Life cycle assessment of bio-based products: a disposable diaper case study

  • Nadia MirabellaEmail author
  • Valentina Castellani
  • Serenella Sala



In this study, a life cycle assessment of a bioplastic based diaper was performed. The product has several innovative elements, due to the implementation of eco-design principles, such as: (1) introduction of biopolymers (namely polylactic acid (PLA) and Mater-bi®), (2) relevant reduction of petrochemical plastics, and (3) minimization of energy consumptions and use of renewable energy in manufacturing. The aim of the study is to evaluate the environmental benefits gained through eco-innovation, while identifying further areas of improvement.


The bio-based diaper has been evaluated using a “cradle-to-gate” analysis. The functional unit is one diaper, assuming an average size among the different commercial options. A case study of an enterprise in Italy (WIP S.p.A) was carried out to collect as much reliable primary data as possible. In order to highlight potential areas of improvement and to compare the environmental performance of the product, a sensitivity analysis based on three different impact assessment methods (adopting ReCiPe 2008, IMPACT 2002+ and Cumulative Energy Demand (CED)) and a comparison with a standard commercial diaper were performed. Finally, three possible end-of-life scenarios including composting of WIP diaper were hypothesized and tested.

Results and discussion

Contribution analysis suggested that sourcing and production of raw materials used in WIP diaper manufacturing contributed most significantly to the potential environmental impacts. Adopting ReCiPe method, pulp, and sodium polyacrylate present the highest environmental burdens in WIP diaper system. Applying IMPACT2002+ method, PLA relative contribution to the toxicity increases, due to the generation of the electricity used in corn production and in PLA production phases. For both methods, impacts related to energy consumption of the WIP diapers’ production process look to be negligible. WIP diaper performance has room for improvement, since critical points were detected in the life cycle stages of raw materials used. However, the results of the normalization step, according to ReCiPe method, state that WIP diapers can bring environmental benefits, compared to standard ones. Moreover, if composting end-of-life scenario is included in the assessment, there is a significant improvement in WIP diaper environmental performance compared to a standard diaper.


Integrating eco-innovation and eco-design principles in the production of the bio-based diaper leads to a better environmental profile, compared to the standard one. Nevertheless, there are several areas of concerns to be considered in order to further improve its environmental performance. So far, the possible improvements identified from the case study are: (1) the selection of biopolymers suppliers with better production systems from an environmental point of view, (2) the reduction of distances along the supply chain, and (3) the implementation of composting procedures for the end of life. In conclusion, the introduction of biopolymers in diaper composition could lead them to be preferable compared to standard diapers, but criticisms arise, which need to be solved, to avoid the risk of burdens shifting.


Biopolymers Diaper LCA PLA 



We greatly appreciate the data supplied by Chiara Bambagioni, and we thank Marco Benedetti, who has designed and patented the WIP diaper, for the support given during the development of the present study.

Supplementary material

11367_2013_556_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (911 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 910 kb)


