Replacing Plastics with Alternatives Is Worse for Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Most CasesClick to copy article linkArticle link copied!
- Fanran MengFanran MengDepartment of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of Sheffield, Mappin Street, Sheffield S1 3JD, United KingdomMore by Fanran Meng
- Miguel Brandão*Miguel Brandão*Email: [email protected]Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm 100-44, SwedenMore by Miguel Brandão
- Jonathan M Cullen*Jonathan M Cullen*Email: [email protected]Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, United KingdomMore by Jonathan M Cullen
Abstract
Plastics are controversial due to their production from fossil fuels, emissions during production and disposal, potential toxicity, and leakage to the environment. In light of these concerns, calls to use less plastic products and move toward nonplastic alternatives are common. However, these calls often overlook the environmental impacts of alternative materials. This article examines the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impact of plastic products versus their alternatives. We assess 16 applications where plastics are used across five key sectors: packaging, building and construction, automotive, textiles, and consumer durables. These sectors account for about 90% of the global plastic volume. Our results show that in 15 of the 16 applications a plastic product incurs fewer GHG emissions than their alternatives. In these applications, plastic products release 10% to 90% fewer emissions across the product life cycle. Furthermore, in some applications, such as food packaging, no suitable alternatives to plastics exist. These results demonstrate that care must be taken when formulating policies or interventions to reduce plastic use so that we do not inadvertently drive a shift to nonplastic alternatives with higher GHG emissions. For most plastic products, increasing the efficiency of plastic use, extending the lifetime, boosting recycling rates, and improving waste collection would be more effective for reducing emissions.
This publication is licensed under
License Summary*
You are free to share(copy and redistribute) this article in any medium or format and to adapt(remix, transform, and build upon) the material for any purpose, even commercially within the parameters below:
Creative Commons (CC): This is a Creative Commons license.
Attribution (BY): Credit must be given to the creator.
*Disclaimer
This summary highlights only some of the key features and terms of the actual license. It is not a license and has no legal value. Carefully review the actual license before using these materials.
License Summary*
You are free to share(copy and redistribute) this article in any medium or format and to adapt(remix, transform, and build upon) the material for any purpose, even commercially within the parameters below:
Creative Commons (CC): This is a Creative Commons license.
Attribution (BY): Credit must be given to the creator.
*Disclaimer
This summary highlights only some of the key features and terms of the actual license. It is not a license and has no legal value. Carefully review the actual license before using these materials.
License Summary*
You are free to share(copy and redistribute) this article in any medium or format and to adapt(remix, transform, and build upon) the material for any purpose, even commercially within the parameters below:
Creative Commons (CC): This is a Creative Commons license.
Attribution (BY): Credit must be given to the creator.
*Disclaimer
This summary highlights only some of the key features and terms of the actual license. It is not a license and has no legal value. Carefully review the actual license before using these materials.
Synopsis
Replacing plastics leads to higher full life-cycle emissions using alternative materials in most current applications.
1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Functional Unit
2.2. System Boundary
Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Overview of the system boundaries. (b) 16 selected application categories based on the top five sectors for 2020 global plastic demand, million metric tons (MMT) (diagonal stripped application categories represent the applications not selected). WtE = waste to energy. Plastic applications cover about 90% of the global plastics by volume.
Production includes emissions from resource extraction, raw materials processing, final product manufacturing, and all transportation steps including distribution.
Transport emissions are calculated using the average distance traveled from product manufacturing facilities to retail outlets and mode-specific fuel used based on data obtained from the 2012 US Census Commodity Flow Survey. (19) Transport from retail to end user is not included due to a lack of available data, and this is assumed to be a nonmaterial factor.
Use includes emissions resulting from product breakage and spoilage, heating and cooling requirements from improved insulation, and fuel efficiency from light-weighting.
End of life considers emissions based on four EoL pathways using a system expansion approach. The pathways are adopted in the model in proportions representative of their shares in the US and are as follows:
Landfill, including transport to landfill, methane emissions
Waste to energy (WtE), which refers to incineration with energy recovery and includes transport to the combustion site, combustion emissions, avoided utility emissions, and steel recovery offsets when the plastic alternatives are steel
Recycling, which includes collection, sorting, processing, and transport to a manufacturing facility that uses recycled inputs
Reuse, which includes collection, washing, and transport to a refilling facility
2.3. Life-Cycle Inventory
2.4. Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2.5. Plastic Product Use
2.6. Sensitivity Analyses for Selected Applications
3. Results and Discussion

EPS (expanded polystyrene), HDPE (high-density polyethylene), PET (polyethylene terephthalate), PEX (cross-linked polyethylene), PP (polypropylene), PU (polyurethane), and PVC (polyvinyl chloride). * denotes plastic-enabled mixed materials.
3.1. Packaging Plastics
3.1.1. Soft Drink Containers (PET vs Glass Bottle vs Aluminum Can)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Total life-cycle GHG emissions (kgCO2eq per functional unit) for all packaging plastics. The production stage includes emissions from raw material acquisition and manufacture as well as adjustments made to the functional unit for additional production of containers required to compensate for spoilage and breakage.
3.1.2. Milk Containers (HDPE Milk Bottle vs Gable-Top Carton)
3.1.3. Grocery Bags (HDPE vs Paper Bag)
3.1.4. Food Packaging (EPS Foam Tray + PVC Film vs Butcher Paper)
3.1.5. Wet Pet Food Containers (Multilayer Pouch vs Aluminum vs Steel Can)
3.1.6. Industrial Drums (HDPE vs Steel Drum)
3.1.7. Water Cups (EPS vs PP vs PET vs Paper vs Reusable Glass Cup)
3.1.8. Hand Soap Bottles (HDPE vs Glass Hand Soap Bottle)
3.2. Building and Construction Plastics
3.2.1. Municipal Sewer Pipes (PVC vs Concrete Vs Ductile Iron)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Total life-cycle GHG emissions (kgCO2eq per functional unit for all building and construction plastics (a–c), all consumer goods plastics, represented by a furniture set (d), all automotive plastics (e, f), and all textile plastics (g, h). In (a), 15 in. is for sewer gravity main pipe, and 12 in. is for sewer force main pipe (see SI, section 10 for details).
