Life Cycle Assessment of Biodegradable Polylactic Acid (PLA) Plastic Packaging Products—Taking Tianjin, China as a Case Study

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2022.03.008

Abstract

Abstract:

In this paper, the life cycle assessment (LCA) method is used to evaluate and quantify the energy consumption and environmental impacts of biodegradable polylactic acid (PLA) plastic packaging from the five stages of raw material acquisition, raw material transportation, product production, products use and final disposal. Seven impact categories were selected for the impact analysis: abiotic depletion potential fossil fuels (ADP), global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), photochemical ozone formation potential (POCP), human toxicity potential (HTP), and terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TETP). The results of the LCA are discussed and the results show that production of products is the highest stage of the environmental impact. Meanwhile, in the entire life cycle, the top three environmental impact categories are GWP, ADP and HTP, which account for 32.63%, 24.83% and 14.01%, respectively. The LCA results show that the environmental impact can be reduced in several ways: reducing the consumption of electricity, increasing the input of new energy, increasing the conversion rate of materials in the production process, using organic and water-soluble fertilizers instead of conventional fertilizers, using environment-friendly fuels and establishing a sound recycling system.

Key words: life cycle assessment, energy consumption, environmental impacts, polylactic acid, plastic packaging

ZHAO Menglei, YANG Zeng, ZHAO Jingnan, WANG Yan, MA Xiaolei, GUO Jian. Life Cycle Assessment of Biodegradable Polylactic Acid (PLA) Plastic Packaging Products—Taking Tianjin, China as a Case Study[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2022, 13(3): 428-441.

