Conference PaperPDF Available

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF SUPERMARKET CARRIER BAGS AND OPPORTUNITY OF BIOPLASTICS

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

In this paper a life cycle assessment study of three types of grocery bags is presented. Reference bag is a low density polyethylene (LDPE) bag, while long life polypropylene (PP) and a bag from biodegradable material are compared to the reference bag in terms of environmental impacts and energy consumption. Inventory analysis was conducted in cooperation with bags manufacturers, merchants, waste management companies and policy guidelines and laws. Environmental impacts are presented with environmental indicators by CML 2001 standard. Study covers all life cycle stages with different scenarios in the end life stage and main contributors to environmental burdens were identified through life cycle stages. Since it is shown that end of life stage of carrier bags is very sensitive and depended of customer’s behaviour, guidelines for disposal of bags are given in the form of percentage increase/decrease of specific environmental indicator. The studies show that bioplastic bags have some advantages in the production life cycle phase (from cradle to door), but can be questionable in the end of life cycle phase, if not properly disposed and/or composted industrially instead in domestic compost bins. It was shown that long life (PP) carrier bag is by far the best choice if used for five years as proposed by manufacturer.
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
... Communities are aware of environmental problems related to the intensive use of plastic carrier bags, but still, sustainable alternatives are lacking [27]. To quantify the environmental impacts of carrier bags across different environmental impact categories, a life-cycle assessment (LCA) was carried out [28]. Its results revealed that polypropylene (PP) bags have the highest global warming potential (GWP), followed by biodegradable thermoplastic and low-density polyethylene (LDPE) bags [28]. ...
... To quantify the environmental impacts of carrier bags across different environmental impact categories, a life-cycle assessment (LCA) was carried out [28]. Its results revealed that polypropylene (PP) bags have the highest global warming potential (GWP), followed by biodegradable thermoplastic and low-density polyethylene (LDPE) bags [28]. The largest share of environmental impacts comes from the granulate production process, while the impact of transportation is negligible if the bag is manufactured domestically but relevant if it is produced abroad. ...
... Although the use of agricultural products in the production of bioplastics is primarily linked to specific raw materials for starch production, agricultural products have yet to be disaggregated in the model, and the average emissions per unit of the agricultural output are used in the calculations. With these findings, this paper contributes to the stream of literature [10,16,28,30,50] dealing with the environmental impacts of plastic carrier bags and their alternatives by particularly focusing on changes in GHG emissions instead of GWP, depletion of resources, eutrophication, etc. [29], ozone depletion, cancer, etc. [30], or human health [31]. Specifically, they confirm that, independently, the material used to produce the carrier bags [12] causes environmental issues. ...
Article
Full-text available
Although the negative environmental impact of plastic carrier bags has long been known, their use in Europe continues undiminished. Lithuania stands out for its high use and production of plastic bags. Governments and sustainability-driven businesses are taking various measures to reduce the environmental impact. Such measures include strategies to replace conventional plastic bags with paper or bioplastic bags, to reduce plastic bags by encouraging consumers to reuse them, and similar strategies. In contrast to the environmental impact of plastic bags, the socioeconomic effects of strategies to reduce their use have been much less studied in the scientific literature. Therefore, this paper analyses the impact of sustainability practices in the producing and using of carrier bags on Lithuania’s gross domestic product (GDP), employment and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This study uses the CleanProdLT computable general equilibrium model based on the latest available data for 2020. The model allows for analysis of economy-wide effects by considering cleaner production and more sustainable consumption scenarios at different levels of detail. The results of the analysis show that while the analysed substitution of plastic bags with bioplastic (BioPlastic scenario) or paper bags (PaperBags scenario) has positive socioeconomic impacts, the overall best results can be achieved by reducing their consumption (ConsReduction scenario). In detail, it is estimated that the GDP could increase by EUR 18 million under the PaperBags scenario, by EUR 47 million under the BioPlastic scenario, and by EUR 64 million under the ConsReduction scenario. At the same time, employment increases by 213 jobs, 891 jobs, and 449 jobs, respectively. While the PaperBags and the BioPlastic scenarios reveal increases in GHG emissions of 4.5 ktCO2eq. and 29 ktCO2eq., respectively, the ConsReduction scenario demonstrates a decrease in GHG emissions of 4 ktCO2eq.. These findings suggest that the recent policy decision to charge for plastic bags in supermarkets will have positive environmental and socioeconomic impacts in the future.