3.2.2. Residential Water Pipes (PEX vs Copper)
3.2.3. Building Insulation (PU vs Fiberglass)
3.3. Consumer Goods Plastics
3.3.1. Furniture Set (PP vs Steel vs Wood)
3.4. Automotive Plastics
3.4.1. Automotive Fuel Tanks (HDPE vs Steel Fuel Tank)
3.4.2. Automotive Electric-Vehicle Battery Pack Top Enclosures (PP vs Steel Battery Enclosure)
3.5. Textile Plastics
3.5.1. T-Shirts (PET vs Cotton)
3.5.2. Carpets (Synthetic vs Wool)
3.6. Sensitivity Analysis: Opportunities to Reduce GHG Impact Across Materials
3.6.1. Soft Drink Containers
Figure 4
Figure 4. (a) Soft drink container regional 2020 and US 2050 scenarios: kgCO2eq per 100,000 oz of soft drink. The aluminum can is competitive with PET bottles in western Europe but has a higher climate change impact in China. Aluminum and glass disproportionally benefit from decarbonizing the electric grid. (b) Milk container regional 2020 and US 2050 scenarios: Gable-top carton has a lower GHG impact than HDPE bottle in western Europe and China due to higher recycling/WtE vs landfill mix. In a decarbonized world in 2050, both HDPE bottles and gable-top cartons have low GHG emissions, with HDPE having a slight advantage due to a higher recycling rate.
3.6.2. Milk Containers
3.7. Discussion
Supporting Information
The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c05191.
Additional details of methods and assumptions of life-cycle assessment for each type of plastics including functional unit, life-cycle inventory over the life-cycle stages, greenhouse gas emissions results, sensitivity analysis method and results (PDF)
Terms & Conditions
Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.
Acknowledgments
The authors F.M. and J.M.C. would like to acknowledge support from C-THRU: Carbon clarity in the global petrochemical supply chain (www.c-thru.org). This paper builds on work jointly created together with McKinsey, which was published under Climate Impact of Plastics in July 2022.
BEV | Battery electric vehicle |
EoL | End of life |
EPA | US Environmental Protection Agency |
EPS | Expanded polystyrene |
GHG | Greenhouse gas emissions |
HDPE | High-density polyethylene |
HDPE | High-density polyethylene |
ICEV | Internal combustion engine vehicle |
IEA | International Energy Agency |
LCA | Life-cycle assessment |
LDPE | Low-density polyethylene |
PET | Polyethylene terephthalate |
PEX | Cross-linked polyethylene |
PP | Polypropylene |
PU | Polyurethane |
PVC | Polyvinyl chloride |
SDS | Sustainable Development Scenario |
STEPS | Stated Policies Scenario |
WtE | Waste to energy |
References
This article references 45 other publications.
- 1Breaking the Plastic Wave: A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution, 2020. SYSTEMIQ and The Pew Charitable Trust. https://www.systemiq.earth/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/BreakingThePlasticWave_MainReport.pdf.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 2Carbon Footprint Reference Values. Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in European Mineral Fertilizer Production and Use, 2011. Fertilizers Europe. https://www.fertilizerseurope.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/The-carbon-footprint-of-fertilizer-production_Regional-reference-values.pdf.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 3Persson, L.; Carney Almroth, B. M.; Collins, C. D.; Cornell, S.; de Wit, C. A.; Diamond, M. L.; Fantke, P.; Hassellöv, M.; MacLeod, M.; Ryberg, M. W.; Søgaard Jørgensen, P.; Villarrubia-Gómez, P.; Wang, Z.; Hauschild, M. Z. Outside the Safe Operating Space of the Planetary Boundary for Novel Entities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56 (3), 1510– 1521, DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c04158Google Scholar3https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BB38XhtFegsro%253D&md5=37ea7ae4d7b27b0815026944fc5a2ce9Outside the Safe Operating Space of the Planetary Boundary for Novel EntitiesPersson, Linn; Carney Almroth, Bethanie M.; Collins, Christopher D.; Cornell, Sarah; de Wit, Cynthia A.; Diamond, Miriam L.; Fantke, Peter; Hasselloev, Martin; MacLeod, Matthew; Ryberg, Morten W.; Soegaard Joergensen, Peter; Villarrubia-Gomez, Patricia; Wang, Zhanyun; Hauschild, Michael ZwickyEnvironmental Science & Technology (2022), 56 (3), 1510-1521CODEN: ESTHAG; ISSN:1520-5851. (American Chemical Society)We submit that the safe operating space of the planetary boundary of novel entities is exceeded since annual prodn. and releases are increasing at a pace that outstrips the global capacity for assessment and monitoring. The novel entities boundary in the planetary boundaries framework refers to entities that are novel in a geol. sense and that could have large-scale impacts that threaten the integrity of Earth system processes. We review the scientific literature relevant to quantifying the boundary for novel entities and highlight plastic pollution as a particular aspect of high concern. An impact pathway from prodn. of novel entities to impacts on Earth system processes is presented. We define and apply three criteria for assessment of the suitability of control variables for the boundary: feasibility, relevance, and comprehensiveness. We propose several complementary control variables to capture the complexity of this boundary, while acknowledging major data limitations. We conclude that humanity is currently operating outside the planetary boundary based on the wt.-of-evidence for several of these control variables. The increasing rate of prodn. and releases of larger vols. and higher nos. of novel entities with diverse risk potentials exceed societies' ability to conduct safety related assessments and monitoring. We recommend taking urgent action to reduce the harm assocd. with exceeding the boundary by reducing the prodn. and releases of novel entities, noting that even so, the persistence of many novel entities and/or their assocd. effects will continue to pose a threat.
- 4Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (Working Group III Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2022. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/ (accessed 2022–04–21).Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 5Global Chemicals Outlook. UN Environment Programme. http://www.unep.org/explore-topics/chemicals-waste/what-we-do/policy-and-governance/global-chemicals-outlook (accessed 2022–04–20).Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 6Geyer, R.; Jambeck, J. R.; Law, K. L. Production, Use, and Fate of All Plastics Ever Made. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3 (7), e1700782, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1700782Google Scholar6https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC1cXntVOrs7k%253D&md5=9faf0a30b854eced93333d6a14912975Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever madeGeyer, Roland; Jambeck, Jenna R.; Law, Kara LavenderScience Advances (2017), 3 (7), e1700782/1-e1700782/5CODEN: SACDAF; ISSN:2375-2548. (American Association for the Advancement of Science)Plastics have outgrown most man-made materials and have long been under environmental scrutiny. However, robust global information, particularly about their end-of-life fate, is lacking. By identifying and synthesizing dispersed data on prodn., use, and end-of-life management of polymer resins, synthetic fibers, and additives, we present the first global anal. of all mass-produced plastics ever manufd. We est. that 8300 million metric tons (Mt) as of virgin plastics have been produced to date. As of 2015, approx. 6300 Mt of plastic waste had been generated, around 9%ofwhich had been recycled, 12% was incinerated, and 79% was accumulated in landfills or the natural environment. If current prodn. and waste management trends continue, roughly 12,000 Mt of plastic waste will be in landfills or in the natural environment by 2050.