Figures/Tables 18

References 34

[1]	Akiyama M, Tsuge T, Doi Y. 2003. Environmental life cycle comparison of polyhydroxyalkanoates produced from renewable carbon resources by bacterial fermentation. Polymer Degradation and Stability, 80(1): 183-194. DOI URL
[2]	Bertoluci G, Leroy Y, Olsson A. 2014. Exploring the environmental impacts of olive packaging solutions for the European food market. Journal of Cleaner Production, 64: 234-243. DOI URL
[3]	Chen S M, Liu Z Q. 2000. The Life Cycle Assessment study of plastic and paper packaging materials. Journal of Nanchang Institute of Aeronautical Technology, (3): 82-84. (in Chinese)
[4]	China Plastics Processing Industry Association. 2018. China plastics processing industry (2017). China Plastics, 32(4): 1-5. (in Chinese)
[5]	Duan N, Cheng S G. 2008. Outline and contrast analysis of life cycle assessment methodologies. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 36(32): 13923-13925. (in Chinese)
[6]	EPRO (European Association of Plastics Recycling and Recovery Organisations). 2018. Plastic Europe 2018: Plastics-The facts. Brussels, Belgium: Association of Plastic Manufacturers.
[7]	EPRO (European Association of Plastics Recycling and Recovery Organisations). 2019. Plastic Europe 2019: Plastics-The facts. Brussels, Belgium: Association of Plastic Manufacturers.
[8]	Guinee J B. 2002. Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 7(5): 311-313. DOI URL
[9]	Haes H. 1999. Weighting in life cycle assessment: Is there a coherent perspective? Journal of Industrial Ecology, 3(2): 3-7. DOI URL
[10]	He H J, Wang X J, Kou S R. 2017. Effects of different planting densities on photosynthetic characteristics and yield of maize in arid areas of northwest China. Crop Journal, (6): 91-95. (in Chinese)
[11]	Hermann B G, Blok K, Patel M K. 2010. Twisting biomaterials around your little finger: Environmental impacts of bio-based wrappings. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(4): 346-358. DOI URL
[12]	Huppes G, Van Oers L. 2011. Evaluation of weighting methods for measuring the EU-27 overall environmental impact. Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
[13]	Ingrao C, Gigli M, Siracusa V. 2017. An attributional life cycle assessment application experience to highlight environmental hotspots in the production of foamy polylactic acid trays for fresh-food packaging usage. Journal of Cleaner Production, 150: 93-103. DOI URL
[14]	Ingrao C, Tricase C, Cholewa-Wójcik A, et al. 2015. Polylactic acid trays for fresh-food packaging: A carbon footprint assessment. Science of the Total Environment, 537: 385-398. DOI URL
[15]	International Organization for Standardization. 2006. Environmental management-Life cycle assessment-Principles and framework (ISO 14040:2006). Berlin, Germany: Deutsches Institut für Normung.
[16]	Jiang Z H. 2010. Application and market prospect of polylactic acid. Shanghai Chemical Industry, 35(2): 37-38. (in Chinese)
[17]	Li M Y, Zhang Y, Zhu L, et al. 2017. Feasibility study on PLA in express packaging application. Green Packaging, (11): 37-41. (in Chinese)
[18]	Li X R. 2020. Jindan technology: Overlapping “packaging” of polylactic acid by customers and rival. Stock Market Dynamics Analysis, (3): 46-47. (in Chinese)
[19]	Li Z Y, Wang X, Wei J, et al. 2010. Life cycle assessment of fertilization in corn production in different regions of China. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 30(9): 1912-1920. (in Chinese)
[20]	Lu H X. 2016. Development and trends of biodegradable polymers. Chemical Industry, 34(3): 7-14. (in Chinese)
[21]	Ma L P, Wang Z H, Gong X Z,et al. 2006. Life cycle inventory analysis of two types of freight transport on city roads. Beijing, China: Chinese Materials Research Society. (in Chinese)
[22]	Mahalle L, Alemdar A, Mihai M, et al. 2014. A cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of wood fibre-reinforced polylactic acid (PLA) and polylactic acid/thermoplastic starch (PLA/TPS) biocomposites. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(6): 1305-1315. DOI URL
[23]	Martien V D O, Karin M, Maarten V D Z, et al. 2017. Bio-based and biodegradable plastics: Facts and figures. Wageningen, Netherlands: Wageningen Food & Biobased Research.
[24]	Meng X C. 2010. Life cycle assessment of polycarbonate and polylactic acid. Diss., Beijing, China, Beijing University of Technology. (in Chinese)
[25]	Navajas A, Bernarte A, Arzamendi G, et al. 2014. Ecodesign of PVC packing tape using life cycle assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(1): 218-230. DOI URL
[26]	Rossi V, Cleeve-Edwards N, Lundquist L, et al. 2015. Life cycle assessment of end-of-life options for two biodegradable packaging materials: Sound application of the European waste hierarchy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 86: 132-145. DOI URL
[27]	Shen F Q. 2013. Polylactic acid market overview and technical development. Polyester Industry, 26(4): 8-10. (in Chinese)
[28]	Sonnemann G, Valdivia S. 2017. Medellin declaration on marine litter in life cycle assessment and management. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 22(10): 1637-1639. DOI URL
[29]	Wang Y, Jiang H B, Chen D M, et al. 2017. Technology and market analysis on PLA. Biotechnology & Business, (6): 17-22. (in Chinese)
[30]	Xu H Y. 2018. Development report on treatment industry of urban domestic refuse in 2017. China Environmental Protection Industry, (7): 5-9. (in Chinese)
[31]	Yang J X, Nielsen P H. 2001. Chinese life cycle impact assessments factors. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 13(2): 205-209.
[32]	Zhang J F, Li X, He Y F, et al. 2018. Physiological mechanism on drought tolerance enhanced by exogenous glucose in C₄-pepc rice. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 44(1): 82-94. (in Chinese) DOI URL
[33]	Zheng X, Li X G, Wu Y Q. 2014. Natural degradation properties of polylactic acid. Journal of Functional Materials, (14): 14099-14102. (in Chinese)
[34]	Zhou X. 2014. New plastic material-polylactic acid application analysis. Chemical Enterprise Management, (23): 167. (in Chinese)