... The LCA is based on bibliographic data that come from published scientific articles, considering 8 articles on PEAD bags [1,5,8,9,17,22,24,44] 8 on LDPE bags [4-6, 8, 22, 26, 32, 35] 5 on non-woven PP bags [5,8,22,26,27] and 7 articles from PCL bags [5,8,9,26,[31][32][33]. Due to the amount of information identified, it was decided to use only the information on nonwoven PP and PCL, since the information found on the other variants would not present sufficiently representative data. ...
... The LCA is based on bibliographic data that come from published scientific articles, considering 8 articles on PEAD bags [1,5,8,9,17,22,24,44] 8 on LDPE bags [4-6, 8, 22, 26, 32, 35] 5 on non-woven PP bags [5,8,22,26,27] and 7 articles from PCL bags [5,8,9,26,[31][32][33]. Due to the amount of information identified, it was decided to use only the information on nonwoven PP and PCL, since the information found on the other variants would not present sufficiently representative data. ...
Chapter
Public awareness of the environmental problems associated with single-use plastic bags is growing and different management alternatives are being implemented, including regulatory interventions. At least 35 countries around the world have taken steps to tax or ban single-use bags. Evaluating the carbon footprint of different bags is not a trivial or intuitive matter; it requires consideration of material and energy inputs throughout the life cycle of each bag and each material has its own characteristics and environmental impacts. To calculate the carbon footprint of grocery carrying bags, it is necessary to consider the efficiency in the use of the bag, the distribution process, the possibility of reusing or recycling and the final disposal. This chapter presents the evaluation of the carbon footprint of four types of carrying bags through the Life Cycle Assessment methodology, using data published in scientific literature, so as to identify the variability of the results. In this work, the “cradle to grave” approach is adopted, which considers the environmental impacts of the grocery bags, considering the extraction of raw materials, the processing of raw materials, the manufacture of the bags, their commercialization, use and final disposal (landfill/recycling). The bags analyzed are made of the following materials: High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), Low Density Polyethylene bags (LDPE), Polypropylene (PP) bags and Polycaprolactone (PCL) bags. PCL bags are adopted as a reference for biodegradable bags because they are the most common polymer for which information was available in bibliographic sources. This material is from fossil origin but has the characteristic of being biodegradable. The calculation of the carbon footprint is based on bibliographic data that come from published scientific articles, considering 8 articles on HDPE bags, 8 articles on LDPE, 5 on PP (non woven) and 7 articles of PCL. It was decided to use only the information on nonwoven PP and PCL, since the information found on the other variants would not present sufficiently representative data. The Functional Unit (UF) was defined as “the number of grocery bags needed per year for an average family in Mexico City to carry their groceries”. The analysis is performed at two levels: (1) Generation of a Base Bag (or generic), whose inventory represents the quantities of inputs and average emissions of all the items analyzed and, (2) Minimum and maximum levels. It refers to the modeling of life cycle impacts considering the specific inventory data of each item but adjusting them according to the weight of the bags, the quantity of the bags, the distances considered in this study and using electricity from Mexico. The results show that PP bags have the lowest carbon footprint, between 1.28 and 1.54 kg of CO2 eq/family-year. On the other hand, the range of impact of HDPE bags goes from 1.26 to 2.08 kg of CO2 eq/family-year, with an average impact (base bag) of 1.9 kg of CO2 eq/family-year. The LDPE bag is the bag with the highest carbon footprint, followed by the PCL bags. The use of PP bags generated a lower carbon footprint per family-year, mainly due to the number of reuses (11 in this study). According to the results obtained in this study, it can be concluded that the use of LDPE bags shows the worst environmental performance followed by the PCL bags, while HDPE bags are in third place in terms of CFP, which is due to the fact that they are very light and present a secondary reuse as garbage bags, however, their ease of becoming waste (risk of