- 7Historic day in the campaign to beat plastic pollution: Nations commit to develop a legally binding agreement. UN Environment Programme. http://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/historic-day-campaign-beat-plastic-pollution-nations-commit-develop (accessed 2023–03–13).Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 8Stegmann, P.; Daioglou, V.; Londo, M.; van Vuuren, D. P.; Junginger, M. Plastic Futures and Their CO2 Emissions. Nature 2022, 612 (7939), 272– 276, DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-05422-5Google Scholar8https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BB38XjtVKhtLrM&md5=0d861809664544cc3996294c0099fc4fPlastic futures and their CO2 emissionsStegmann, Paul; Daioglou, Vassilis; Londo, Marc; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Junginger, MartinNature (London, United Kingdom) (2022), 612 (7939), 272-276CODEN: NATUAS; ISSN:1476-4687. (Nature Portfolio)Plastics show the strongest prodn. growth of all bulk materials and are already responsible for 4.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. If no new policies are implemented, we project a doubling of global plastic demand by 2050 and more than a tripling by 2100, with an almost equiv. increase in CO2 emissions. Here we analyze three alternative CO2 emission-mitigation pathways for the global plastics sector until 2100, covering the entire life cycle from prodn. to waste management. Our results show that, through bio-based carbon sequestration in plastic products, a combination of biomass use and landfilling can achieve neg. emissions in the long term; however, this involves continued reliance on primary feedstock. A circular economy approach without an addnl. bioeconomy push reduces resource consumption by 30% and achieves 10% greater emission redns. before 2050 while reducing the potential of neg. emissions in the long term. A circular bioeconomy approach combining recycling with higher biomass use could ultimately turn the sector into a net carbon sink, while at the same time phasing out landfilling and reducing resource consumption. Our work improves the representation of material flows and the circular economy in global energy and emission models, and provides insight into long-term dynamics in the plastics sector.
- 9Global Warming of 1.5 °C: An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, 2018. IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 10Far-reaching ban on single-use plastics in England. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/far-reaching-ban-on-single-use-plastics-in-england (accessed 2023–03–13).Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 11Lau, W. W. Y.; Shiran, Y.; Bailey, R. M.; Cook, E.; Stuchtey, M. R.; Koskella, J.; Velis, C. A.; Godfrey, L.; Boucher, J.; Murphy, M. B.; Thompson, R. C.; Jankowska, E.; Castillo Castillo, A.; Pilditch, T. D.; Dixon, B.; Koerselman, L.; Kosior, E.; Favoino, E.; Gutberlet, J.; Baulch, S.; Atreya, M. E.; Fischer, D.; He, K. K.; Petit, M. M.; Sumaila, U. R.; Neil, E.; Bernhofen, M. V.; Lawrence, K.; Palardy, J. E. Evaluating Scenarios toward Zero Plastic Pollution. Science 2020, 369 (6510), 1455– 1461, DOI: 10.1126/science.aba9475Google Scholar11https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BB3cXhvVOnsrfO&md5=117c14f6da9b99b4b21e9e2d82cd534fEvaluating scenarios toward zero plastic pollutionLau, Winnie W. Y.; Shiran, Yonathan; Bailey, Richard M.; Cook, Ed; Stuchtey, Martin R.; Koskella, Julia; Velis, Costas A.; Godfrey, Linda; Boucher, Julien; Murphy, Margaret B.; Thompson, Richard C.; Jankowska, Emilia; Castillo Castillo, Arturo; Pilditch, Toby D.; Dixon, Ben; Koerselman, Laura; Kosior, Edward; Favoino, Enzo; Gutberlet, Jutta; Baulch, Sarah; Atreya, Meera E.; Fischer, David; He, Kevin K.; Petit, Milan M.; Sumaila, U. Rashid; Neil, Emily; Bernhofen, Mark V.; Lawrence, Keith; Palardy, James E.Science (Washington, DC, United States) (2020), 369 (6510), 1455-1461CODEN: SCIEAS; ISSN:1095-9203. (American Association for the Advancement of Science)Plastic pollution is a pervasive and growing problem. To est. the effectiveness of interventions to reduce plastic pollution, we modeled stocks and flows of municipal solid waste and four sources of microplastics through the global plastic system for five scenarios between 2016 and 2040. Implementing all feasible interventions reduced plastic pollution by 40% from 2016 rates and 78% relative to "business as usual" in 2040. Even with immediate and concerted action, 710 million metric tons of plastic waste cumulatively entered aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. To avoid a massive build-up of plastic in the environment, coordinated global action is urgently needed to reduce plastic consumption; increase rates of reuse, waste collection, and recycling; expand safe disposal systems; and accelerate innovation in the plastic value chain.
