materiU.S. states (145,000 square miles). al, such as proteins, lipids and DNA. Polyplastics for its potential degradability. The The U.S. enjoys a surplus of corn, but lactic acid is a biopolymer that also is a biodemand for corn will undoubtedly increase reality is that landfills are built to prevent degradation, but most fail eventually. When based and biodegradable plastic. as the world population grows, which is material eventually degrades in the absence reflected in high corn future prices. Most of oxygen, it produces methane, a potent beef cattle rely on corn-based feed, so riscontaminants, such as polyvinyl chloride ing beef consumption also impacts corn sup- greenhouse gas. (PVC) and potentially PLA, but this techFurther complicating matters, degradaply. Ethanol produced from corn is the othnology is not foolproof and not all facilities tion often requires very specific conditions. can afford the investment. er big variable. Government policies, including subsidies, Many bio-based plastics in the market only Of course, manufacturers of bio-plastics incentives or exemptions, will have a signif- degrade at the high temperatures found in are looking to enter the film and container icant impact on the development and use of commercial food scrap compost facilities, so markets because they represent the biggest crops for fuel, feed and material feedstocks. a switch to bio-plastics is not likely to solve opportunity for growth. However, indisThe uncertainty surrounding these policies solid waste or litter problems. criminate use of bio-based plastics in bottle In terms of recycling, plastics are light and, by extension, how these policies will and film applications may severely disrupt influence the marketplace makes project- weight and often voluminous, which presthe well-developed recycling infrastructure ing the likely growth trajectory of bio-based ents a challenge without densification capa- for plastic bottles and film (e.g., plastic bags), bilities for efficient collection and handling. which have a collection system. The annuplastics difficult. Without significant supply of material, al recovery of conventional plastic through investment in recycling equipment is diffi- the established collection and reclamations Lifecycle issues Beyond production limitations, the impact cult to justify. systems far exceeds the global production of Most plastic packaging falls within six of conventional agricultural practices on the bio-based plastic. main types (No. 1 through No. 6), and each environment, including water contaminaAt this time, plastic bottles made with tion, soil erosion and greenhouse emissions, type exhibits a wide range of characteristics. PLA have few good end-of-life options. Too Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) No. 1 bot- few PLA bottles are produced to warrant must also be considered. Corn production tles, for example, differ in material process- economically feasible separation measures requires fossil resources for fuel, fertilizer ing characteristics from PET No. 1 food trays. at material recovery facilities (MRFs), no and pesticides. The variety of resins and the low tolerance reclamation infrastructure exists and very Many lifecycle analyses for plastics, including bio-based, are limited to analyz- for contamination among types are some of few municipal compost systems accept PLA ing the impact up to the point of resin pellet the reasons plastics have a low recycling rate. bottles. Non-bio caps, rings and labels furConsequently, the most developed reclama- ther complicate the compost option. Regretproduction. These studies do not take into account other factors, such as product per- tion infrastructure for post-consumer plastic tably, most packaging ends up in landfills formance, as it relates to feedstock material materials exists for the largest plastic pack- and most bio-based packaging will likely aging categories: Containers (primarily bot- end up there, too. efficiency. If you simply need less of one tles) and film (e.g., bags and pallet wrap). material versus another to achieve desired product performance, then that should be fac- PLA bottles represent a threat to the well- Identifying critical packaging attributes developed PET container recycling infratored into the LCA analysis. End-of-life scenarios also have not been structure. Because both PLA and PET sink To illustrate the trade-offs in switching from conventional plastics to a bio-based plastic, addressed. If one material has a higher pos- in water (the PET recycling system uses a sibility of being recycled, how does this affectfloat/sink tank to separate the polypropylene consider the bottle application, which has the products total greenhouse gas emissions? lids from the PET bottle), the materials are created significant controversy in the recyThe complete lifecycle, from production of difficult to separate. PLA also melts at a low- cling community. A handful of companies er temperature than PET and is a contamiare bottling beverages, such as water or milk, feedstock through a products end of life, nant to the PET stream. Near infrared (NIR) in PLA rather than in conventional plastics. must be considered. technology helps some processors sort out One of the challenges is that the PLA bottle Identifying all of the lifecycle impacts does not necessarily lead to an easy choice,

Defining the terminology

Resource Recycling August 2007

Table 1

Weights on sub-objectives

Figure 1

Hierarchy chart of packaging criteria

Weight Environmental organizations score Environmental impact 4.50 Performance 0.30 Cost 0.25 Industry Environmental impact Performance Cost 0.32 0.34 0.33 Sub-objective Lowest cost Attributes Bottle production rate

Fundamental objective Identify top resin choice for bottle application Sub-objective Best performance Attributes Impact strength Sub-objective Lowest environmental impact Attributes Potential for post consumer recycled content

Source: Moore Recycling Associates Inc., 2007.

