May 2010, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 346-358,
Open Access This content is freely available online to anyone, anywhere at any time.
Date: 25 Mar 2010
Twisting biomaterials around your little finger: environmental impacts of bio-based wrappings
Background, aim, and scope
Packaging uses nearly 40% of all polymers, a substantial share of which is used for sensitive merchandise such as moisture-sensitive food. To find out if bio-based materials are environmentally advantageous for this demanding application, we compared laminated, printed film across the whole life cycle.
Materials and methods
We compared bio-based materials (paper, polylactic acid, bio-based polyethylene, and a bio-based polyester) as well as conventional ones (polypropylene, polyethylene). Data stemmed from 13 companies that produce raw materials, films and/or laminates and which co-operated with us in a project commissioned by a large food producer. The functional unit chosen for this study is 1 m2 of packaging film. This is (mostly) laminated, printed film that is delivered on reels to the food industry, where the laminate is cut, sealed and filled. The impact assessment is presented for non-renewable energy use, total energy use, global warming potential, depletion of abiotic resources, photo-oxidant formation, acidification, eutrophication, water use, and land use.
For Inner Packs that get in direct contact with food and therefore require certain barrier properties, the environmental performance of many laminates is not better than the reference, petrochemical material. However, our study shows that paper/polypropylene laminates perform equally well as the current material (polypropylene) if the material is landfilled, and better if incinerated with energy recovery. For Outer Packs, bio-based polyethylene film shows a particularly low environmental impact. Paper/bio-based polyester laminates also offer significant savings compared with the current material. For Inner as well as Outer Packs, laminates including polylactic acid offer environmental advantages when accounting for wind credits or when assuming a future technology level for polymer or film production.
Increased technology maturity of PLA and cellulose in the film production stage offers significant environmental improvement with respect to global warming potential compared with today’s technology. Though large, the uncertainty regarding the degree of degradation of paper, cellulose, PLA and bio-based polyester, is not decisive for the conclusions.
Conclusions and recommendations
Generally, laminates and films (partly) consisting of bio-based polymers offer opportunities for significantly reducing environmental impacts of food packaging. Large variations in land-use are possible depending on the type of bio-based material that is used. The environmental advantages differ depending on the polymer and the final product (Inner vs. Outer Pack). Lack of experience and investment in converting bio-based polymers into final products and comparatively unfavourable material properties result in lower environmental advantages for some novel bio-based materials than one may expect. However, a) already today, the options with the lowest global warming potential are partly or fully bio-based and b) bio-based materials will benefit more from technological progress than conventional materials, potentially making certain bio-based laminates highly attractive options for the future. Overall, Outer Packs are more promising than Inner Packs when introducing bio-based wrappings to replace the current petrochemical material because a) the opportunities are clearer for this application and b) the product specifications (required barrier properties) are less demanding. Starting with the Outer Packs would also allow bio-based polymer producers and processors to invest and learn, thus offering the opportunity to reduce the environmental impact even further.
Bohlmann GM (2004) Biodegradable packaging life-cycle assessment. Environ Prog 23:342–346CrossRef
Boustead I (1999–2005) Eco-profiles of plastics and related intermediates (about 55 products). Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (PlasticsEurope), Brussels
Dornburg V, Lewandowski I, Patel M (2003) Comparing the land requirements, energy savings, and greenhouse gas emissions reduction of biobased polymers and bioenergy – an analysis and system extension of life-cycle assessment studies. J Ind Ecol 7:93–116CrossRef
Dreyer LC, Niemann AL, Hauschild M (2003) Comparison of three different LCIA methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco-indicator 99. Does it matter which one you choose? Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:191–200CrossRef
Eurostat (2008) Municipal waste treatment, by type of treatment method, 1995–2006. European Commission
Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn H, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ, Lindeijer EW, Roorda AAH, van der Ven BL, Weidema BP (2001) Life cycle assessment – an operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
Gustafsson L, Börjesson G (2007) Life cycle assessment in green chemistry – a comparison of various wood surface coatings. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:151–159CrossRef
Hermann BG, Patel MK (2007) Confidential report: life cycle assessment of packaging films. Utrecht University, Utrecht
Hermann BG, Blok K, Patel MK (2007) Producing bio-based bulk chemicals using industrial biotechnology saves energy and combats climate change. Environ Sci Technol 41:7915–7921CrossRef
IEA (2003) Energy balances OECD countries, 2000–2001. OECD/IEA, Paris
Iovino R, Zullo R, Rao MA, Cassar L, Gianfreda L (2008) Biodegradation of poly(lactic acid)/starch/coir biocomposites under controlled composting conditions. Polym Degrad Stab 93:147–157CrossRef
Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2003) IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:324–330CrossRef
Käb H, Lichtl M, Reske J, Klauß M (2002) Kompostierbare Verpackungen – Das Modellprojekt Kassel – Ergebnisse und Perspektiven. In: Wiemer K, Kern M (eds) Bio- und Restabfallbehandlung VI. M.I.C. Baeza Verlag, Witzenhausen, pp 149–163
Kale G, Auras R, Singh SP (2007) Comparison of the degradability of poly(lactide) packages in composting and ambient exposure conditions. Packag Technol Sci 20:49–70CrossRef
Kim S, Dale BE (2005a) Life cycle assessment study of biopolymers (PHA) – derived from no-tilled corn. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:200–210CrossRef
Kim S, Dale BE (2005b) Life cycle assessment of various cropping systems utilized for producing biofuels: bioethanol and biodiesel. Biomass & Bioenergy 29:426–439CrossRef
Kloverpris J, Wenzel H, Nielsen PH (2008) Life cycle inventory modelling of land use induced by crop consumption: Part 1: conceptual analysis and methodological proposal. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:13–21CrossRef
Mila i Canals L (2003) Contributions to LCA methodology for agricultural systems – site-dependency and soil degradation impact assessment. Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, p 117
Mila i Canals L, Bauer C, Depestele J, Dubreuil A, Knuchel RF, Gaillard G, Michelsen O, Müller-Wenk R, Rydgren B (2007) Key elements in a framework for land use impact assessment within LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:5–15CrossRef
Mila i Canals L, Chenoweth J, Chapagain A, Orr S, Anton A, Clift R (2009) Assessing freshwater use impacts in LCA: Part I—inventory modelling and characterisation factors for the main impact pathways. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:28–42CrossRef
Patel M, Crank M, Dornburg V, Hermann BG, Roes L, Hüsing B, Overbeek L, Terragni F, Recchia E (2006) Medium and long-term opportunities and risks of the biotechnological production of bulk chemicals from renewable resources – The potential of White Biotechnology. Utrecht University, Utrecht, The BREW Project
Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 43:4098–4104CrossRef
PlasticsEurope (2008) The compelling facts about plastics – an analysis of plastics production, demand and recovery for 2006 in Europe. PlasticsEurope
Schmidtbauer J (1997) Clean production of Rayon – an eco-inventory. Lenzinger Berichte 76:27–32
Schut JH (2008) What’s ahead for ‘Green’ plastics – look for more supply, more varieties, better properties. Plast Technol 54:64–89
SimaPro (2007) Inventory database. SimaPro Software
Vink ETH, Rábago KR, Glassner DA, Gruber PR (2003) Applications of life cycle assessment to NatureWorks(TM) polylactide (PLA) production. Polym Degrad Stab 80:403–419CrossRef
Vink ETH, Glassner DA, Kolstad JJ, Wooley R, O’Connor RP (2007) The eco-profiles for current and near-future NatureWorks® polylactide (PLA) production. Ind Biotechnol 3:58–81CrossRef
- Twisting biomaterials around your little finger: environmental impacts of bio-based wrappings
- Open Access
- Available under Open Access This content is freely available online to anyone, anywhere at any time.
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
Volume 15, Issue 4 , pp 346-358
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Life cycle assessment
- Polylactic acid
- Industry Sectors