- 12Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions a European - Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy, 2018. European Commission. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2df5d1d2-fac7-11e7-b8f5-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 13European Platform on Life Cycle Assessment- Plastics LCA. European Commission. https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/plasticLCA.html (accessed 2022–10–18).Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 14ISO 14040 Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework; International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneve, 2006.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 15ISO 14044 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines; International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneve, 2006.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 16IEA World Energy Outlook; International Energy Agency: Paris, 2021.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 17Waste Reduction Model (WARM), 2022. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/warm (accessed 2023–12–22).Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 18Life Cycle Inventory Database, 2022. Ecoinvent. https://ecoinvent.org/.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 19Transportation─Commodity Flow Survey. U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2015/econ/ec12tcf-us.html (accessed 2023–12–22).Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 20Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures Report, 2022. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/advancing-sustainable-materials-management (accessed 2023–12–22).Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 21New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics, 2016. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/the-new-plastics-economy-rethinking-the-future-of-plastics (accessed 2022–12–03).Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 22Annual Energy Outlook 2022, 2022 US Energy Information Administration. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/IIF_carbonfee/.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 23Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 2022. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks (accessed 2023–12–22).Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 24Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID), 2022. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/egrid.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 25Cleansheet Solution. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/operations/how-we-help-clients/cleansheet (accessed 2022–12–03).Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 26Stocker, T. F.; Qin, D.; Plattner, G.-K.; Tignor, M. M.; Allen, S. K.; Boschung, J.; Nauels, A.; Xia, Y.; Bex, V.; Midgley, P. M. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of IPCC the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 27Bioplastics Market Size & Share Analysis - Growth Trends & Forecasts (2023–2028), 2022. Mordor Intelligence. https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/bioplastics-market (accessed 2023–09–28).Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 28Former Major OEM Product Designer with over 20 Years’ Experience + MCFM Experts Interview, McKinsey, 2022.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 29Packaging in the US. Euromonitor. https://www.euromonitor.com/packaging-in-the-us/report (accessed 2022–10–20).Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 30wct Life-Cycle Inventory of Three Single-Serving Soft Drink Containers, 2009. PET Resin Association. https://legislature.maine.gov/testimony/resources/ENR20210322Augur132622006957081097.pdf.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 31Jeswani, H.; Krüger, C.; Russ, M.; Horlacher, M.; Antony, F.; Hann, S.; Azapagic, A. Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of Chemical Recycling via Pyrolysis of Mixed Plastic Waste in Comparison with Mechanical Recycling and Energy Recovery. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 769, 144483, DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144483Google Scholar31https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BB3MXit1ehtbw%253D&md5=99a4b7b40e838d71caef218bb816a0fcLife cycle environmental impacts of chemical recycling via pyrolysis of mixed plastic waste in comparison with mechanical recycling and energy recoveryJeswani, Harish; Kruger, Christian; Russ, Manfred; Horlacher, Maike; Antony, Florian; Hann, Simon; Azapagic, AdisaScience of the Total Environment (2021), 769 (), 144483CODEN: STENDL; ISSN:0048-9697. (Elsevier B.V.)A large portion of plastic produced each year is used to make single-use packaging and other short-lived consumer products that are discarded quickly, creating significant amts. of waste. It is important that such waste be managed appropriately in line with circular-economy principles. One option for managing plastic waste is chem. recycling via pyrolysis, which can convert it back into chem. feedstock that can then be used to manuf. virgin-quality polymers. However, given that this is an emerging technol. not yet used widely in practice, it is not clear if pyrolysis of waste plastics is sustainable on a life cycle basis and how it compares to other plastics waste management options as well as to the prodn. of virgin plastics. Therefore, this study uses life cycle assessment (LCA) to compare the environmental impacts of chem. recycling of mixed plastic waste (MPW) via pyrolysis with the established waste management alternatives: mech. recycling and energy recovery. Three LCA studies have been carried out under three perspectives: waste, product and a combination of the two. To ensure robust comparisons, the impacts have been estd. using two impact assessment methods: Environmental footprint and ReCiPe. The results suggest that chem. recycling via pyrolysis has a 50% lower climate change impact and life cycle energy use than the energy recovery option. The climate change impact and energy use of pyrolysis and mech. recycling of MPW are similar if the quality of the recyclate is taken into account. Furthermore, MPW recycled by pyrolysis has a significantly lower climate change impact (-0.45 vs 1.89 t CO2 eq./t plastic) than the equiv. made from virgin fossil resources. However, pyrolysis has significantly higher other impacts than mech. recycling, energy recovery and prodn. of virgin plastics. Sensitivity analyses show that some assumptions have notable effects on the results, including the assumed geog. region and its energy mix, carbon conversion efficiency of pyrolysis and recyclate quality. These results will be of interest to the chem., plastics and waste industries, as well as to policy makers.
- 32Life Cycle Assessment of Example Packaging Systems for Milk, 2010. WRAP. https://kidv.nl/media/engelse_rapporten/life-cycle-assessment-of-example-packaging-systems-for-milk.pdf?1.2.2.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 33Life Cycle Assessment of Supermarket Carrier Bags: A Review of the Bags Available in 2006, 2011. UK Environment Agency. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291023/scho0711buan-e-e.pdf (accessed 2022–10–17).Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 34Single-Use Plastic Bags and Their Alternatives: Recommendations from Life Cycle Assessments, 2020. United Nations Environment Programme. https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/31932.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 35Environmental Footprint and Material Efficiency Support for Product Policy: Report on Benefits and Impacts/Costs of Options for Different Potential Material Efficiency Requirements for Dishwashers, 2015. European Comission. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2788/720546 (accessed 2022–10–18).Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 36Life Cycle Assessment of PVC Water and Sewer Pipe and Comparative Sustainability Analysis of Pipe Materials, 2017. Sustainable Solutions Corporation. https://www.uni-bell.org/files/Reports/Life_Cycle_Assessment_of_PVC_Water_and_Sewer_Pipe_and_Comparative_Sustainability_Analysis_of_Pipe_Materials.pdf (accessed 2022–10–17).Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 37Peer-Reviewed Life Cycle Inventory for the Production and Use of Installed Residential Piping Systems for Three House Layouts. Franklin Associates. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.ppfahome.org/resource/resmgr/pdf/Peer_Reviewed_Pipe_Use_Phase.pdf (accessed 2022–10–17).Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 38Life Cycle Assessment of Spray Polyurethane Foam Insulation for Residential & Commercial Building Applications, 2020. SPFA. https://polo14.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/SPFA-LCA-Details.pdf.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 39van der Velden, N. M.; Patel, M. K.; Vogtländer, J. G. LCA Benchmarking Study on Textiles Made of Cotton, Polyester, Nylon, Acryl, or Elastane. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19 (2), 331– 356, DOI: 10.1007/s11367-013-0626-9Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 40CARE 2019 Annual Report, 2020. Carpet America Recovery Effort (CARE). https://carpetrecovery.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/CARE-2019-Annual-Report-6-7-20-FINAL-002.pdf.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 41Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Tetra Pak Carton Packages and Alternative Packaging Systems for Beverages and Liquid Food on the European Market, 2020. Tetra Pak. https://www.tetrapak.com/content/dam/tetrapak/publicweb/uk/en/sustainability/2020-lca-tetra-pak-european-market.pdf.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 42LCA of Beverage and Food Packaging in Australia and New Zealand , 2021. Tetra Pak. https://www.thinkstep-anz.com/assets/Whitepapers-Reports/Tetra-Pak-Oceania-LCA-Final-Report-Complete-Reformatted.pdf.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 43Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060; OECD, 2022. DOI: 10.1787/aa1edf33-en .Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 44Bachmann, M.; Zibunas, C.; Hartmann, J.; Tulus, V.; Suh, S.; Guillén-Gosálbez, G.; Bardow, A. Towards Circular Plastics within Planetary Boundaries. Nat. Sustain. 2023, 6, 599– 610, DOI: 10.1038/s41893-022-01054-9Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 45Hellweg, S.; Benetto, E.; Huijbregts, M. A. J.; Verones, F.; Wood, R. Life-Cycle Assessment to Guide Solutions for the Triple Planetary Crisis. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2023, 4 (7), 471– 486, DOI: 10.1038/s43017-023-00449-2Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
Cited By
Smart citations by scite.ai include citation statements extracted from the full text of the citing article. The number of the statements may be higher than the number of citations provided by ACS Publications if one paper cites another multiple times or lower if scite has not yet processed some of the citing articles.
This article is cited by 13 publications.
- Qianyu Lin, Pei Lin Chee, Jaime J. M. Pang, Xian Jun Loh, Dan Kai, Jason Y. C. Lim. Sustainable Polymeric Biomaterials from Alternative Feedstocks. ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering 2024, 10
(11)
, 6751-6765. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.4c01154
- Bryan D. James, Yanchen Sun, Kali Pate, Rahul Shankar, Mounir Izallalen, Sharmistha Mazumder, Steven T. Perri, Katelyn R. Houston, Brian Edwards, Jos de Wit, Christopher M. Reddy, Collin P. Ward. Foaming Enables Material-Efficient Bioplastic Products with Minimal Persistence. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2024, 12
(43)
, 16030-16040. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.4c05822
- Ahmed Marhoon, Miguel Las Heras Hernandez, Romain Guillaume Billy, Daniel Beat Müller, Francesca Verones. Mapping Plastic and Plastic Additive Cycles in Coastal Countries: A Norwegian Case Study. Environmental Science & Technology 2024, 58
(19)
, 8336-8348. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c09176
- Ghayda Yaseen Al Kindi, Faris H. Al Ani, Harith Muhammad Bahr, Tariq Abed Hussain. Plastic Containers and Their Health Effects: A Case Study (the Effect of Hot Food on Human Health). 2025, 497-512. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-9364-8_40
- Elizabeth Avery, Experience Nduagu, Eric Vozzola, Timothee W. Roux, Rafael Auras. Polyethylene packaging and alternative materials in the United States: A life cycle assessment. Science of The Total Environment 2025, 961 , 178359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.178359
- Shang Zhang, Jinhui Li, Guochang Xu, Quanyin Tan. Embedded plastics and carbon emissions: Future trends and challenges ahead. Science Bulletin 2025, 55 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2025.01.031
- Md. Mehedi Hassan Masum, Mst. Farzana Rahman Zuthi, Farjana Khan, Asiful Hoque, Sudip Kumar Pal, Ahasan Ul Islam Emon, Sujit Ranjan Das, Eckhard Kraft, Susanne Kühlewindt. Challenges and Prospects for the Substitution of Plastic Products with Jute in the context of Bangladesh – A Social Study. 2024https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5097641/v1
- Sandeep Gupta. CO
2
assisted geo-polymerization: a win-win pragmatic approach for the synthesis of soda ash leading to reversal of the climate clock. RSC Sustainability 2024, 2
(12)
, 3782-3787. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4SU00541D
- Artūras Torkelis, Jolanta Dvarionienė, Gintaras Denafas. The Factors Influencing the Recycling of Plastic and Composite Packaging Waste. Sustainability 2024, 16
(21)
, 9515. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219515
- Princess Claire D. Ochigue, Roger G. Dingcong, John Christian S. Bondaug, Brian Christian G. Magalong, Gerard G. Dumancas, Carlo S. Gutierrez, Arnold C. Alguno, Roberto M. Malaluan, Arnold A. Lubguban, Hernando P. Bacosa. Upcycling PVC and PET as Volume-Enhancing Functional Fillers for the Development of High-Performance Bio-Based Rigid Polyurethane Foams. Sustainability 2024, 16
(19)
, 8540. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198540
- Lipeng Dong, Chan Dong, Wenwu Zhi, Pei Zhang, Weijun Li, Bo Gu. A comprehensive approach to physical recycling of hazardous waste HDPE industrial drums: Overcoming challenges in safety and foam interference. Chemical Engineering Journal 2024, 497 , 154502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2024.154502
- Gad Licht, Kyle Hofstetter, Stuart Licht. Polymer composites with carbon nanotubes made from CO
2. RSC Sustainability 2024, 2
(9)
, 2496-2504. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4SU00234B
- Hong Yee Kek, Huiyi Tan, Mohd Hafiz Dzarfan Othman, Chew Tin Lee, Fatin Batrisyia Jihat Ahmad, Nur Dayana Ismail, Bemgba Bevan Nyakuma, Kee Quen Lee, Keng Yinn Wong. Transforming pollution into solutions: A bibliometric analysis and sustainable strategies for reducing indoor microplastics while converting to value-added products. Environmental Research 2024, 252 , 118928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2024.118928
- Matthew Keith, Martin Koller, Maximilian Lackner. Carbon Recycling of High Value Bioplastics: A Route to a Zero-Waste Future. Polymers 2024, 16
(12)
, 1621. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16121621
- Jade Radke, Stella Argentopoulos, Elizabeth W. Dunn, Jiaying Zhao. Probabilistic refunds increase beverage container recycling behavior. 2024https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5016156
Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.
Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.
The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.
Recommended Articles
Abstract
Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Overview of the system boundaries. (b) 16 selected application categories based on the top five sectors for 2020 global plastic demand, million metric tons (MMT) (diagonal stripped application categories represent the applications not selected). WtE = waste to energy. Plastic applications cover about 90% of the global plastics by volume.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Total life-cycle GHG emissions (kgCO2eq per functional unit) for all packaging plastics. The production stage includes emissions from raw material acquisition and manufacture as well as adjustments made to the functional unit for additional production of containers required to compensate for spoilage and breakage.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Total life-cycle GHG emissions (kgCO2eq per functional unit for all building and construction plastics (a–c), all consumer goods plastics, represented by a furniture set (d), all automotive plastics (e, f), and all textile plastics (g, h). In (a), 15 in. is for sewer gravity main pipe, and 12 in. is for sewer force main pipe (see SI, section 10 for details).
Figure 4
Figure 4. (a) Soft drink container regional 2020 and US 2050 scenarios: kgCO2eq per 100,000 oz of soft drink. The aluminum can is competitive with PET bottles in western Europe but has a higher climate change impact in China. Aluminum and glass disproportionally benefit from decarbonizing the electric grid. (b) Milk container regional 2020 and US 2050 scenarios: Gable-top carton has a lower GHG impact than HDPE bottle in western Europe and China due to higher recycling/WtE vs landfill mix. In a decarbonized world in 2050, both HDPE bottles and gable-top cartons have low GHG emissions, with HDPE having a slight advantage due to a higher recycling rate.
References
This article references 45 other publications.
- 1Breaking the Plastic Wave: A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution, 2020. SYSTEMIQ and The Pew Charitable Trust. https://www.systemiq.earth/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/BreakingThePlasticWave_MainReport.pdf.There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 2Carbon Footprint Reference Values. Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in European Mineral Fertilizer Production and Use, 2011. Fertilizers Europe. https://www.fertilizerseurope.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/The-carbon-footprint-of-fertilizer-production_Regional-reference-values.pdf.There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 3Persson, L.; Carney Almroth, B. M.; Collins, C. D.; Cornell, S.; de Wit, C. A.; Diamond, M. L.; Fantke, P.; Hassellöv, M.; MacLeod, M.; Ryberg, M. W.; Søgaard Jørgensen, P.; Villarrubia-Gómez, P.; Wang, Z.; Hauschild, M. Z. Outside the Safe Operating Space of the Planetary Boundary for Novel Entities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56 (3), 1510– 1521, DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c041583https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BB38XhtFegsro%253D&md5=37ea7ae4d7b27b0815026944fc5a2ce9Outside the Safe Operating Space of the Planetary Boundary for Novel EntitiesPersson, Linn; Carney Almroth, Bethanie M.; Collins, Christopher D.; Cornell, Sarah; de Wit, Cynthia A.; Diamond, Miriam L.; Fantke, Peter; Hasselloev, Martin; MacLeod, Matthew; Ryberg, Morten W.; Soegaard Joergensen, Peter; Villarrubia-Gomez, Patricia; Wang, Zhanyun; Hauschild, Michael ZwickyEnvironmental Science & Technology (2022), 56 (3), 1510-1521CODEN: ESTHAG; ISSN:1520-5851. (American Chemical Society)We submit that the safe operating space of the planetary boundary of novel entities is exceeded since annual prodn. and releases are increasing at a pace that outstrips the global capacity for assessment and monitoring. The novel entities boundary in the planetary boundaries framework refers to entities that are novel in a geol. sense and that could have large-scale impacts that threaten the integrity of Earth system processes. We review the scientific literature relevant to quantifying the boundary for novel entities and highlight plastic pollution as a particular aspect of high concern. An impact pathway from prodn. of novel entities to impacts on Earth system processes is presented. We define and apply three criteria for assessment of the suitability of control variables for the boundary: feasibility, relevance, and comprehensiveness. We propose several complementary control variables to capture the complexity of this boundary, while acknowledging major data limitations. We conclude that humanity is currently operating outside the planetary boundary based on the wt.-of-evidence for several of these control variables. The increasing rate of prodn. and releases of larger vols. and higher nos. of novel entities with diverse risk potentials exceed societies' ability to conduct safety related assessments and monitoring. We recommend taking urgent action to reduce the harm assocd. with exceeding the boundary by reducing the prodn. and releases of novel entities, noting that even so, the persistence of many novel entities and/or their assocd. effects will continue to pose a threat.
- 4Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (Working Group III Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2022. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/ (accessed 2022–04–21).There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 5Global Chemicals Outlook. UN Environment Programme. http://www.unep.org/explore-topics/chemicals-waste/what-we-do/policy-and-governance/global-chemicals-outlook (accessed 2022–04–20).There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 6Geyer, R.; Jambeck, J. R.; Law, K. L. Production, Use, and Fate of All Plastics Ever Made. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3 (7), e1700782, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.17007826https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC1cXntVOrs7k%253D&md5=9faf0a30b854eced93333d6a14912975Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever madeGeyer, Roland; Jambeck, Jenna R.; Law, Kara LavenderScience Advances (2017), 3 (7), e1700782/1-e1700782/5CODEN: SACDAF; ISSN:2375-2548. (American Association for the Advancement of Science)Plastics have outgrown most man-made materials and have long been under environmental scrutiny. However, robust global information, particularly about their end-of-life fate, is lacking. By identifying and synthesizing dispersed data on prodn., use, and end-of-life management of polymer resins, synthetic fibers, and additives, we present the first global anal. of all mass-produced plastics ever manufd. We est. that 8300 million metric tons (Mt) as of virgin plastics have been produced to date. As of 2015, approx. 6300 Mt of plastic waste had been generated, around 9%ofwhich had been recycled, 12% was incinerated, and 79% was accumulated in landfills or the natural environment. If current prodn. and waste management trends continue, roughly 12,000 Mt of plastic waste will be in landfills or in the natural environment by 2050.
- 7Historic day in the campaign to beat plastic pollution: Nations commit to develop a legally binding agreement. UN Environment Programme. http://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/historic-day-campaign-beat-plastic-pollution-nations-commit-develop (accessed 2023–03–13).There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 8Stegmann, P.; Daioglou, V.; Londo, M.; van Vuuren, D. P.; Junginger, M. Plastic Futures and Their CO2 Emissions. Nature 2022, 612 (7939), 272– 276, DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-05422-58https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BB38XjtVKhtLrM&md5=0d861809664544cc3996294c0099fc4fPlastic futures and their CO2 emissionsStegmann, Paul; Daioglou, Vassilis; Londo, Marc; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Junginger, MartinNature (London, United Kingdom) (2022), 612 (7939), 272-276CODEN: NATUAS; ISSN:1476-4687. (Nature Portfolio)Plastics show the strongest prodn. growth of all bulk materials and are already responsible for 4.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. If no new policies are implemented, we project a doubling of global plastic demand by 2050 and more than a tripling by 2100, with an almost equiv. increase in CO2 emissions. Here we analyze three alternative CO2 emission-mitigation pathways for the global plastics sector until 2100, covering the entire life cycle from prodn. to waste management. Our results show that, through bio-based carbon sequestration in plastic products, a combination of biomass use and landfilling can achieve neg. emissions in the long term; however, this involves continued reliance on primary feedstock. A circular economy approach without an addnl. bioeconomy push reduces resource consumption by 30% and achieves 10% greater emission redns. before 2050 while reducing the potential of neg. emissions in the long term. A circular bioeconomy approach combining recycling with higher biomass use could ultimately turn the sector into a net carbon sink, while at the same time phasing out landfilling and reducing resource consumption. Our work improves the representation of material flows and the circular economy in global energy and emission models, and provides insight into long-term dynamics in the plastics sector.
- 9Global Warming of 1.5 °C: An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, 2018. IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/.There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 10Far-reaching ban on single-use plastics in England. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/far-reaching-ban-on-single-use-plastics-in-england (accessed 2023–03–13).There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 11Lau, W. W. Y.; Shiran, Y.; Bailey, R. M.; Cook, E.; Stuchtey, M. R.; Koskella, J.; Velis, C. A.; Godfrey, L.; Boucher, J.; Murphy, M. B.; Thompson, R. C.; Jankowska, E.; Castillo Castillo, A.; Pilditch, T. D.; Dixon, B.; Koerselman, L.; Kosior, E.; Favoino, E.; Gutberlet, J.; Baulch, S.; Atreya, M. E.; Fischer, D.; He, K. K.; Petit, M. M.; Sumaila, U. R.; Neil, E.; Bernhofen, M. V.; Lawrence, K.; Palardy, J. E. Evaluating Scenarios toward Zero Plastic Pollution. Science 2020, 369 (6510), 1455– 1461, DOI: 10.1126/science.aba947511https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BB3cXhvVOnsrfO&md5=117c14f6da9b99b4b21e9e2d82cd534fEvaluating scenarios toward zero plastic pollutionLau, Winnie W. Y.; Shiran, Yonathan; Bailey, Richard M.; Cook, Ed; Stuchtey, Martin R.; Koskella, Julia; Velis, Costas A.; Godfrey, Linda; Boucher, Julien; Murphy, Margaret B.; Thompson, Richard C.; Jankowska, Emilia; Castillo Castillo, Arturo; Pilditch, Toby D.; Dixon, Ben; Koerselman, Laura; Kosior, Edward; Favoino, Enzo; Gutberlet, Jutta; Baulch, Sarah; Atreya, Meera E.; Fischer, David; He, Kevin K.; Petit, Milan M.; Sumaila, U. Rashid; Neil, Emily; Bernhofen, Mark V.; Lawrence, Keith; Palardy, James E.Science (Washington, DC, United States) (2020), 369 (6510), 1455-1461CODEN: SCIEAS; ISSN:1095-9203. (American Association for the Advancement of Science)Plastic pollution is a pervasive and growing problem. To est. the effectiveness of interventions to reduce plastic pollution, we modeled stocks and flows of municipal solid waste and four sources of microplastics through the global plastic system for five scenarios between 2016 and 2040. Implementing all feasible interventions reduced plastic pollution by 40% from 2016 rates and 78% relative to "business as usual" in 2040. Even with immediate and concerted action, 710 million metric tons of plastic waste cumulatively entered aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. To avoid a massive build-up of plastic in the environment, coordinated global action is urgently needed to reduce plastic consumption; increase rates of reuse, waste collection, and recycling; expand safe disposal systems; and accelerate innovation in the plastic value chain.
- 12Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions a European - Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy, 2018. European Commission. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2df5d1d2-fac7-11e7-b8f5-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF.There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 13European Platform on Life Cycle Assessment- Plastics LCA. European Commission. https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/plasticLCA.html (accessed 2022–10–18).There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 14ISO 14040 Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework; International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneve, 2006.There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 15ISO 14044 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines; International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneve, 2006.There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 16IEA World Energy Outlook; International Energy Agency: Paris, 2021.There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 17Waste Reduction Model (WARM), 2022. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/warm (accessed 2023–12–22).There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 18Life Cycle Inventory Database, 2022. Ecoinvent. https://ecoinvent.org/.There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 19Transportation─Commodity Flow Survey. U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2015/econ/ec12tcf-us.html (accessed 2023–12–22).There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 20Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures Report, 2022. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/advancing-sustainable-materials-management (accessed 2023–12–22).There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 21New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics, 2016. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/the-new-plastics-economy-rethinking-the-future-of-plastics (accessed 2022–12–03).There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 22Annual Energy Outlook 2022, 2022 US Energy Information Administration. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/IIF_carbonfee/.There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 23Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 2022. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks (accessed 2023–12–22).There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 24Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID), 2022. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/egrid.There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 25Cleansheet Solution. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/operations/how-we-help-clients/cleansheet (accessed 2022–12–03).There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 26Stocker, T. F.; Qin, D.; Plattner, G.-K.; Tignor, M. M.; Allen, S. K.; Boschung, J.; Nauels, A.; Xia, Y.; Bex, V.; Midgley, P. M. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of IPCC the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014.There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 27Bioplastics Market Size & Share Analysis - Growth Trends & Forecasts (2023–2028), 2022. Mordor Intelligence. https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/bioplastics-market (accessed 2023–09–28).There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 28Former Major OEM Product Designer with over 20 Years’ Experience + MCFM Experts Interview, McKinsey, 2022.There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 29Packaging in the US. Euromonitor. https://www.euromonitor.com/packaging-in-the-us/report (accessed 2022–10–20).There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 30wct Life-Cycle Inventory of Three Single-Serving Soft Drink Containers, 2009. PET Resin Association. https://legislature.maine.gov/testimony/resources/ENR20210322Augur132622006957081097.pdf.There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 31Jeswani, H.; Krüger, C.; Russ, M.; Horlacher, M.; Antony, F.; Hann, S.; Azapagic, A. Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of Chemical Recycling via Pyrolysis of Mixed Plastic Waste in Comparison with Mechanical Recycling and Energy Recovery. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 769, 144483, DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.14448331https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BB3MXit1ehtbw%253D&md5=99a4b7b40e838d71caef218bb816a0fcLife cycle environmental impacts of chemical recycling via pyrolysis of mixed plastic waste in comparison with mechanical recycling and energy recoveryJeswani, Harish; Kruger, Christian; Russ, Manfred; Horlacher, Maike; Antony, Florian; Hann, Simon; Azapagic, AdisaScience of the Total Environment (2021), 769 (), 144483CODEN: STENDL; ISSN:0048-9697. (Elsevier B.V.)A large portion of plastic produced each year is used to make single-use packaging and other short-lived consumer products that are discarded quickly, creating significant amts. of waste. It is important that such waste be managed appropriately in line with circular-economy principles. One option for managing plastic waste is chem. recycling via pyrolysis, which can convert it back into chem. feedstock that can then be used to manuf. virgin-quality polymers. However, given that this is an emerging technol. not yet used widely in practice, it is not clear if pyrolysis of waste plastics is sustainable on a life cycle basis and how it compares to other plastics waste management options as well as to the prodn. of virgin plastics. Therefore, this study uses life cycle assessment (LCA) to compare the environmental impacts of chem. recycling of mixed plastic waste (MPW) via pyrolysis with the established waste management alternatives: mech. recycling and energy recovery. Three LCA studies have been carried out under three perspectives: waste, product and a combination of the two. To ensure robust comparisons, the impacts have been estd. using two impact assessment methods: Environmental footprint and ReCiPe. The results suggest that chem. recycling via pyrolysis has a 50% lower climate change impact and life cycle energy use than the energy recovery option. The climate change impact and energy use of pyrolysis and mech. recycling of MPW are similar if the quality of the recyclate is taken into account. Furthermore, MPW recycled by pyrolysis has a significantly lower climate change impact (-0.45 vs 1.89 t CO2 eq./t plastic) than the equiv. made from virgin fossil resources. However, pyrolysis has significantly higher other impacts than mech. recycling, energy recovery and prodn. of virgin plastics. Sensitivity analyses show that some assumptions have notable effects on the results, including the assumed geog. region and its energy mix, carbon conversion efficiency of pyrolysis and recyclate quality. These results will be of interest to the chem., plastics and waste industries, as well as to policy makers.
- 32Life Cycle Assessment of Example Packaging Systems for Milk, 2010. WRAP. https://kidv.nl/media/engelse_rapporten/life-cycle-assessment-of-example-packaging-systems-for-milk.pdf?1.2.2.There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 33Life Cycle Assessment of Supermarket Carrier Bags: A Review of the Bags Available in 2006, 2011. UK Environment Agency. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291023/scho0711buan-e-e.pdf (accessed 2022–10–17).There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 34Single-Use Plastic Bags and Their Alternatives: Recommendations from Life Cycle Assessments, 2020. United Nations Environment Programme. https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/31932.There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 35Environmental Footprint and Material Efficiency Support for Product Policy: Report on Benefits and Impacts/Costs of Options for Different Potential Material Efficiency Requirements for Dishwashers, 2015. European Comission. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2788/720546 (accessed 2022–10–18).There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 36Life Cycle Assessment of PVC Water and Sewer Pipe and Comparative Sustainability Analysis of Pipe Materials, 2017. Sustainable Solutions Corporation. https://www.uni-bell.org/files/Reports/Life_Cycle_Assessment_of_PVC_Water_and_Sewer_Pipe_and_Comparative_Sustainability_Analysis_of_Pipe_Materials.pdf (accessed 2022–10–17).There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 37Peer-Reviewed Life Cycle Inventory for the Production and Use of Installed Residential Piping Systems for Three House Layouts. Franklin Associates. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.ppfahome.org/resource/resmgr/pdf/Peer_Reviewed_Pipe_Use_Phase.pdf (accessed 2022–10–17).There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 38Life Cycle Assessment of Spray Polyurethane Foam Insulation for Residential & Commercial Building Applications, 2020. SPFA. https://polo14.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/SPFA-LCA-Details.pdf.There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 39van der Velden, N. M.; Patel, M. K.; Vogtländer, J. G. LCA Benchmarking Study on Textiles Made of Cotton, Polyester, Nylon, Acryl, or Elastane. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19 (2), 331– 356, DOI: 10.1007/s11367-013-0626-9There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 40CARE 2019 Annual Report, 2020. Carpet America Recovery Effort (CARE). https://carpetrecovery.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/CARE-2019-Annual-Report-6-7-20-FINAL-002.pdf.There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 41Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Tetra Pak Carton Packages and Alternative Packaging Systems for Beverages and Liquid Food on the European Market, 2020. Tetra Pak. https://www.tetrapak.com/content/dam/tetrapak/publicweb/uk/en/sustainability/2020-lca-tetra-pak-european-market.pdf.There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 42LCA of Beverage and Food Packaging in Australia and New Zealand , 2021. Tetra Pak. https://www.thinkstep-anz.com/assets/Whitepapers-Reports/Tetra-Pak-Oceania-LCA-Final-Report-Complete-Reformatted.pdf.There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 43Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060; OECD, 2022. DOI: 10.1787/aa1edf33-en .There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 44Bachmann, M.; Zibunas, C.; Hartmann, J.; Tulus, V.; Suh, S.; Guillén-Gosálbez, G.; Bardow, A. Towards Circular Plastics within Planetary Boundaries. Nat. Sustain. 2023, 6, 599– 610, DOI: 10.1038/s41893-022-01054-9There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 45Hellweg, S.; Benetto, E.; Huijbregts, M. A. J.; Verones, F.; Wood, R. Life-Cycle Assessment to Guide Solutions for the Triple Planetary Crisis. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2023, 4 (7), 471– 486, DOI: 10.1038/s43017-023-00449-2There is no corresponding record for this reference.
Supporting Information
Supporting Information
The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c05191.
Additional details of methods and assumptions of life-cycle assessment for each type of plastics including functional unit, life-cycle inventory over the life-cycle stages, greenhouse gas emissions results, sensitivity analysis method and results (PDF)
Terms & Conditions
Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.