Shelf life: looks very similar to the PET bottle, but canResin cost Fossil resource use Water vapor not be recycled with PET. As mentioned pretransmission rate viously, PLAs presence in PET bales creates processing challenges for PET reclaimers. Bottle production Resin needed To understand the dilemma in more detail, Clarity cost for applications consider the following case study that compares PLA to three other conventional plastics in the bottle application. Shelf life: Recycling rate Within the bottle application, best resin Gas barrier choice serves as a fundamental objective. Since performance and cost are the two most Greenhouse gas commonly discussed aspects of packaging, emissions and with environmental impact becoming a more significant aspect of packaging, three natural sub-objectives emerge: Lowest cost, Source: Moore Recycling Associates, Inc., 2007. best performance and lowest environmental impact. To identify the most important packagple goals to achieve an overall goal. MAUT elicit true preferences (weights). In order to ing attributes within these sub-objective allows a decision maker to explore two or determine weights for each sub-objective and categories, key stakeholders were surveyed. more alternatives. Each alternative may have attribute for the survey respondents, each key Respondents included the for-profit sector, multiple characteristics, or measurable attrib- stakeholders rating was divided by the sum including directors of packaging or govutes, that contribute to the decision process. of all rates in the category, so that the weights ernment affairs for brand owners, trade Using a simple method like MAUT enables sum to one. To capture all of the respondents associations, retail companies and resin a decision maker to modify data or other preferences, all the weights were averaged manufacturers, while the not-for-profit sec- inputs with ease and transparency. yielding one value for each sub-objective and tor consisted of environmental advocacy MAUT assesses the relative priority the each attribute. organizations. decision maker places on one sub-objective The respondents rated the three sub-objec- over another and on one attribute over anothEvaluation of the tives between one and 10, with 10 indicating er. This value is referred to as the weight. the highest level of importance in contribut- The weight given to an attribute reflects the alternatives ing to a superior plastic bottle. They also rat- willingness to trade one attribute for anoth- Once the weights and scores were identified, the next step was to calculate the overall utiled a selection of plastic bottle attributes underer to achieve the fundamental objective. ity of each alternative. The plastic bottle types each of the three broad categories between For this analysis, proportional scoring one and 10. Packaging criteria that received was used, which relates data internally using selected for analysis were: consistently lower rates were omitted. The best or worst values per category. This scor- N Injection stretch-blown polyethylene terephthalate (PET #1) ing method assumes a risk-neutral attitude hierarchy chart in Figure 1 was developed N Extrusion blow-molded high-density polyfrom the survey of stakeholders. Both groups toward the final decision. Once data is norethylene (HDPE #2) rated environmental impact highest, then per- malized, each value is referred to as a score N Extrusion blow-molded polypropylene formance and cost last. The environmental (U). Below is the equation for proportion(PP # 5) organizations showed more disparity between al scoring: N Injection stretch-blown polylactic acid cost and environmental impact. Table 1 illus- U(x) = (x - worst) / (best - worst) (PLA #7). trates the rates given to each sub-objective by sector. The decision maker usually knows the scores and alternatives before determining weights, are used to make plastic beverH o w m u c h d o e s o n e a ttrib ufor the sake of capturing the views of a Many resinsbut the two most commonly used but te age bottles, wide audience, the process of eliciting conventional resins (HDPE and PET), as well m a tte r weights was simplified. Ideally, a decision a third resin (PP) that is picking up market compared to another? maker goes through a rigorous process to share, were used. Polylactic acid is the only The multiattribute utility theory (MAUT) is bio-based plastic resin currently used in botdesigned to address trade-offs among multiResource Recycling August 2007 3