Type	Substances	Life cycle stages
		Raw material acquisition	Transportation of raw material	Product production	Product use	Final disposal		Total
		Raw material acquisition	Transportation of raw material	Product production	Product use	Landfill	Incineration	Total
Resources	Coal	2.05×10²	1.99	2.88×10³	0.13	7.75×10^‒2	9.48×10^‒3	3.08×10³
	Crude oil	16.10	55.00	4.84×10²	3.65	2.14	0.26	5.61×10²
	Natural gas^*	1.59	3.31×10^‒3	35.30	2.20×10^‒4	1.29×10^‒4	1.58×10^‒5	36.80
	CO₂^**	‒4.15×10³	0	0	0	0	0	‒4.15×10³
Air emissions	CO₂	1.59×10³	1.40×10²	2.84×10³	7.42	9.12	5.91×10²	5.18×10³
	CO	0.91	0.74	12.80	0.93	0.54	6.64×10^‒2	15.98
	CH₄	0.59	1.43×10^‒2	11.90	1.95×10^‒3	2.26	1.40×10^‒4	14.77
	N₂O	21.70	4.05×10^‒3	0.00	5.40×10^‒4	3.17×10^‒4	3.88×10^‒5	21.70
	SO₂	2.24	0.15	41.60	4.97×10^‒3	2.92×10^‒3	3.57×10^‒4	43.99
	NO_X	6.31	3.15	34.20	6.40×10^‒2	3.75×10^‒2	4.59×10^‒3	43.76
	SO_X	4.12	0	0	0	0	0	4.12
	PO₄^3‒	0.35	0	0	0	0	0	0.35
	NO₃^‒	4.76	0	0	0	0	0	4.76
	NH₃	4.23	0	0	0	0	0	4.23
	NMVOC	1.09×10^‒2	0.56	1.49	0.18	0.11	1.29×10^‒2	2.35
	Dust	0.30	1.47×10²	0.40	25.30	14.80	1.81	2.29×10²
Water emissions	Cu	1.61	0	0	0	0	0	1.61
	Zn	2.31	0	0	0	0	0	2.31
	Cd	0.33	0	0	0	0	0	0.33
	Pb	1.76×10^‒2	0	0	0	0	0	1.76×10^‒2
	Waste liquid	54.70	32.10	6.08×10³	2.14	1.25	0.15	6.17×10³
	Waste sludge	3.44	0.32	4.46×10²	2.15×10^‒2	1.26×10^‒2	1.54×10^‒3	4.50×10²

Type	Substances	Life cycle stages
		Raw material acquisition	Transportation of raw material	Product production	Product use	Final disposal		Total
		Raw material acquisition	Transportation of raw material	Product production	Product use	Landfill	Incineration	Total
Resources	Coal	2.05×10²	1.99	2.88×10³	0.13	7.75×10^‒2	9.48×10^‒3	3.08×10³
	Crude oil	16.10	55.00	4.84×10²	3.65	2.14	0.26	5.61×10²
	Natural gas^*	1.59	3.31×10^‒3	35.30	2.20×10^‒4	1.29×10^‒4	1.58×10^‒5	36.80
	CO₂^**	‒4.15×10³	0	0	0	0	0	‒4.15×10³
Air emissions	CO₂	1.59×10³	1.40×10²	2.84×10³	7.42	9.12	5.91×10²	5.18×10³
	CO	0.91	0.74	12.80	0.93	0.54	6.64×10^‒2	15.98
	CH₄	0.59	1.43×10^‒2	11.90	1.95×10^‒3	2.26	1.40×10^‒4	14.77
	N₂O	21.70	4.05×10^‒3	0.00	5.40×10^‒4	3.17×10^‒4	3.88×10^‒5	21.70
	SO₂	2.24	0.15	41.60	4.97×10^‒3	2.92×10^‒3	3.57×10^‒4	43.99
	NO_X	6.31	3.15	34.20	6.40×10^‒2	3.75×10^‒2	4.59×10^‒3	43.76
	SO_X	4.12	0	0	0	0	0	4.12
	PO₄^3‒	0.35	0	0	0	0	0	0.35
	NO₃^‒	4.76	0	0	0	0	0	4.76
	NH₃	4.23	0	0	0	0	0	4.23
	NMVOC	1.09×10^‒2	0.56	1.49	0.18	0.11	1.29×10^‒2	2.35
	Dust	0.30	1.47×10²	0.40	25.30	14.80	1.81	2.29×10²
Water emissions	Cu	1.61	0	0	0	0	0	1.61
	Zn	2.31	0	0	0	0	0	2.31
	Cd	0.33	0	0	0	0	0	0.33
	Pb	1.76×10^‒2	0	0	0	0	0	1.76×10^‒2
	Waste liquid	54.70	32.10	6.08×10³	2.14	1.25	0.15	6.17×10³
	Waste sludge	3.44	0.32	4.46×10²	2.15×10^‒2	1.26×10^‒2	1.54×10^‒3	4.50×10²

