Reference - Sustainability assessments of bio-based polymers
| Type | Journal |
|---|---|
| Title | Sustainability assessments of bio-based polymers |
| Abstract | Bio-based polymers have become feasible alternatives to traditional petroleum-based plastics. However, the factors that influence the sustainability of bio-based polymers are often unclear. This paper reviews published life cycle assessments (LCAs) and commonly used LCA databases that quantify the environmental sustainability of bio-based polymers and summarizes the range of findings reported within the literature. LCA is discussed as a means for quantifying environmental impacts for a product from its cradle, or raw materials extraction, to the grave, or end of life. The results of LCAs from existing databases as well as peer-reviewed literature allow for the comparison of environmental impacts. This review compares standard database results for three bio-based polymers, polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), and thermoplastic starch (TPS) with five common petroleum derived polymers. The literature showed that biopolymers, coming out of a relatively new industry, exhibit similar impacts compared to petroleum-based plastics. The studies reviewed herein focused mainly on global warming potential (GWP) and fossil resource depletion while largely ignoring other environmental impacts, some of which result in environmental tradeoffs. The studies reviewed also varied greatly in the scope of their assessment. Studies that included the end of life (EOL) reported much higher GWP results than those that limited the scope to resin or granule production. Including EOL in the LCA provides more comprehensive results for biopolymers, but simultaneously introduces greater amounts of uncertainty and variability. Little life-cycle data is available on the impacts of different manners of disposal, thus it will be critical for future sustainability assessments of biopolymers to include accurate end of life impacts. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. |
| Accessed | 2026-03-04 |
| Authors |
|
| Date | 2013-9-1 |
| Issue | 9 |
| Pages | 1898-1907 |
| Publisher | Elsevier |
| Journal | Polymer Degradation and Stability |
| Volume | 98 |
| Websites | |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2013.06.016 |
| ISSN | 01413910 |
| Keywords | Biopolymer, Environmental impacts, Life cycle assessment (LCA), Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), Polylactic acid (PLA), Thermoplastic starch (TPS) |
Welcome
Welcome to the CKN Knowledge in Practice Centre (KPC). The KPC is a resource for learning and applying scientific knowledge to the practice of composites manufacturing. As you navigate around the KPC, refer back to the information on this right-hand pane as a resource for understanding the intricacies of composites processing and why the KPC is laid out in the way that it is. The following video explains the KPC approach:
Understanding Composites Processing
The Knowledge in Practice Centre (KPC) is centered around a structured method of thinking about composite material manufacturing. From the top down, the heirarchy consists of:
- The factory
- Factory cells and/or the factory layout
- Process steps (embodied in the factory process flow) consisting of:
The way that the material, shape, tooling & consumables and equipment (abbreviated as MSTE) interact with each other during a process step is critical to the outcome of the manufacturing step, and ultimately critical to the quality of the finished part. The interactions between MSTE during a process step can be numerous and complex, but the Knowledge in Practice Centre aims to make you aware of these interactions, understand how one parameter affects another, and understand how to analyze the problem using a systems based approach. Using this approach, the factory can then be developed with a complete understanding and control of all interactions.
Interrelationship of Function, Shape, Material & Process
Design for manufacturing is critical to ensuring the producibility of a part. Trouble arises when it is considered too late or not at all in the design process. Conversely, process design (controlling the interactions between shape, material, tooling & consumables and equipment to achieve a desired outcome) must always consider the shape and material of the part. Ashby has developed and popularized the approach linking design (function) to the choice of material and shape, which influence the process selected and vice versa, as shown below:
Within the Knowledge in Practice Centre the same methodology is applied but the process is more fully defined by also explicitly calling out the equipment and tooling & consumables. Note that in common usage, a process which consists of many steps can be arbitrarily defined by just one step, e.g. "spray-up". Though convenient, this can be misleading.
Workflows
The KPC's Practice and Case Study volumes consist of three types of workflows:
- Development - Analyzing the interactions between MSTE in the process steps to make decisions on processing parameters and understanding how the process steps and factory cells fit within the factory.
- Troubleshooting - Guiding you to possible causes of processing issues affecting either cost, rate or quality and directing you to the most appropriate development workflow to improve the process
- Optimization - An expansion on the development workflows where a larger number of options are considered to achieve the best mixture of cost, rate & quality for your application.
To use this website, you must agree to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I Accept" below, you confirm that you have read, understood, and accepted our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