abandonment) and their difficult collection to introduce recycling processes, are important disadvantages that reduce their attractiveness, at least from an environmental point of view. The use of PP bags generates the lowest CFP per family-year in Mexico City, however, it is very important to highlight that the fewer uses this bag has given, the greater impacts it will generate, and it may be the worst alternative in environmental terms if it does not present primary reuses and at the moment there is no objective information on the number of actual reuses given to this type of bags.KeywordsGrocery bagsHigh density polyethylene bagsLow density polyethylene bagsPolypropylene bagsPolycaprolactone bagsCarbon footprintLife cycle assessmentMexico City
... The next most influential life cycle stage is the manufacturing of the packaging, and specifically the extrusion, the nip rolling, the cutting and the recycling extrusion, which are represented by the factor of electricity grid mix in Figure 8, whereas the transport and the pigment have minor shares. These results are in complete agreement with the work of Mori et al. [45], who performed an LCA analysis of LDPE bags and found out that the highest contribution in all impact categories is by the granulate production (approximately 60-80%), followed by the bag manufacturing (30%) and transport (~2%) [45]. ...
... The next most influential life cycle stage is the manufacturing of the packaging, and specifically the extrusion, the nip rolling, the cutting and the recycling extrusion, which are represented by the factor of electricity grid mix in Figure 8, whereas the transport and the pigment have minor shares. These results are in complete agreement with the work of Mori et al. [45], who performed an LCA analysis of LDPE bags and found out that the highest contribution in all impact categories is by the granulate production (approximately 60-80%), followed by the bag manufacturing (30%) and transport (~2%) [45]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Smart food packaging (SP) is an innovative packaging system that can extend the shelf life of the product and reduce food waste. The objective of the study is the estimation of the environmental and economic sustainability of the overall life cycle of a SP including a chemical sensor able to detect modifications in the concentration of CO2, which is an indicator of food spoilage, and encapsulated oregano essential oil (OEO), capable of inhibiting the microbial growth. For this purpose, a life cycle assessment (LCA), following the ISO 14040 series and ReCiPe methodology, and an economic evaluation of SP, were performed. The environmental footprint (EF) of SP was compared to that of a conventional packaging (CP) in terms of packaging production, use and end of life (EoL) of both the packaging and the contained food product. The results demonstrated that the production of SP burdened by 67% the impact category of climate change. However, when adapting four use and EoL scenarios, namely the CP generates 30% food waste, whereas SP can generate 5% (optimistic scenario), 10% (realistic) or 20% (conservative) waste, SP proved to be environmentally superior in most impact categories.
... In recent years, some LCAs were performed to evaluate the potential impacts of bioplastic bags mainly in comparison with bags made of conventional plastic such as polyethylene (PE) or polypropylene (PP) or with reusable bags (made of cotton, composite materials or paper). Focusing on those including Mater-Bi ® bags, Civancik-Uslu et al. (2019) and Mori et al. (2013) compared different shopper bags, while COWI A/S and Utrecht University (2019) evaluated the shopper bags in the context of a project commissioned by the European Commission, with the aim to provide science-based evidence on the comparison between biobased products and items made of conventional plastic. Moreover, Bisinella et al. (2018) and Edwards and Fry (2011) compared the potential impacts of several shopper bags, focusing respectively on the Danish and United Kingdom context. ...
... According to all the examined studies, a cradle-to-grave perspective did not show any significant advantage of bioplastic bags compared to conventional plastics. In details, COWI A/S and Utrecht University (2019), Mori et al. (2013), and Edwards and Fry (2011) indicated that Mater-Bi ® bags do not allow for environmental benefits with respect to the PE bags; whereas Civancik-Uslu et al. (2019) and Bisinella et al. (2018) found that PE bags provide better results for most of the examined impact categories. ...
Article
The organic fraction (mainly food waste) is typically the most abundant of the separately collected waste streams. The research aims at investigating the influence of different types of collection bag on the environmental performances of the food waste management chain in Italy. A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) between two alternative systems based on paper or bioplastic collection bags was carried out. It included the collection bags manufacturing and distribution, their use at the household, the transportation of collected food waste and its subsequent anaerobic digestion, including the valorisation of useful outputs and the management of residues. The two systems were modelled mainly with primary data related to the current management system and to tests performed on bags. The LCA was performed with two different modelling approaches applied in the environmental product declaration (EPD) system and in the product environmental footprint (PEF) studies, respectively. In the scenario representing the average conditions, higher environmental impacts are shown by the use of bioplastic bags compared to paper ones with the EPD approach (+257%/+576%). With the PEF approach, the differences between the two systems are lower (−55%/+133%). Moreover, paper bags could allow for further impact reductions assuming a decrease of the food waste collection frequency, allowed by higher weight losses and a lower generation of leachate and odour during the household storage.
... As a result, to decrease GHG emissions from bioplastics need to improve efficiency such as using non-multiplying raw materials like in processing PLA bioplastic and using methane emissions as an energy source throughout its life cycle (Rattana and Gheewala, 2019). In contrast, most of research concludes that bioplastic bag has less environmental impact compare to other materials, especially biodegradable copolyesters and cornstarch-based thermoplastic materials (Civancik-Uslu et al., 2019;Mori et al., 2013), biodegradable bags starch based PE bags (Durak, 2016), and bio-based polyester mixed with a mineral substance and vegetable oils (GAIA, 2019). ...
Article
Full-text available
Nowadays, most people use eco-friendly bags as alternatives to plastic grocery bags. This comes from the government's strategy of prohibiting plastic bag use and requiring the use of eco-friendly supermarket bags instead. Eco-friendly bags are the most recent developments in supermarket bags made from environmentally friendly raw materials. However, using eco-friendly bags is not the ideal option because it generates new trash clusters as a result of their use and contributes to the impact of climate change. This article examines the effectiveness of using eco-friendly bags in reducing plastic waste and how it relates to SDG 13. This research uses qualitative methods related to analysing the environmental impact of environmentally friendly bags. It was found that bio-based plastics had the lowest GWP values. Several solutions to the problem of plastic bag pollution have been offered, including the development of new biodegradable bag technology, making policies or other incentives encouraging people to reuse shopping bags, and researching eco-friendly bag innovation in Indonesia using LCA.
... For polylactic acid bags, data for the case of a production site in Slovenia were applied [65]. The scenarios of the bag production refer to the following production locations: low-density polyethylene-Turkey, polylactic acid-Slovenia [66], and starch polyester blend-Norway. These include production processes, materials and energy, and transportation [67]. ...