  1. Althaus HJ, Chudacoff M, Hischier R, Jungbluth N, Osses M, Primas A (2007) Life cycle inventories of chemicals. Ecoinvent report no. 8, v2.0 EMPA. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  2. Bang J K, Follér A, Buttazzoni M (2009) Industrial biotechnology: more than green fuel in a dirty economy? Exploring the transformational potential of industrial biotechnology on the way to a green economy. Published by WWF Denmark. Accessed Jan 2013
  3. Blumenthal K (2011) Generation and treatment of municipal waste. Eurostat, Statistics in Focus 31/2011.
  4. Buchholz FL (1996) Superabsorbent polymers. J Chem Educ 73(6):512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carus M, Piotrowski S (2009) Land use for bioplastics. Bioplastics MAGAZINE [04/09], vol. 4. Accessed Jan 2012
  6. Clancy G, Fröling M, Peters G, Svanström M (2010) Environmental challenges when developing renewable materials to replace non-renewable materials—receiving guidance from LCA studies. In: 9th Intern Conf EcoBalance 2010, 9–12 November, Tokyo, Japan. 2010Google Scholar
  7. Chen G, Patel MK (2012) Plastics derived from biological sources: present and future: a technical and environmental review. Chem Rev 112:2082–2099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dones R, Bauer C, Bolliger R, Burger B, Faist Emmenegger M, Frischknecht R, Heck T, Jungbluth N, Röder A, Tuchschmid M (2007) Life cycle inventories of energy systems: results for current systems in Switzerland and other UCTE countries. Ecoinvent report no. 5. Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  9. Dornburg V, Hermann BG, Patel MK (2008) Scenario projections for future market potentials of biobased bulk chemicals. Environ Sci Technol 42(7):2261–2267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. EC-JRC (2011) Recommendations based on existing environmental impact assessment models and factors for Life Cycle Assessment in European context. ILCD Handbook - International Reference Life Cycle Data System, European Union EUR24571EN. ISBN 978-92-79-17451-3. Available at
  11. EDANA (2007) Sustainability report 2007–2008—absorbent hygiene products. Accessed Sep 2011
  12. European Bioplastics (2010a) Fact sheet mechanical recycling. Accessed Nov 2012
  13. European Bioplastics (2010b) Feedstock recovery of post industrial and post consumer polylactide bioplastics. Accessed Jan 2013
  14. European Bioplastics (2011a) Accessed Sep 2011
  15. European Bioplastics (2011b) Closed loop systems and resource efficiency with bioplastics. Accessed Nov 2012
  16. Firbank Petit S, Smart S, Blain A, Fuller R (2008) Assessing the impacts of agricultural intensification on biodiversity: a British perspective. Philos Trans R Soc Biol Sci 363:777–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus H-J, Bauer C, Doka G, Dones R, Hischier R, Hellweg S, Humbert S, Köllner T, Loerincik Y, Margni M, Nemecek T (2007) Implementation of life cycle impact assessment methods. Ecoinvent report No. 3, v2.0. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  18. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008—a life cycle assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Accessed Jun 2011
  19. Groot W, Borén T (2010) Life cycle assessment of the manufacture of lactide and PLA biopolymers from sugarcane in Thailand. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:970–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harvey M, Pilgrim S (2011) The new competition for land: food, energy, and climate change. Food Policy 36:S40–S51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hauschild M, Goedkoop M, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Margni M, De Schryver A, Humbert S, Laurent A, Sala S, Pant R (2012) Best existing practice for characterization modelling in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-012-0489-5
  22. Hischier R (2007) Life cycle inventories of packagings and graphical papers. Ecoinvent report No. 11, v2.0 EMPA. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  23. Hughes JT, Navrotsky A (2011) Enthalpy formation of zinc acetate dehydrate. J Chem Thermodyn 43:980–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principals and framework. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  25. ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  26. 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(6):324–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kemp-Benedict E, Kartha S, Fencl A (2012) Biomass in a low-carbon economy. Resource Scarcity, Climate Change, and Business in a Finite World. Stockholm Environment Institute, Project Report—2012.
  28. Klinglmaier M, Sala S, Brandao M (2013) Assessing resource depletion in LCA: a review of methods and methodological issues. Int J Life Cycle Assess (in press)Google Scholar
  29. NatureWorksLLC (2011) Informations about Ingeo products, 2011. Accessed Apr–May 2011
  30. O’Brien K, Olive R, Hsu Y, Morris L, Bell R, Kendall N (2009) Life cycle assessment: reusable and disposable nappies in Australia. Accessed Jan 2012
  31. Parks L (1981) Cross-linked sodium polyacrylate absorbent. US Patent Document 4.295.987Google Scholar
  32. PRé Consultants (2008)
  33. Sala S, Marinov D, Pennington D (2011) Spatial differentiation of chemical removal rates from air in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(8):748–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sanderson R, Sadiku R (2003) Theoretical energy consideration of the gas-phase polymerization of sodium acrylate. J Appl Polym Sci 88:928–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shen L, Haufe J, Patel MK (2009) Product overview and market projection of emerging bio-based plastics. Final report. Commissioned by EPNOE (European Polysaccharide Network of Excellence) and European Bioplastics. Accessed Jan 2012
  36. Spielmann M, Bauer C, Dones R, Tuchschmid M (2007) Transport services. Ecoinvent report no. 14, v2.0 EMPA. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  37. Tecchio P, Foschia M, Talon O, Dejonghe S (2012) Lactic acid production by PLA-waste chemical recycling: environmental impact evaluation. Proceedings 2nd LCA Conference, 6–7 November 2012, Lille, France. ISBN 978-2-9543432-O-4Google Scholar
  38. Tillman D, Balzer C, Hill J, Befort BL (2011) Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. PNAS, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(50):20260–20264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. UK Environment Agency (2005) Science report reference: P1481. Life Cycle Assessment of disposable and reusable diapers in the UK. Bristol, UK.
  40. UK Environment Agency (2008) Science report reference: SC010018/SR2. An update Life Cycle Assessment study for disposable and reusable nappies. Bristol, UK.
  41. UNI EN 13432 (2002) Packaging. Requirements for packaging recoverable through composting and biodegradation. Test scheme and evaluation criteria for the final acceptance of packagingGoogle Scholar
  42. Vink E, Davis S, Kolstad J (2010) The eco-profile for current Ingeo polylactide production. Ind Biotechnol 6(4):212–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vink E, Rabago K, Glassner D, Gruber P (2003) Applications of life cycle assessment to NatureWorksTM polylactide (PLA) production. Polym Degrad Stabil 80:403–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weisbrod AV, Van Hoof G (2012) LCA-measured environmental improvements in pampers diapers. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nadia Mirabella
    • 1
    Email author
  • Valentina Castellani
    • 1
  • Serenella Sala
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Earth and Environmental ScienceUniversity of Milan – BicoccaMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations