Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Environmental impacts of conventional plastic and bio-based carrier bags

Part 2: end-of-life options


Background, aim, and scope

Worldwide, the production of biodegradable and compostable plastics has steadily grown. In Part 1 (Khoo et al. 2010), life cycle assessment (LCA) was applied to compare the production stages of a bio-based bag (made from polyhydroxyalkanoate or bio-plastic (PHA)) with polyethylene plastic bag. The scope of the study is within the context of Singapore and does not include other types of conventional or bio-based polymers (e.g., polylactic acid (PLA), thermoplastics, high-density polyethylene (HDPE), EPS, etc). This article (part 2) proposes to investigate the end-of-life options of both bags.

Materials and methods

For part 2, the same LCA methodology is used for the investigation. The LCA system for part 2 starts with disposal options: (1) land filling at Singapore’s offshore Semakau Island, (2) incineration, and the (3) composting of bio-bag. Two useful products, energy and compost, will be produced from options 2 and 3, respectively. While the energy from the incineration of both bags are fed back into the LCA production stage, compost from bio-bags can be used as a peat substitute, thus generating carbon dioxide savings from reduced peat production. The end-of-life environmental impacts were generated for global warming potential, acidification, and photochemical ozone formation. A landfill impact, based on Singapore’s offshore landfill capacity, was also generated. Next, the environmental impacts of the entire life cycle of both products are calculated for a few scenarios—from cradle-to-grave.


The highest end-of-life impacts are observed from the land filling of bio-bags. Next highest disposal impacts are from incineration, and least of all (minimal) from the composting of bio-bags. The greenhouse gas savings from peat substitutes derived from the compost material is rather insignificant. Overall, the cradle-to-grave results demonstrates that the environmental burdens generated from any of the disposal options are less significant compared to those from both products’ life cycle production stages.

Discussion and conclusions

Unless plans for energy recovery systems are in place, the least preferred route for the disposal of bio-bags are at landfills. From the trend of the final cradle-to-grave results, it can be claimed that the life cycle production of bio-bags from PHA can only be considered as environmentally friendly alternatives to conventional plastic bags if clean energy sources are supplied throughout its production processes. This claim was in agreement with other LCA work carried out for the life cycle production of PHA, with the supply of energy by corn stover waste or the consideration of wind power supply in the replacement of grid electricity. It was also observed, however, that some of the results in this article vary from other LCA work carried out by other authors. Some of the reasons included variations in LCA scope and the different range of materials investigated (PLA, HDPE, and thermoplastic starch).

Recommendations and perspectives

Presently, the wide range of LCA work carried out on biodegradable polymers differs considerably in the amount of reported background data and the level of detail concerning the LCA system and production methods. A globally accepted as well as concerted effort to describe in detail the life cycle production steps involved, disposal options, type of energy supplied to the production chain, for a well-selected range of polymer materials should be conducted. Meanwhile, it is recommended that a conservative approach is required in introducing bio-based carrier bags as a solution for solving plastic waste issues. Future LCA investigations should also look into the reuse of carrier bags, which is anticipated to bring much greater environmental and sustainable benefit than the replacement of bio-bags with plastic ones.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8


  1. Akiyama M, Tsuge T, Doi Y (2003) Environmental life cycle comparison of polyhydroxyalkanoates produced from renewable carbon resources by bacterial fermentation. Polym Degrad Stab 80:183–194

  2. Bjarnadóttir, H.J.; Friðriksson, G.B.; Johnsen, T.; Sletsen, H. (2002) Guidelines for the use of LCA in the waste management sector. Nordtest Report No. 517, Nordtest, Tekniikantie 12, FIN–02150 Espoo: FN.

  3. Comstock, K.; Farrell, D.; Godwin, C.; Xi, Y. (2004) From hydrocarbons to carbohydrates: food packaging of the future. Accessed Aug 2008.

  4. Davis G, Song JH (2006) Biodegradable packaging based on raw materials from crops and their impact on waste management. Ind Crops Prod 23:147–161

  5. Dewulf J, van Langenhove H (2002) Assessment of the sustainability of technology by means of a thermodynamically based life cycle analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res 4:267–273

  6. Dornburg V, Lewandowski I, Patel M (2004) Comparing the land requirements, energy savings, and greenhouse gas emissions reduction of biobased polymers and bioenergy. Ind Crops Prod 7:93–116

  7. Gross RA, Kalra B (2002) Biodegradable polymer for the environment. Science 2002(297):803–807

  8. Hatti-Kaul R, Törnvall U, Gustafsson L, Börjesson P (2007) Industrial biotechnology for the production of bio-based chemicals—a cradle-to-grave perspective. Trends biotechnol 25:119–124

  9. Hauschild, M.; Potting, J. (2003) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment—the EDIP2003 methodology. Institute for Product Development Technical University of Denmark.

  10. James K.; Grant, T. (2005) LCA for Biodegradable Plastic Bags, Centre for Design, RMIT, Australia. Accessed April 2009.

  11. Kale G, Kijchavengkul T, Auras R, Rubino M, Selke SE, Singh SP (2007) Compostability of bioplastic packaging materials: an overview. Macromol Biosci 7:255–277

  12. Khoo HH, Tan RBH, Chng KWL (2010) Environmental impacts of conventional plastic and bio-based carrier bags—part 1: life cycle production. Int J Life Cycle Assess (in press)

  13. Kurdikar D, Paster M, Gruys KJ, Fournet L, Gerngross TU, Slater SC, Coulon R (2001) Greenhouse gas profile of polymer derived from a genetically modified plant. J Ind Ecol 4:107–122

  14. Lens, P.N.L.; Hamelers, H.V.M.; Hoitink, H.; Bidlingmaier, W. (2004) Resource recovery and reuse in organic solid waste management, IWA Publishing.

  15. Lombardi L, Carnevale E, Corti A (2006) Greenhouse effect reduction and energy recovery from waste landfill. Energy 31:3208–3219

  16. Machado SL, Carvalho MF, Gourc JP, Vilar OM, do Nascimento JCF (2009) Methane generation in tropical landfills: simplified methods and field results. Waste Manag 29:153–161

  17. Murphy R.; Bartle, I. (2004) Biodegradable polymers and sustainability: insights from life cycle assessment, Imperial College, London. Accessed April 2009.

  18. National Environment Agency, NEA (2008) Waste Management Department

  19. Obersteiner G, Binner E, Mostbauer P, Salhofer S (2007) Landfill modeling in LCA—a contribution based on empirical data. Waste Manag 27:S58–S74

  20. Rudnick, E. (2008) Compostable polymer materials, Elsevier Science.

  21. Schleiss, K. (2008), GHG savings from biological treatment and application of compost, prod. moving organic waste recycling towards resource management and biobased economy, 6th Intl. Conf., ECN/ORBIT e.V. Workshop, Oct 13-15, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

  22. Statistics Singapore. Government of Singapore (2008) Accessed Aug 2008.

  23. Udo de Haes H.A, Finnveden G., Goedkoop M., Hauschild M., Hertwich E., Hofstetter P., Jolliet O., Klöpffer W., Krewitt W., Lindeijer E., Mueller-Wenk R., Olsen I., Pennington D., Potting J., Steen B. (eds) (2002) Life cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. SETAC Publications

  24. White PR, Franke M, Hindle P (1994) Integrated solid waste management: a life cycle inventory. Blackie Academic and Professional, London: UK

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Hsien Hui Khoo.

Additional information

Part 1: life cycle production

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Khoo, H.H., Tan, R.B.H. Environmental impacts of conventional plastic and bio-based carrier bags. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15, 338–345 (2010).

Download citation


  • Bio-plastic (PHA)
  • Composting
  • End-of-life
  • Incineration
  • Landfill
  • Polyethylene plastic (PP)