| Title | Life cycle assessment of PE and PP multi film compared with PLA and PLA reinforced with nanoclays film |
|---|---|
| ID_Doc | 25597 |
| Authors | Bala, A; Arfelis, S; Oliver-Ortega, H; Méndez, JA |
| Title | Life cycle assessment of PE and PP multi film compared with PLA and PLA reinforced with nanoclays film |
| Year | 2022 |
| Published | |
| Abstract | Plastic has become essential for our economy and the packaging industry. However, plastic use is linked to environmental problems such as waste generation and loss of resources, since only 42% of the plastic used for packaging purposes is recycled. Another problem associated with the use of plastic materials is caused by their abandonment in the environment since they are non-degradable polymers. This paper analyses the environ-mental performance of using biodegradable poly-lactic acid bags, pure (PLA) and reinforced with nanoclays (PLA + NC), in comparison to conventional alternatives made of polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP) for being used to pack fresh bakery products. The results reveal that for Climate Change and Fossil Resources use, PLA + NC performs better than the alternatives. In the case of Climate Change, it has 45% less impact than low density polyethylene (LDPE), 39% less than PP, and 2% less than PLA. However, the use of PLA + NC, results in higher impacts on Land Use and Water Use, because this is produced from crops. Compared with PLA, PLA + NC has 5% less impact on these impact categories, but between 99 and 100% more impact on Land Use and between 79 and 81% more impact on Water use than PP and LDPE. Thus, poly-lactic acid bags reinforced with nanoclays are shown as an alternative for fossil-based polymers (PE and PP) for certainty type of applications when we focus on Climate Change and Fossil resources use reduction. In this sense, the results also reveal that the most environmentally friendly end-of-life for PLA and PLA + NC is incineration instead of composting. |
Similar Articles
| ID | Score | Article |
|---|---|---|
25790
|
Atabay, D; Rosentrater, KA; Ghnimi, S The sustainability debate on plastics: Cradle to grave Life Cycle Assessment and Techno-Economical Analysis of PP and PLA polymers with a "Polluter Pays Principle" perspective(2022) | |
| 26699
|
Stefanini, R; Paini, A; Vignali, G Plastic Versus Bioplastic as Packaging for Sanitary Products: The Environmental Impacts Comparison(2024)Packaging Technology And Science, 37, 7 | |
| 23177
|
Fonseca, A; Ramalho, E; Gouveia, A; Figueiredo, F; Nunes, J Life Cycle Assessment of PLA Products: A Systematic Literature Review(2023)Sustainability, 15, 16 | |
| 6147
|
Schwarz, A; Ferjana, S; Kunst, J Life cycle assessment of advanced grade PLA product with novel end-of-life treatment through depolymerization(2023) | |
| 6153
|
Bishop, G; Styles, D; Lens, PNL Environmental performance of bioplastic packaging on fresh food produce: A consequential life cycle assessment(2021) | |
| 18564
|
Helmes, RJK; Goglio, P; Salomoni, S; van Es, DS; Gursel, IV; Aramyan, L Environmental Impacts of End-of-Life Options of Biobased and Fossil-Based Polyethylene Terephthalate and High-Density Polyethylene Packaging(2022)Sustainability, 14.0, 18 | |
| 15403
|
Kakadellis, S; Harris, ZM Don't scrap the waste: The need for broader system boundaries in bioplastic food packaging life-cycle assessment - A critical review(2020) | |
| 16507
|
Michaliszyn-Gabrys, B; Krupanek, J; Kalisz, M; Smith, J Challenges for Sustainability in Packaging of Fresh Vegetables in Organic Farming(2022)Sustainability, 14, 9 | |
| 4918
|
Spierling, S; Venkatachalam, V; Mudersbach, M; Becker, N; Herrmann, C; Endres, HJ End-of-Life Options for Bio-Based Plastics in a Circular Economy-Status Quo and Potential from a Life Cycle Assessment Perspective(2020)Resources-Basel, 9, 7 | |
| 20668
|
Maga, D; Hiebel, M; Aryan, V A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Meat Trays Made of Various Packaging Materials(2019)Sustainability, 11, 19 |