Impact category characterization factor	ADP	GWP	AP	EP	POCP	HTP	TETP
Coal	27.91	-	-	-	-	-	-
Crude oil	41.87	-	-	-	-	-	-
Natural gas	38.84	-	-	-	-	-	-
CO₂	-	1.00	-	-	-	-	-
CO	-	2.00	-	-	2.70×10^‒2	-	-
CH₄	-	21.00	-	-	7.00×10^‒3	-	-
N₂O	-	3.10×10²	-	0.27	-	-	-
SO₂	-	-	1.00	-	-	9.60×10^‒2	-
NO_X	-	-	0.70	0.13	2.80×10^‒2	1.20	-
SO_X	-	-	0.80	-	-	-	-
PO₄^3‒	-	-	-	1.00	-	-	-
NO₃^‒	-	-	-	0.42	-	-	-
NH₃	-	-	1.88	0.33	-	-	-
NMVOC	-	-	-	-	0.42	-	-
Dust	-	-	-	-	-	0.82	-
Cu	-	-	-	-	-	-	14.00
Zn	-	-	-	-	-	-	25.00
Cd	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.70×10²
Pb	-	-	-	-	-	-	33.00

Impact category characterization factor	ADP	GWP	AP	EP	POCP	HTP	TETP
Coal	27.91	-	-	-	-	-	-
Crude oil	41.87	-	-	-	-	-	-
Natural gas	38.84	-	-	-	-	-	-
CO₂	-	1.00	-	-	-	-	-
CO	-	2.00	-	-	2.70×10^‒2	-	-
CH₄	-	21.00	-	-	7.00×10^‒3	-	-
N₂O	-	3.10×10²	-	0.27	-	-	-
SO₂	-	-	1.00	-	-	9.60×10^‒2	-
NO_X	-	-	0.70	0.13	2.80×10^‒2	1.20	-
SO_X	-	-	0.80	-	-	-	-
PO₄^3‒	-	-	-	1.00	-	-	-
NO₃^‒	-	-	-	0.42	-	-	-
NH₃	-	-	1.88	0.33	-	-	-
NMVOC	-	-	-	-	0.42	-	-
Dust	-	-	-	-	-	0.82	-
Cu	-	-	-	-	-	-	14.00
Zn	-	-	-	-	-	-	25.00
Cd	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.70×10²
Pb	-	-	-	-	-	-	33.00

Impact category	Unit	Reference value
Abiotic depletion potential fossil fuels (ADP)	MJ eq yr^‒1	3.80×10¹⁴
Global warming potential (GWP)	kg‒CO₂eq yr^‒1	4.22×10¹³
Acidification potential (AP)	kg‒SO₂eq yr^‒1	2.39×10¹¹
Eutrophication potential (EP)	kg‒PO₄^3‒eq yr^‒1	1.58×10¹¹
Photochemical ozone formation potential (POCP)	kg‒C₂H₄eq yr^‒1	3.68×10¹⁰
Human toxicity potential (HTP)	kg‒(1,4)‒DCB eq yr^‒1	2.58×10¹²
Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TETP)	kg‒(1,4)‒DCB eq yr^‒1	1.09×10¹²