Article
Full-text available
The policy of circular economy focuses on phasing out fossil-based packaging and replacing it with more sustainable alternatives. Companies face the challenge of choosing packaging for their products that are functional and affordable, and place relatively less pressure on the environment. This is especially important for organic farms that make voluntary commitments to undertake sustainable decisions regarding practices and methods of farming and types of packaging used. This publication attempts to analyze the determinants of the choices of sustainable packaging solutions made by organic farming companies with the example of Scilly Organic, an organic micro farm from the Isles of Scilly, United Kingdom—a producer of organic vegetables. There are many options for fresh vegetable packaging, which include fossil-based packaging, bio-based packaging, and packaging manufactured from material that is a mixture of synthetic, natural, or modified polymers. Biodegradable packaging, including compostable ones, is currently of particular interest because, when separated and disposed of in the correct manner in the waste management phase, they have sustainability potential. Biodegradable plastics constitute over 55.5% of global bioplastics production. Packaging is the largest market segment for bioplastic, with 48% of the total bioplastics market in 2021. Although the use of biobased packaging brings some advantages, it also comes with certain limitations that are the subject of intensive research. In this publication, the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tool was used and a critical review of the literature was carried out. Based on the analysis, the key factors and aspects influencing the environmental performance of selected types of packaging were identified. The LCA was carried out for the three selected packaging types, including low-density polyethylene (LDPE) bags, polylactic acid (PLA) bags, and polyester starch biopolymer (PCSB) bags. The research showed that the selection of more sustainable packaging is not straightforward. The analysis performed was the basis for providing recommendations for improving the sustainability of organic farms with regard to the selection of packaging for fresh vegetables. The critical processes in the life cycle that have to be considered are, in the first place, the production of polymer-based materials, and to a lesser extent, the production of the packaging bags and post-consumption waste utilization. In the case of PLA bags, 51% of the total impact is attributed to the production of polymer material. For starch polyester bags, this share is 58%, and for LDPE it constitutes 41% of the total score. At the same time, the choice of packaging should be made in the context of the specific properties of the packaging material, the requirements for disposal methods, and local waste management systems.
... Studies have shown that in comparison to their conventional products, an integrated production system of biofuels and biopolymers would save at least 20 MJ (nonrenewable) energy per kg of polymer and avoid at least 1 kg CO 2 per kg of polymer. Overall, this would reduce approximately 20% of negative environmental impacts ( Narayan and Patel, 2003 ;Mori et al., 2013 ). The certification of bioplastics would ensure that consumers are aware of the materials that they utilizing. ...
Article
Full-text available
The upward trend of global demand for fossil-fuel energy for non-energy purposes especially for the production of plastics, and non-renewable energy use (NREU) and global warming potential of the plastics life cycle is poorly understood. Alternatives to petrochemical plastics have been researched intensely, but they have not been developed to replace current plastic products at a commercially viable scale. Here, we identify challenges facing to energy intensiveness of plastic production, land use crisis for biomass production, and non-renewable energy use and global warming potential on the life cycle of plastics, and we propose a material lifecycle perspective for bioplastics. Our estimate shows that an average of about 13.8 exajoule (EJ), ranging from 10.9 to 16.7 EJ, of fossil-fuel energy consumed in 2019 was diverted to fossil-fuel feedstock for the production of plastics worldwide, this translates between 2.8 and 4.1% share of the total consumed fossil-fuel energy globally. The life cycle analysis estimate shows that bioplastics produced from 2nd generation feedstock have 25% less NREU than that of 1st generation, while the bioplastics from 1st generation feedstock required about 86% less NREU than that of petrochemical plastics. Similarly, the estimates of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions show that the reduction of GHG emission was about 187% more in biomass feedstock than that of petrochemical plastics. We conclude by presenting strategies for improving the recyclability of biological plastics through polymer design, application biotechnology, and by adopting a circular bio-based economy.
... Studies have shown that in comparison to their conventional products, an integrated production system of biofuels and biopolymers would save at least 20 MJ (nonrenewable) energy per kg of polymer and avoid at least 1 kg CO2 per kg of polymer. Overall, this would reduce approximately 20% of negative environmental impacts [122,123]. The certification of bioplastics would ensure that consumers are aware 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 of the materials that they utilizing. ...
Preprint
The upward trend of global demand for fossil-fuel energy for non-energy purposes especially for the production of plastics, and non-renewable energy use (NREU) and global warming potential of the plastics life cycle is poorly understood. Alternatives to petrochemical plastics have been researched intensely, but they have not been developed to replace current plastic products at a commercially viable scale. Here, we identify challenges facing to energy intensiveness of plastic production, land use crisis for biomass production, and non-renewable energy use and global warming potential on the life cycle of plastics, and we propose a material lifecycle perspective for bioplastics. Our estimate shows that an average of about 13.8 exajoule (EJ), ranging from 10.9 to 16.7 EJ, of fossil-fuel energy consumed in 2019 was diverted to fossil-fuel feedstock for the production of plastics worldwide, this translates between 2.8 and 4.1% share of the total consumed fossil-fuel energy globally. The life cycle analysis estimate shows that bioplastics produced from 2nd generation feedstock have 25% less NREU than that of 1st generation, while the bioplastics from 1st generation feedstock required about 86% less NREU than that of petrochemical plastics. Similarly, the estimates of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions show that the reduction of GHG emission was about 187% more in biomass feedstock than that of petrochemical plastics. We conclude by presenting strategies for improving the recyclability of biological plastics through polymer design, application biotechnology, and by adopting a circular bio-based economy.