tle applications. Table 2 illustrates all of the attributes and Comparison of four plastic beverage bottles corresponding scores, weights and the four alternatives. Each score multiplies the prod- Characteristic Weight Units HDPE PET PLA PP uct of the sub-objective weight and the attribEnvironmental ute weight. The sum of the product of each 0.40 score and combined weight within each alter- impact Greenhouse gas Tons per 100 year native yields the overall utility. A higher utilemissions 0.21 CO2 equivalent per ity indicates a more favorable choice. ton of resin 2.10 2.30 1.20 1.80 Bottle data and preferences are subject to Score 0.18 0.00 1.00 0.45 change. In fact, some data in the environmental 0.20 Potential for postsection are debatable since it represents pro- Recycled content consumer content no yes no no duction only to the point of the resin pellet Score 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 rather than the bottle, and does not take into Fossil resource 0.20 Tons of FRU per account the amount of resin used in the protons of material 0.94 0.94 0.86 1.00 duction of a bottle. PET has the highest utili- use Score 0.43 0.43 1.00 0.00 ty, indicating that PET is the most favorable Resin needed Density of resin choice given the preferences of those surveyed for application 0.20 used for bottles and the data available. Performance scores (gm/cm3) 0.97 1.37 1.24 0.93 contributed the most to PETs overall utility. Score 0.91 0.00 0.30 1.00 Modifying weights or bottle data will Percent 0.29 0.23 0.00 0.05 demonstrate sensitivity. For example, what Recycling rate 0.19 1.00 0.80 0.00 0.17 scores would have to improve for PLA to sur- Score Environmental utility 0.197 0.177 0.187 0.130 pass PET? Given the current set of data, Performance 0.30 PLAs cost and performance scores would cc-ml per m2 per 24 have to catch up to those of PET to achieve Shelf life: Gas barrier 0.26 hour atmosphere 150.00 10.00 60.00 200.00 a higher overall utility, but at what environ0.26 1.00 0.74 0.00 mental cost? Only a dramatic shift in weights Score Impact Elmemdorf tear could push PLA ahead at this time. strength 0.25 strength 120.00 2,600.00 64.00 600.00 Figure 2 offers another view of how 0.02 1.00 0.00 0.21 weights and scores contribute to the overall Score Shelf life: Water vapor gm-ml per m2 per utility. transmission 0.25 24 hour atmosphere 1.00 2.00 23.00 1.00 Score 1.00 0.93 0.00 0.99 Drawing conclusions Clarity 0.24 Level of haze 1.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 While the results of the case study above are 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 interesting, the more important outcome is Score Performance utility 0.097 0.295 0.130 0.126 the illustration of the elements in the deci0.30 sion. Data, preferences and alternatives will Cost Resin cost 0.34 Dollars per pound 0.59 0.70 0.75 0.69 change as new materials emerge, and as more Score 1.00 0.31 0.00 0.38 up-to-date data surfaces. 0.34 Dollars per Performance, however, cannot be ignored. Bottle cost 1,000 bottles 68.00 62.00 70.00 81.00 A package that fails to withstand impact durScore 0.68 1.00 0.58 0.00 ing shipment creates waste, which is costly Production rate 0.32 Pounds per hour both environmentally and economically. per machine 436.22 1,811.99 1,700.00 370.20 Cost of the bottle affects the price of the conScore 0.05 1.00 0.92 0.00 sumer product, which makes cost another Cost utility 0.176 0.231 0.148 0.038 important element since consumers are often 0.470 0.702 0.465 0.294 price sensitive. If political or technical devel- Overall utility opments improve manufacturers access to Source: Moore Recycling Associates Inc., 2007. bio-based plastics, with costs and performance comparable to conventional plastics, then the need for more robust approaches to weighing environmental trade-offs will grow. tic bag recycling programs, thus raising some lack the critical mass for recycling. Furthermore, these approaches need to keep concerns among composters. Perhaps more take-back programs, such reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, along as the drop-off programs at some Wild Oats with source reduction and conservation, as Is there a future for bio- Markets (Boulder, Colorado), could facilitate recovery of bio-plastic packaging. Of top objectives. based Unfortunately, not all biodegradable plascourse, such programs will depend on sigtic packaging is made with 100-percent bio- plastics? nificant growth in the composting infrabased plastics. According to Brenda Platt of PLA bottles in the marketplace are 100-per- structure. Perhaps the much needed growth the Institute for Local Self Reliance (Wash- cent bio-based, but currently have few good depends on clearly labeled, compostable plasend-of-life options. Bio-plastic packaging tic in food service applications that could carington), all commercially available, compostable plastic shopping bags contain some remains a long way from reaching the criti- ry food scraps to compost facilities. Curfossil-resource-based material. This blend- cal mass necessary to cost-effectively recov- rently, composters are ending up with recyed material is a serious contaminant to plas- er the packages through curbside recycling clables and recyclers are ending up with comprograms. The PVC, PP and PET bottles with barriers are examples of materials that

Table 2

Resource Recycling August 2007

postables. Bottles and Contribution of attributes values and weights to overall utilities film are very large markets for plastics, but risk Production rate significant disBottle cost ruption of existing recovery sysHDPE Resin cost tems. The potential for bio-based Clarity plastics extend Water rate well beyond botPET tles and film, and Impact strength even into the Gas barrier non-packaging world. Some truPLA Recycling rate ly exciting developments involve Resin needed bio-based plastics FRU Overall utility in durable appliPP cations (e.g., Recycled content computers or 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 GHG emission cellphones) that might displace Source: Moore Recycling Associates Inc., 2007. flame retardant materials. Clothin a sustainable way. ing, other fiber applications, electronics and tainable rate, merely displacing one mateRR anything not readily reusable or recyclable rial for another, may make us feel better, but will not solve the actual solid waste Reprinted with permission from also offer huge potential all without the Resource worry of disrupting existing plastic recycling challenges. Unfortunately, bio-based plasRecycling, P.O. Box 42270, Portland, OR tics are not an environmental panacea, but systems. 97242-0270; (503) 233-1305, (503) rather another avenue to explore for living Continued consumption at an unsus2331356 (fax); www.resourcerecycling.com.

Figure 2

Resource Recycling August 2007 5