... LDPEavg Market for polyethylene, low density, granulate; GLO (kg) (Edwards and Fry, 2011) b (Kimmel and Cooksey, 2014) c (Mori et al., 2013) d (Muthu and Li, 2014) e (Khoo and Tan, 2010) Table A8. Ecoinvent process used in order to model transportation. ...
Technical Report
The report investigates the impact of using different grocery carrier bags on the Danish market. It only applies to Danish conditions.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Bio-based plastics have been identified as a promising alternative to conventional plastics with regards to finite fossil resources and climate change. With emerging novel bio-based plastics and 70% of its market share in short life cycle packaging applications, the end-of-life options (recycling, anaerobic and aerobic digestion, energy recovery etc.) as well as the resource circulation have been moved into the spotlight and have to be assessed. This paper will provide an insight into the bio-based plastics in the context of circular economy and gives an overview on its status and potential future development. The focus is set on the assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the different end-of-life options and resource circulation of bio-based plastics with the help of life cycle assessment.
Article
Full-text available
Background, aim, and scope The use of bio-based products as carrier bags, packaging materials, and many other applications has been increasingly replacing conventional polymer products. One of the main driving forces of bio-plastic applications is the perceived depletion and scarcity of fossil fuels, especially petroleum. However, despite being introduced as an environmentally friendly alternative to plastics made from crude oil, the environmental benefits of bio-plastics remain debatable. This article serves to investigate whether or not bio-based materials are environmentally friendlier options compared to plastics and attempts to explain the rationale of the results. Materials and methods The production and disposal of both conventional plastic and bio-plastic carrier bags are investigated using life cycle assessment or LCA. A typical bio-based bag (made from polyhydroxyalkanoate or PHA) from the U.S. was selected to be compared with a locally produced polyethylene plastic (PP) bag in Singapore. In the LCA system, the raw materials for making polyethylene came from crude oil imported from Middle East and natural gas piped from Natuna gas field. The refinery and PP bag production processes are based in Singapore. Bio-bag production was entirely in the U.S., and the finished product was shipped to Singapore. The impact assessment results were generated for global warming potential, acidification, and photochemical ozone formation. Next, normalized results were calculated according to the parameters of Singapore’s annual emission inventory. Results The total environmental impacts of bio-bags showed considerable differences under various energy scenarios. When the energy expenditures to make bio-bags are supplied by U.S. electricity mix, the production impacts are about 69% higher, compared to the impacts from PP bags. With coal-fired power supply, the production impacts from bio-bag production turned out to be about five times greater than those from conventional plastics. The life cycle production impacts of PP bags are comparable to bio-bags when the energy supplied to the bio-material production chain is supplied by natural gas. Bio-bags are 80% more environmentally friendly than plastic bags when clean and renewable energy (geothermal) is used throughout its life cycle production stages. Discussions and conclusions By the use of LCA with different energy scenarios, this article sheds some light on the extent of environmental benefits (or drawbacks) of replacing plastic carrier bags with PHA bags. It was concluded that the life cycle production of bio-bags can only be considered as environmentally friendly alternatives to conventional plastic bags if clean energy sources are supplied throughout its production processes. It was also highlighted that the results should not be viewed as a global representative since the case study scope was for Singapore alone. Additional work by others on different biodegradable and compostable bags vary in results. Some of the complexities of such work lie in what is included or excluded from the scope and the adoption of different environmental impact assessment methods. Nevertheless, the authors’ attempt to compare the two bags may serve as a basis for identifying the major environmental burdens of such materials’ life cycle production. Recommendations and perspectives Although bio-based products have been mostly regarded as a sustainable solution for replacing petroleum-based polymers, in most cases, the amounts of resources and energy required to produce them have not been taken into account. Before bio-based plastics can be recommended as a preferred option to plastics, a few challenges have to be overcome. The main issue lies in reducing the energy used in the life cycle production of the bio-material from crops. The environmental benefits and drawbacks of both materials should also be more clearly highlighted by expanding the system boundary to include end-of-life options; this is carried out in part 2 (Khoo and Tan, Int J Life Cycle Assess, in press, 2010).
Article
The use of disposable cutlery in fast food restaurants and canteens in the current management scenario generates mixed heterogeneous waste (containing food waste and non-compostable plastic cutlery). The waste is not recyclable and is disposed of in landfills or incinerated with or without energy recovery. Using biodegradable and compostable (B&C) plastic cutlery, an alternative management scenario is possible. The resulting mixed homogeneous waste (containing food waste and compostable plastic cutlery) can be recycled through organic recovery, i.e., composting. This LCA study, whose functional unit is "serving 1000 meals", shows that remarkable improvements can be obtained by shifting from the current scenario to the alternative scenario (based on B&C cutlery and final organic recovery of the total waste). The non-renewable energy consumption changes from 1490 to 128MJ (an overall 10-fold energy savings) and the CO(2) equivalents emission changes from 64 to 22 CO(2) eq. (an overall 3-fold GHG savings).
Comparison of existing life cycle analysis of shopping bag alternatives
  • R Dilli
Dilli, R.: Comparison of existing life cycle analysis of shopping bag alternatives, Sustainability Victoria, Hyder consulting Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia, April 2007
The Impact of Plastics on Life Cycle Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Europe
  • H Pilz
  • B Brandt
  • R Fehringer
Pilz, H., Brandt, B., Fehringer, R.: The Impact of Plastics on Life Cycle Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Europe, Summary Report, Vienna, Austria, June 2010
Supporting Environmentally Sound Decisions for Biowaste Management, a practical quide to Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
  • European Commission
  • Institute Jrc
  • For Environment
  • Sustainability
European Commission, JRC, Institute for Environment and Sustainability: Supporting Environmentally Sound Decisions for Biowaste Management, a practical quide to Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), European Union, Ispra, Italy, 2011
The Use of LCAs on Plastic Bags in an IPP Context, report Environmental assessment of bio-based polymers and natural fibers
  • Eurocommerce Patel
  • M Bastioli
  • C Marini
  • L Würdinger
Eurocommerce: The Use of LCAs on Plastic Bags in an IPP Context, report, Brussels, Belgium, september 2004 [17] Patel, M., Bastioli, C., Marini, L., Würdinger, E.: Environmental assessment of bio-based polymers and natural fibers, 2003
Life cycle assessment study of carrier bags
  • M Mori
  • G Gantar
  • B Drobnič
  • M Sekavčnik
Mori, M., Gantar, G., Drobnič, B., Sekavčnik, M.: Life cycle assessment study of carrier bags, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Ljubljana, February 2013. p. 55
Life Cycle Assessment of PolyLactide (PLA), A comparison of food packing made from NatureWorks PLA and alternative materials
  • A Detzel
  • M Krüger
Detzel, A., Krüger, M.: Life Cycle Assessment of PolyLactide (PLA), A comparison of food packing made from NatureWorks PLA and alternative materials, Final Report, IFEU Heidelberg, July 2006
Review and Analysis of Bio-based Product LCA's, Department of Chemichal engineering˛Material Science
  • R Narayan
  • M Patel
Narayan R., Patel, M.: Review and Analysis of Bio-based Product LCA's, Department of Chemichal engineering˛Material Science, Michigan State University, USA; Utrect University, STS, Copernicus Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands