ABSTRACT

SUAREZ SIMANCAS, ANTONIO JOSE. Understanding the Environmental Sustainability,

Conversion Economics, and Performance of Bio-polyethylene for Nonwoven Applications.
(Under the direction of Drs. Ronalds W. Gonzalez, Ericka Ford & Richard Venditti).

In recent years, the bioplastics industry has significantly grown due to global

sustainability trends. Various applications have rapidly adopted these materials, such as

packaging, automobile, consumer goods, and nonwovens. Within the latter group, manufacturers

are dealing with the challenges and trade-offs compared to conventional plastics, which

historically have been the primary raw materials for this industry. Specifically, questions about

the real environmental sustainability, performance, and conversion economics of bioplastics need

to be systematically addressed. Thus, this study evaluates bio-polyethylene (bio-PE) made from

sugarcane ethanol in terms of the areas mentioned above and focuses on its application in the

nonwovens industry. As an outcome, an integrated methodology for material profiling is

developed.

The first study presents a literature review of the state-of-the-art knowledge on the

environmental sustainability of bioplastics. Aspects related to methodological challenges across

the literature were assessed to build the technical fundament of other studies in this work. This

study also proposes a Smart Use of Materials (SUM) of bioplastics for targeted applications to

help decarbonize our society. Results show that methodological aspects for evaluating bioplastics

are not uniform across the literature, and a systematic approach to unifying criteria is required.

Also, by implementing SUM in two cases study for packaging and textile products, it was

determined that reductions in the carbon footprint of up to 80% could be achieved. Thus, the

targeted use of bioplastics for specific applications could help reduce the environmental impact

of the industry and build a society that uses these materials to help fight climate change.
 The second study presents a fundamental evaluation of the characterization of bio-PE for

nonwovens applications. Essential resin properties were evaluated through analytical techniques.

This knowledge was used to produce bicomponent spunbond nonwovens at a lab scale. Finally,

the properties of these fabrics were compared to systems made entirely from fossil-based

plastics. Overall, fiber diameters between 22 μm and 37 μm, thicknesses of 500 μm to 580 μm,

and tensile indexes ranging from 4 N.m/g to 14 N.m/g were obtained at different conditions. In

general, smaller fiber diameters and fabric thicknesses, and higher tensile and tear strength

values were observed as higher aspirator pressures increased. This analysis showed that,

although the existing offering of bio-PE for nonwoven applications is lacking, current bio-PE

resins could be used to replace conventional petroleum-based PE in nonwoven applications and

obtain similar properties, which could lead to more extensive adoption of this material.

The third study constitutes a comprehensive assessment of the environmental

sustainability of bio-PE used for absorbent hygiene nonwoven products. The environmental

impact across the supply chain of this material and derived products was evaluated through an

attributional life cycle analysis. The effect of some variables at the different production stages

was assessed. Additionally, the unintended consequences of producing and adopting bio-PE were

studied through a consequential life cycle analysis. Finally, a comparison to fossil-PE was

performed. Results showed that the environmental impact of bio-PE depends on different factors.

Critical to note, land-use change drives the environmental impact of this bioplastic, which could

present carbon footprints between 1.3 to 3.6 kgCO2eq/kgBioPE from an attributional point of view,

and up to ca. 5.0 kgCO2eq/kgBioPE from a consequential perspective. Specifically, direct and

indirect deforestation were the main causes affecting the environmental performance of bio-PE.

Thus, strict policies limiting these land-use changes are required to guarantee that this bio-based
plastic can constitute a better alternative than the oil-based version, which presented carbon

footprints ranging from 2.1 to 2.5 kgCO2eq/kgPE under an attributional approach.

The fourth study assesses the conversion economics of bio-PE. A techno-economic

analysis was performed to understand its cost structure. This analysis considered capital

investment, direct and indirect costs, and other financial indicators associated with new

investments. Additionally, the effect of technology improvement and market/non-market effects

on the conversion economics of bio-PE was assessed. It was determined that the production of

ethanol is the main factor driving the manufacturing cost of bio-PE, which could range between

0.94 and 1.20 USD/kgBio-PE. Additionally, considering expected profits by manufacturers, a

premium price of up to 27% compared to prices of fossil PE can be expected. Finally, future

manufacturing costs of bio-PE could range between 0.8-1.7 USD/kgBio-PE based on a 2% material

intensity decrease, 5% energy consumption reduction and historical ethanol prices.

The fifth study comprises the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, specifically

Stochastic Multi-attribute Analysis (SMAA), as a tool to evaluate the integrated sustainability of

specific bio-based and fossil-based plastics. The state-of-the-art knowledge pertaining to the use

of this methodology was assessed, and its use along with environmental, economic, and social

indicators was evaluated. Results showed that conventional plastics were preferred over

bioplastics based on the studied indicators due to an overall higher environmental impact, resin

price, and social burdens. Specifically, PP presented the highest probability to rank first (ca.

69%) followed by PE (ca. 60% to rank second), bio-PE (ca. 76% to rank third), and PLA (ca.

86% to rank fourth). Additionally, SMAA was profiled as a tool to help manufacturers in

material selection to evaluate different options based on integrated criteria.

 Overall, this research allowed building a robust assessment of the environmental

sustainability, performance, and conversion economics of bio-PE and the illustration of the use

of multi-criteria decision tools for material selection using an integrated approach. It is expected

that outcomes from this work can guide future studies evaluating the role of other bioplastics in

nonwovens and other industries.

© Copyright 2022 by Antonio Suarez

All Rights Reserved

 Understanding the Environmental Sustainability, Conversion Economics, and Performance of
Bio-polyethylene for Nonwoven Applications

by
Antonio Jose Suarez Simancas

A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of

North Carolina State University
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

Forest Biomaterials

Raleigh, North Carolina

2022

APPROVED BY:

_______________________________ _______________________________
Dr. Ronalds W. Gonzalez Dr. Ericka Ford
Committee Co-Chair Committee Co-Chair

_______________________________ _______________________________
Dr. Richard Venditti Dr. Eunkyoung Shim
Committee Co-Chair

_______________________________
Dr. Stephen Kelley
 ii

DEDICATION

I dedicate this work to my parents, siblings, and grandparents, who always supported me

on this path. They gave me the motivation to keep going.

 iii
BIOGRAPHY

Antonio was born in 1992 in Merida, Venezuela. In 2003, he moved to Grenade, Spain,

where his mother pursued a Ph.D. program. This was an opportunity for Antonio to get exposed

to a different culture and set a new long-term goal: to become the second person in the family to

earn a doctorate. In 2007 he moved back to Venezuela, where he continued with his high-school

studies. In 2010, Antonio started his undergraduate degree in Chemical Engineering at the

University of Los Andes in his hometown. During his senior year, he performed as a researcher

at the Laboratory of Formulation, Interphases, Rheology, and Processes (FIRP), where he studied

the use of lignin as an emulsifier. Between 2017 and 2019, he worked as a project engineer in the

oil, energy, and banking sector. In 2019, Antonio moved to Raleigh, NC, to pursue his Ph.D. in

Forest Biomaterials at NC State, collaborating with the Nonwovens Institute. During this time,

Antonio also obtained a Graduate Certificate in Nonwovens Science and Engineering from

NCSU. After graduation, Antonio will take his career to the next level by working for an

important company in the packaging industry and helping solve the challenges of making more

sustainable products.
 iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To God for providing me with the spiritual strength to walk on this path.

To my academic advisors, Dr. Ronalds Gonzalez, Dr. Ericka Ford, and Dr. Richard

Venditti, for their invaluable support and guidance during this journey.

To my academic committee, Dr. Stephen Kelley and Dr. Eunkyoung Shim, for their

guidance.

To my industry advisors, Dr. Carl Wust, Dr. Liyun Ren, Dr. DeeAnn Nelson, and Dr.

Xing Dong, for their contributions to this research.

To the Nonwovens Institute and its industry partners for funding this research.

To Dr. Hasan Jameel for making me understand how important the balance in life is and

showing me that one of the most beautiful characteristics of a person is loyalty. His friendship

and personal guidance made this experience easier and more enjoyable.

To all my friends in the Department of Forest Biomaterials for being a family away from

home.

To Amelys for being the pillar that supported me when I needed it the most.

To my family for all their support and understanding.

 v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Overview of the industry, motivation and structure of the work ..................................... 1
1.2 References ........................................................................................................................ 5
2 RETHINKING THE USE OF BIO-BASED PLASTICS TO ACCELERATE THE
DECARBONIZATION OF OUR SOCIETY ................................................................................. 8
2.1 Abstract ............................................................................................................................ 8
2.2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 13
2.3.2 Life-Cycle Assessment of bio-based plastics ......................................................... 16
2.3.3 Modeling of scenarios and case studies: Smart Use of Materials (SUM) .............. 16
2.4 Results and discussion.................................................................................................... 17
2.4.1 Methodological aspects related to the analysis of the environmental impacts of bio-
based plastics .......................................................................................................... 17
2.4.2 Global Warming Potential of Bio-based plastics (cradle-to-gate) .......................... 22
2.4.3 Assessment of Global Warming Potential for end-of-life scenarios for bio-based
plastics (cradle-to-grave) ........................................................................................ 24
2.4.4 Smart Use of Materials (SUM) ............................................................................... 25
2.4.5 Smart Use of Materials (SUM) corrected by the performance of bio-based plastics .
................................................................................................................................. 28
2.4.6 Smart Use of Materials (SUM) considering other environmental impact categories .
................................................................................................................................. 29
2.5 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 31
2.6 References ...................................................................................................................... 33
3 A CASE STUDY ON THE USE OF BIO VERSUS FOSSIL RESIN WHEN REPORTING
THE LAB-SCALE MANUFACTURING OF SHEATH-CORE POLYETHYLENE-
POLYPROPYLENE SPUNBOND NONWOVENS .................................................................... 44
3.1 Abstract .......................................................................................................................... 44
3.2 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 44
3.3 Materials and methods ................................................................................................... 49
3.3.1 Assessing the market offer of bio-PE for nonwovens applications ........................ 49
3.3.2 Materials ................................................................................................................. 50
3.3.3 Characterization of PE resins .................................................................................. 50
 vi
3.3.4 Lab-scale fabrication of thermally-bonded spunbond nonwovens ......................... 53
3.3.5 Characterization of spunbond nonwoven fabrics .................................................... 55
3.4 Results and discussion.................................................................................................... 57
3.4.1 Selection of bio-PE resins for nonwovens applications.......................................... 57
3.4.2 Characteristics of PE chemistries............................................................................ 58
3.4.3 Characteristics of thermally bonded PE/PP spunbond nonwovens ........................ 64
3.5 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 71
3.6 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ 73
3.7 References ...................................................................................................................... 74
4 A COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF BIO-
POLYETHYLENE FOR NONWOVENS APPLICATIONS ...................................................... 79
4.1 Abstract .......................................................................................................................... 79
4.2 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 80
4.3 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 84
4.3.1 Life Cycle Assessment as a tool to evaluate environmental sustainability ............ 84
4.3.2 Environmental sustainability of bio-PE: Attributional life cycle analysis (ALCA) ...
................................................................................................................................. 87
4.3.3 Environmental sustainability of bio-PE: Consequential life cycle analysis (CLCA) .
............................................................................................................................... 117
4.4 Results and discussion.................................................................................................. 120
4.4.1 Attributional analysis ............................................................................................ 120
4.4.2 Consequential analysis .......................................................................................... 140
4.5 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 146
4.6 References .................................................................................................................... 149
5 UNDERSTANDING THE CONVERSION ECONOMICS OF BIO-POLYETHYLENE 162
5.1 Abstract ........................................................................................................................ 162
5.2 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 163
5.3 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 165
5.4 Results and discussion.................................................................................................. 168
5.4.1 Manufacturing cost and selling price of bio-PE ................................................... 168
5.4.2 Effect of technology improvement and market/non-market effects on the future
manufacturing cost of bio-PE ............................................................................... 171
5.5 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 173
5.6 References .................................................................................................................... 175
 vii
6 STOCHASTIC MULTI-ATTRIBUTE ANALYSIS AS A TOOL TO EVALUATE THE
INTEGRATED SUSTAINABILITY OF BIO-BASED AND OIL-BASED PLASTICS .......... 178
6.1 Abstract ........................................................................................................................ 178
6.2 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 179
6.3 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 182
6.3.1 Description of multi-criteria decision analysis and life cycle sustainability
assessment tools used in the literature .................................................................. 182
6.3.2 Stochastic Multi-Attribute Analysis (SMAA) ...................................................... 189
6.3.3 Use of SMAA to evaluate bioplastics and fossil plastics based on integrated
sustainability criteria ............................................................................................. 190
6.4 Results and discussion.................................................................................................. 197
6.5 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 205
6.6 References .................................................................................................................... 206
7 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK ......................................................................... 216
7.1 Implementation of Smart Use of Materials (SUM) to other bioplastics and applications .
...................................................................................................................................... 218
7.2 Study of the performance of bio-polyethylene at an industrial scale ........................... 218
7.3 Assessment of the environmental sustainability and conversion economics of bio-
polyethylene made from other raw materials ............................................................... 219
7.4 Study of the effect of studied indicators on the results of Stochastic Multi-Attribute
Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 219
 viii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1. Production pathways for some bioplastics .................................................................. 12

Table 2-2. Keywords employed during the search ....................................................................... 15

Table 2-3. Cradle-to-grave assessment for bio-PET and PLA* ................................................... 30

Table 3-1. Examples of bio-based plastics currently available in the market .............................. 46

Table 3-2. Sourced resins and properties ...................................................................................... 50

Table 3-3. Extruder temperature profile* ..................................................................................... 54

Table 3-4. Processing parameters for the manufacturing of nonwoven fabrics ........................... 54

Table 3-5. Structure of PE resins as determined from 13C NMR spectra .................................... 59

Table 3-6. Thermal degradation behaviors of PE resins ............................................................... 62

Table 3-7. Results from the DSC curves for PE samples ............................................................. 63

Table 4-1. Technology review to produce bio-polyethylene (de Andrade Coutinho et al. 2013;
Fan et al. 2013; Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017; Morschbacker 2009; Morschbacker et al.
2014; Tripodi et al. 2019) ........................................................................................... 82

Table 4-2. General parameters used to assess the environmental impact of sugarcane ............... 91

Table 4-3. Life cycle inventory for the production of sugarcane: Inputs ..................................... 92

Table 4-4. Life cycle inventory for the production of sugarcane: Outputs ................................... 93

Table 4-5. General parameters used to assess the environmental impact of sugarcane ............... 95

Table 4-6. Life cycle inventory to produce sugarcane using organic and inorganic fertilizers:
Inputs........................................................................................................................... 96

Table 4-7. Life Cycle Inventory for sugarcane production using both inorganic and organic
fertilizers ..................................................................................................................... 97

Table 4-8. Life Cycle Inventory for ethanol production: Inputs ................................................. 102

Table 4-9. Life Cycle Inventory for ethanol production: Outputs .............................................. 103

Table 4-10. Ethanol and electricity prices in Brazil (2018-2021) .............................................. 104
 ix
Table 4-11. Life Cycle Inventory for ethanol production: Inputs ............................................... 106

Table 4-12. Life Cycle Inventory for ethanol production: Outputs ............................................ 107

Table 4-13. Ethanol, sugar and electricity prices in Brazil (2018-2021) .................................... 108

Table 4-14. Life-Cycle Inventory for the production of bio-polyethylene (HDPE): Inputs ....... 110

Table 4-15. Life-Cycle Inventory for the production of bio-polyethylene (HDPE): Outputs .... 111

Table 4-16. Life Cycle Inventory for the production of sheath-core spunbond nonwoven: Inputs
................................................................................................................................. 114

Table 4-17. Life Cycle Inventory for the production of sheath-core spunbond nonwoven: Outputs
................................................................................................................................. 115

Table 4-18. Composition of the electricity displaced for the consequential approach (Ministerio
de minas e energia, 2022) ........................................................................................ 119

Table 4-19. Environmental assessment results for one tonne of sugarcane cultivated using
inorganic fertilizers .................................................................................................. 121

Table 4-20. Environmental assessment results for one tonne of sugarcane cultivated using both
inorganic and organic fertilizers .............................................................................. 123

Table 4-21. Emissions associated with the direct land-use change of sugarcane ....................... 126

Table 4-22. Results for bioethanol produced in an autonomous facility .................................... 128

Table 4-23. Results for bioethanol produced in an annexed facility .......................................... 129

Table 4-24. Environmental assessment results high-density bio-polyethylene using ethanol

produced in different biorefinery schemes and sugarcane practices ....................... 132

Table 4-25. Environmental impacts of high-density bio-PE (No LUC) and fossil-PE .............. 136

Table 4-26. Environmental assessment results for spunbond nonwoven made from Bio-PE/PP or
Fossil-PE/PP ............................................................................................................ 138

Table 4-27. GHG emissions associated with the indirect land-use change of sugarcane ........... 141

Table 4-28. Aspects that need to be evaluated to understand the environmental sustainability of
bio-PE ..................................................................................................................... 145

Table 5-1. Direct and indirect costs constituting installation factors (Peters et al. 2003) .......... 166
 x
Table 5-2. Cost of main inputs to produce bio-polyethylene...................................................... 167

Table 5-3. Financial assumptions used to perform the financial assessment ............................. 167

Table 6-1. Methodological findings from review articles on Multi-Criteria Decision Tool
Analysis and Life Cycle Analysis ............................................................................. 185

Table 6-2. Methodological findings from articles dealing with material selection and applying
Multi-Criteria Decision Tool Analysis and Life Cycle Analysis ............................. 186

Table 6-3. Results for environmental indicators ......................................................................... 198

Table 6-4. Results for economic indicators. ............................................................................... 198

Table 6-5. Results for social indicators....................................................................................... 199

 xi
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1. Global warming potential of selected bio-based plastics – Cradle-to-gate boundaries
(Andreasi Bassi et al. 2021; Chen et al. 2020; Ita-Nagy et al. 2020; Kamau-Devers
and Miller 2020; Kookos et al. 2019; Moretti et al. 2020; Musonda et al. 2020;
Nieder-Heitmann et al. 2019a; Posen et al. 2016; Roibás-Rozas et al. 2020;
Silalertruksa and Gheewala 2020; Tecchio et al. 2016; Tsiropoulos et al. 2015);
Biogenic content was considered in the presented results. The dots represent GWP
values from the literature. The middle line in the box corresponds to the median,
while the X represents the mean of the data. The whiskers enlarge to the minimum
and maximum value of the data ................................................................................. 23

Figure 2-2. Cradle-to-grave Global Warming Potential of selected bio-based plastics. Production
and use stages were not considered ........................................................................... 25

Figure 2-3. a) Net difference in cradle-to-grave emissions when making a packaging product
from PLA compared to bio-PET b) Net difference in cradle-to-grave emissions when
making a textile product from PLA compared to bio-PET........................................ 26

Figure 2-4. Corrected net difference in cradle-to-grave emissions when making a packaging
product from PLA compared to bio-PET .................................................................. 29

Figure 3-1. Schematic of the Hills LBS 300 research line ........................................................... 53

Figure 3-2. Market of available Bio-PE resins. The shaded area represents PE-types resins
having potential use for spunbond process (based on MFI and Density) .................. 57

Figure 3-3. IR spectra of petroleum and bio-based PE resins....................................................... 58

Figure 3-4. Thermograms of PE are shown in (a) of TGA and (b) DTGA curves ....................... 61

Figure 3-5. DSC (a) melting and (b) crystallization curves are shown for a molten polymer that
was held at 170 °C for 3 min prior to cooling at 10 °C/min and then heated at 10
°C/min ........................................................................................................................ 63

Figure 3-6. Cross-sections of (a) spunbond, Bio-PE20/PP bicomponent nonwoven fabric and
50/50 sheath-core fibers within the webs collected at aspirator pressures of (b) 0.14
MPa and (c) 0.28 MPa are shown in SEM micrographs ........................................... 65

Figure 3-7. Optical micrographs of nonwoven fabrics at various sheath-core components and
aspirator pressures of BioPE-20/PP at (a) 50/50 and 0.14 MPa, (b) 50/50 and 0.28
MPa, (c) 75/25 and 0.14 MPa, (d) 75/25 and 0.28 MPa; PE-17/PP at (e) 50/50 and
0.14 MPa, (f) 50/50 and 0.28 MPa, (g) 75/25 and 0.14 MPa, (h) 75/25 and 0.28 MPa,
PE-30/PP at (i) 50/50 and 0.14 MPa (j) 50/50 and 0.28 MPa, (k) 75/25 and 0.14
MPa, (l) 75/25 and 0.28 MPa..................................................................................... 66
 xii

Figure 3-8. Properties of sheath-core bicomponent spunbond nonwovens fabrics (a) fiber
diameter, (b) thickness, (c) tensile index, and (d) tear index ..................................... 69

Figure 4-1. Stages and factors affecting the environmental sustainability of bio-PE and
nonwovens made from this material .......................................................................... 88

Figure 4-2. Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) framework (International Organization for

Standardization 2006) ................................................................................................ 89

Figure 4-3. System boundaries for sugarcane production (cradle-to-gate)................................... 90

Figure 4-4. Sugarcane expansion in Brazil from 1985 to 2019. The yellow area represents
sugarcane cultivation. Data from (Sistema de Estimativas de Emissões de Gases de
Efeito Estufa do Observatório do Clima 2021) ......................................................... 98

Figure 4-5. System boundaries for bioethanol production in an autonomous facility

(cradle-to-gate) ........................................................................................................ 101

Figure 4-6. System boundaries for bioethanol production in an annexed facility (cradle-to-gate)
................................................................................................................................. 105

Figure 4-7. System boundaries for bio-polyethylene production (cradle-to-pellet) ................... 109

Figure 4-8. Process simulation for bio-polyethylene production (Aspen Plus v11) ................... 110

Figure 4-9. System boundaries for the production of bicomponent sheath-core spunbond
nonwoven ................................................................................................................. 113

Figure 4-10. System boundaries for disposal of absorbent hygiene product (cradle-to-grave).
Production and use stages of the nonwoven were not considered .......................... 116

Figure 4-11. Systems boundaries – Consequential analysis ....................................................... 120

Figure 4-12. Contribution tree of global warming potential of sugarcane cultivated using
inorganic fertilizers ................................................................................................. 122

Figure 4-13. Contribution tree for global warming potential of sugarcane ................................ 123

Figure 4-14. Comparison between sugarcane practices .............................................................. 124

Figure 4-15. Global warming potential considering direct land-use change emissions for
sugarcane produced using organic fertilizers (average values for dLUC were used)
................................................................................................................................ 127
 xiii
Figure 4-16. Contribution tree for global warming potential of ethanol produced in an
autonomous facility (LUC of sugarcane is not considered) ................................... 128

Figure 4-17. Contribution tree for global warming potential of ethanol produced in an
autonomous facility (LUC emissions are not considered) ..................................... 130

Figure 4-18. Comparison between ethanol production schemes ................................................ 131

Figure 4-19. Contribution tree for global warming potential of high-density bio-polyethylene (No
LUC are considered). Biogenic carbon in bio-PE: 3.14 kgCO2eq/kg .................... 133

Figure 4-20. Comparison between scenarios evaluated for bio-polyethylene ............................ 134

Figure 4-21. Global warming potential considering direct Land-Use Change Emissions for high-
density polyethylene and comparison to Fossil-PE (Harding et al. 2007; The
Ecoinvent database v3 2020c). Cradle-to-gate. *Biogenic carbon: 3.14 kgCO2eq/kg
................................................................................................................................ 136

Figure 4-22. Contribution tree and comparison between spunbond nonwovens made from Bio-
PE/PP or Fossil-PE/PP. Cradle-to-gate. *Biogenic carbon: 1.57
kgCO2eq/kgNonwoven ........................................................................................... 138

Figure 4-23. Global Warming Potential for waste treatment of spunbond nonwoven containing
Bio-PE or Fossil PE. Cradle-to-grave .................................................................... 140

Figure 4-24 Global warming potential of sugarcane – Comparison of consequential approach

(CLCA) to attributional approach (ALCA) ............................................................ 142

Figure 4-25. Global warming potential of bio-PE – Comparison of consequential approach

(CLCA) to attributional approach (ALCA). Cradle-to-gate. *Biogenic carbon: 3.14
kgCO2eq/kg ............................................................................................................ 143

Figure 4-26. Global Warming Potential for waste treatment of spunbond nonwoven containing
Bio-PE or Fossil PE. Cradle-to-grave .................................................................... 144

Figure 5-1. Methodology to evaluate conversion economics of bio-polyethylene (Adapted from

Abbati De Assis et al. (2018)) ................................................................................. 166

Figure 5-2. Capital investment per area (bare equipment costs obtained from Aspen Plus). ..... 169

Figure 5-3. Cost structure of bio-polyethylene ........................................................................... 170

Figure 5-4. Sensitivity analysis for the manufacturing cost of bio-polyethylene (Ethanol price
±17%, Yield ±5%, Depreciation ±25%) .................................................................. 171
 xiv
Figure 5-5. Historical ethanol prices in Sao Paulo state – Brazil (United States Department of
Agriculture, 2021).................................................................................................... 172

Figure 5-6. Future manufacturing cost and price of bio-PE based on ethanol prices and
2% material and 5% energy reduction ..................................................................... 173

Figure 6-1. Stages involved in the production of plastics ........................................................... 192

Figure 6-2. Overall process to apply SMAA in the case study (Adapted from Van Schoubroeck et
al. (2021)) ................................................................................................................ 196

Figure 6-3. (a) Environmental, (b) economic, (c) social, and (d) integrated probabilistic
distribution of scores for evaluated materials .......................................................... 202

Figure 6-4. Weighted score distribution for integrated sustainability criteria ............................ 203

Figure 6-5. Overall integrated probabilistic distribution of scores for evaluated materials
considering only Global Warming Potential in the environmental dimension........ 204
 1
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview of the industry, motivation, and structure of the work

Bioplastics can be defined as polymeric compounds that are bio-based, biodegradable, or

both (European Bioplastics, 2018). The current production of these materials is estimated at 2.4

million tons, and it is expected to triple by 2026 (European Bioplastics, 2021). This forecast

reveals the exponential growth of this industry as a response to current sustainability trends

(Deloitte, 2020). This rise is supported by consumers, who generally have a positive perception

of bioplastics and are willing to pay a higher price (Zwicker et al., 2021). Thus, these materials

have been rapidly adopted in different applications such as packaging, textiles, and consumer

goods (European Bioplastics, 2019, 2020, 2021).

The current offering of bioplastics includes chemistries such as bio-polyethylene (bio-

PE), bio-polyethylene terephthalate (bio-PET), bio-polyamides (bio-PA), or bio-polypropylene

(bio-PP), which are bio-based versions of conventional non-biodegradable plastics, and receive

the designation of “drop-in plastics” (European Bioplastics, 2018). Other important industrial

players are polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), and polybutylene adipate

terephthalate (PBAT), which are part of the biodegradable group of bioplastics (European

Bioplastics, 2021).

Specifically, bio-PE has received increasing attention due to the importance of its fossil-

based counterpart (Agboola et al., 2017). New investments are taking place to increase the

production of this material (Braskem, 2021), which currently represents ca. 10 % of the global

bioplastics market, with 0.2 million tons produced every year (European Bioplastics, 2021). Bio-

PE is synthesized through dehydration of sugarcane ethanol to produce bio-ethylene, which is

subsequently purified, recovered, and polymerized to make different polymer grades such as
 2
high-, low- and linear-low density bio-PE (Siracusa & Blanco, 2020). This bioplastic can be

found in packaging and consumer goods applications such as diapers and feminine care, where it

is part of topsheet and backsheet nonwoven fabrics (Attn: Grace, 2020; Kimberly-Clark, 2021;

The Honest Company Inc., 2021).

A nonwoven can be defined as a web of fibers bonded together by any means except

knitting and wet milling (International Organization for Standardization, 2019). This industry is

valued at more than $17.7 billion in North America and includes products like filters, absorbent

hygiene, wipes, and geosynthetics (Kalil 2020). Although natural fibers are important in this

sector, polyolefins such as PP, PET, and PE constitute the primary raw materials for nonwoven

applications (Albrecht, 2006). Thus, due to the previously outlined sustainability trends, a new

offering of bio-based nonwovens incorporates bio-plastics to provide them with more renewable

characteristics (Attn: Grace, 2020; Dahle, 2020; Nonwovens Industry, 2019). Nevertheless, the

role of some bioplastics is still to be determined in this industry. Manufacturers face challenges

in understanding the environmental sustainability, conversion economics, and performance of

these materials, which could ultimately lead to a more extensive adoption.

Previous research efforts have evaluated the environmental impact (Bishop et al., 2021;

Walker & Rothman, 2020), properties (Kuciel & Mazur, 2019; Rodríguez et al., 2020; Shim et

al., 2016), and economics (Kwan et al., 2018; Ratshoshi et al., 2021) of some bioplastics.

However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, research evaluating these aspects of bio-PE in

nonwoven applications is lacking, and no studies can be found in the literature. Moreover, an

integrated approach to profile this material and other bioplastics is missing.

The present work aims to fill this gap by profiling bio-PE and compare it to fossil-PE in

terms of environmental sustainability, conversion economics, and performance for nonwoven

 3
applications, which would help dissipate the uncertainty around the role of this bioplastic in the

industry. Thus, this dissertation is segmented into seven chapters. Chapter 1 corresponds to the

introduction, concepts of bioplastics and nonwovens, and motivation of the work.

Chapter 2 is a systematic literature review to understand the state-of-the-art knowledge

pertaining to the environmental sustainability of bioplastics with a focus on carbon footprint. The

work developed in this chapter also aims to review the main methodological challenges

associated with the environmental assessment of these materials, which builds the technical

foundations of Chapter 4. Finally, an approach to use bioplastics for the decarbonization of our

society, named Smart Use of Materials (SUM), is proposed. It is based on the proposition of only

using certain bioplastics in targeted applications to leverage their environmental benefits and

contribute to the global goals for reducing fossil emissions.

Chapter 3 presents a fundamental study on the characterization and performance

evaluation of bio-PE for nonwovens applications. This chapter aims to understand how the

current offering of this bio-plastic can be used by the nonwovens industry and to what extent it

can replace current resins. Analytical techniques such as Fourier Transform Infrared

Spectroscopy (FTIR), Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR), Thermogravimetric Analysis

(TGA), and Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) are used to characterize the polymer and

obtain important information for its conversion into nonwoven products. Then, sheath-core

spunbond bicomponent nonwovens using bio-PE as a sheath-fiber and PP as a sheath-core are

produced and characterized. Outcomes from this chapter help understand the role of bio-PE in

the nonwovens industry and represent the first of its type in the literature using this bio-based

plastic for the application.

 4
Chapter 4 comprises an extensive environmental assessment of bio-PE across its supply

chain from attributional and consequential points of view. This chapter aims to understand how

the environmental sustainability of this material is affected by different practices at each

production stage. It also addresses the main methodological gaps in the literature for

understanding the environmental sustainability of bio-PE, and proposes which factors associated

with bioplastics should be evaluated to guarantee a robust result. Herein, life cycle assessment is

used to estimate the environmental burdens related to the production and disposal of bio-PE used

for nonwovens applications and the unintended consequences of producing and adopting this

bioplastic.

Chapter 5 assesses the conversion economics of bio-PE. A techno-economic analysis is

developed in this chapter to understand the cost structure, minimum selling price, and the

influence of technology improvement and market effects on the conversion economics of this

bio-based plastic.

Chapter 6 comprises the development of a multi-criteria decision-making tool to evaluate

bio-based and oil-based plastics using integrated sustainability criteria. Specifically, this work

aims to use Stochastic Multi-Attribute Analysis to establish a probabilistic preference ranking to

help manufacturers with material selection based on environmental, economic, and social

indicators. The integrated assessment to profile bioplastics is concluded with this work.

Finally, Chapter 7 presents overall conclusions and suggestions for future work.

Overall, this dissertation accomplishes a robust assessment of the environmental

sustainability, performance, and conversion economics of bio-PE, and illustrates the use of

multi-criteria decision tools for material selection using an integrated sustainability approach.
 5
1.2 References

Agboola, O., Sadiku, R., Mokrani, T., Amer, I., & Imoru, O. (2017). Polyolefins and the

environment. In Polyolefin Fibres: Structure, Properties and Industrial Applications:

Second Edition. [Link]

Albrecht, W. (2006). Nonwoven fabrics: raw materials, manufacture, applications,

characteristics, testing processes (W. Albrecht, Wilhelm, Fuchs, Hilmar, Kittelmann

(ed.)).

Attn: Grace. (2020). Attn: Grace. [Link]

Bishop, G., Styles, D., & Lens, P. N. L. (2021). Environmental performance comparison of

bioplastics and petrochemical plastics: A review of life cycle assessment (LCA)

methodological decisions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 168, 105451.

[Link]

Braskem. (2021). Braskem invests US$61 million to increase biopolymer production.

[Link]

biopolymer-production

Dahle, J. (2020). Sustainability: narrowing a wide scope. Conference Proceedings RISE 2020.

Deloitte. (2020). Shifting sands: The rise of consumer sustainability.

[Link]

[Link]

European Bioplastics. (2018). What are bioplastics?

European Bioplastics. (2019). Bioplastics market update 2019. [Link]

[Link]/market/

European Bioplastics. (2020). Bioplastics market update 2020.

 6
European Bioplastics. (2021). Bioplastics market update 2021. [Link]

[Link]/news/publications/%0AEuropean

International Organization for Standardization. (2019). ISO 9092:2019 Nonwovens - Vocabulary

(p. 3).

Kalil, B. (2020). “Understanding the state of the north american nonwoven’s market and a

market gone mad.” RISE conference.

Kimberly-Clark. (2021). Huggies® special deliveryTM diapers. [Link]

us/diapers/specialdelivery

Kuciel, S., & Mazur, K. (2019). Novel hybrid composite based on bio-PET with basalt/carbon

fibre. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 634(1).

[Link]

Kwan, T. H., Hu, Y., & Lin, C. S. K. (2018). Techno-economic analysis of a food waste

valorisation process for lactic acid, lactide and poly(lactic acid) production. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 181, 72–87. [Link]

Nonwovens Industry. (2019). Fitesa Wins IDEA Achievement Award. [Link]

[Link]/contents/view_breaking-news/2019-03-29/fitesa-wins-idea-achievement-

award/

Ratshoshi, B. K., Farzad, S., & Görgens, J. F. (2021). Techno-economic assessment of polylactic

acid and polybutylene succinate production in an integrated sugarcane biorefinery.

Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 15(6), 1871–1887.

[Link]

Rodríguez, L. J., Fabbri, S., Orrego, C. E., & Owsianiak, M. (2020). Comparative life cycle

assessment of coffee jar lids made from biocomposites containing poly(lactic acid) and
 7
banana fiber. Journal of Environmental Management, 266(March).

[Link]

Shim, E., Pourdeyhimi, B., & Shiffler, D. (2016). Process–structure–property relationship of

melt spun poly(lactic acid) fibers produced in the spunbond process. Journal of Applied

Polymer Science, 133(47). [Link]

Siracusa, V., & Blanco, I. (2020). Bio-polyethylene (Bio-PE), bio-polypropylene (Bio-PP) and

bio-poly(ethylene terephthalate) (Bio-PET): recent developments in bio-based polymers

analogous to petroleum-derived ones for packaging and engineering applications.

Polymers, 12(8). [Link]

The Honest Company Inc. (2021). Clean concious diaper. [Link]

conscious-diaper

Walker, S., & Rothman, R. (2020). Life cycle assessment of bio-based and fossil-based plastic:

A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 261, 121158.

[Link]

Zwicker, M. V., Brick, C., Gruter, G. J. M., & van Harreveld, F. (2021). (Not) doing the right

things for the wrong reasons: An investigation of consumer attitudes, perceptions, and

willingness to pay for bio-based plastics. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(12).

[Link]
 8
2 RETHINKING THE USE OF BIO-BASED PLASTICS TO ACCELERATE THE

DECARBONIZATION OF OUR SOCIETY

2.1 Abstract

The need to tackle the current environmental impact of plastics is driving the

development of new materials based on natural resources or waste with features related to

recyclability and biodegradability. Although it has been reported that these bio-based plastics can

offer carbon footprint reductions compared to fossil-based materials, it is still unclear their role

in a more sustainable economy. Herein, a systematic review was performed to understand the

environmental impact of producing bio-based plastics. This information was used to perform an

environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) considering different end-of-life scenarios for

specific materials. It was determined that methodological aspects across the literature were not

uniform, resulting in high variability of the results. Our findings also showed that recycling

represents the waste management option with a lower carbon footprint, followed by industrial

composting, when applicable, and incineration with energy recovery. Then, two case studies

were outlined to propose a Smart Use of Materials (SUM) based on the assumption of only using

certain materials in targeted applications. It was determined that if bio-PET is used for packaging

products, a carbon footprint reduction of up to 67% can be achieved compared to PLA. On the

other hand, if PLA is used for textile applications, the carbon footprint could be reduced by up to

80% compared to bio-PET. In both cases, the likeliness of specific end-of-life strategies based on

the application and the environmental profile of the materials contribute to the lower carbon

footprint. Therefore, herein we present a major opportunity to promote the decarbonization of

our society using current technologies and supply chain. This concept contributes to building a
 9
society that understands the place of bio-based materials and addresses the plastic problem from

a material selection point of view.

2.2 Introduction

As the global amount of plastics dumped into municipal solid wastes reached an alarming

quantity of 242 million tons for a single year (2016) (Sataloff et al. 2018), unprecedented

demonstrations of societal pressure for more sustainable practices in the production, use, and

disposal of plastics have been experienced in the latest years. Statistics for the U.S. show the

worrisome reality of the fate of used plastics, with only 9% being recycled, 16% being

incinerated for the production of energy, and the remaining being landfilled (United States

Environmental Protection Agency 2020a). In practical terms, during the last decade, each U.S.

citizen contributed to ca. 1.2 tons of the plastics found in landfills, which equals 0.32 kg per

capita per day (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2021a). Moreover, it is estimated

that at least another 1 million tons are littered or illegally dumped every year, causing a

significant impact on the environment (Law et al. 2020).

Global strategies designed and implemented to address the “plastics problem” have been

extensively discussed (Ellen Macarthur Foundation 2019; European Technology Platform for

Sustainable Chemistry 2020; Lau et al. 2020) and include i) the substitution of plastics by

alternative paper-based and bio-based materials, ii) decrease in the amount of material usage and

reusability, iii) recyclability, iv) compostability, and v) production of plastics from renewable

sources, such as plant-based rather than fossil-based resources, known as bio-based plastics

(European Technology Platform for Sustainable Chemistry 2020). However, some technical,

logistic, and economic challenges limit the full implementation of the strategies mentioned

above.
 10
The substitution of some plastics with bio-based materials has opened the window for the

development of paper-based goods. Such developments include bottles (Diageo 2020), wrapping

(Amcor 2020; Nestle 2021), straws (Ahlstrom Munksjo n.d.), among others (Grow 2020;

International n.d.; JASA packaging solutions 2021). Nevertheless, the low performance of the

paper-based alternatives altogether with their higher cost, has delayed their adoption in some

instances (Liu et al. 2020). However, it is expected that paper-based packaging products will

continue growing at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.5% for the next five years

worldwide (Research and Markets 2020).

In relation to decreasing the use of plastic and increasing its reusability, multiple

companies have implemented more appropriate designs with major effort towards either

lightweight or reusable goods. This is the case with beverages and food containers (Ellen

Macarthur Foundation 2019). However, this approach requires a joint effort and high

investments in innovation to rethink how products are currently designed (European Technology

Platform for Sustainable Chemistry 2020). In addition, the education and motivation of

consumers will play an essential role for success (Ellen Macarthur Foundation 2019).

The recycling of plastics has been recognized as the potential workhorse to reducing its

environmental impact (Hopewell et al. 2009). Nevertheless, recycling rates are still low in the

U.S., and the lack of policies for promoting recycling makes this task challenging. In addition,

sorting of post-consumer plastic to avoid contamination and optimize the collection process is

required, which in practicality is not always technically feasible (Briassoulis et al. 2019).

The idea behind biodegradability is to avoid plastics in the environment by developing

materials that readily to degrade at normal environmental or industrial conditions, hence the

recent increase in the offering of biodegradable plastics. However, challenges associated with the
 11
performance of these types of plastics have limited their full adoption (Gruber 2001; van den

Oever and Molenveld 2017). In addition, biodegradable plastics do not necessarily have a lower

carbon footprint when compared to conventional plastics (Hottle et al. 2013; SantosMiranda et

al. 2008), and require special end-of-life management strategies to ensure their biodegradation

(European Environment Agency 2020).

Bio-based plastics have surged as a possible alternative to mitigate the environmental

burdens associated with the production of fossil-based plastics. In essence, they can be produced

from renewable sources (Mervine et al. 2020) and, in some cases, emulate conventional plastics,

receiving the name of “drop-in plastics” (European Bioplastics 2018). Although bio-based

plastics production is still at an early stage, diverse sectors have adopted them, with packaging,

consumer goods, and textiles at the top of the list (European Bioplastics 2022). Both bio-based

and biodegradable plastics constitute the family of bioplastics, whose production reached the

figure of 2.4 million tons in 2021, and it is expected to grow more than 216 % by 2026

(European Bioplastics 2022). Some pathways described in the literature to produce some of these

bio-based plastics are listed in Table 2-1.

 12
Table 2-1. Production pathways for some bioplastics.

Renewable Production
Bioplastic Pathway Reference
raw material (tons/year)a
(Hottle et al.
2017; Ita-Nagy
Bio-polyethylene (bio- Dehydration +
Bio-ethanol 200,000 et al. 2020;
PE) polymerization
Tsiropoulos et
al. 2015)
Bacterial Fermentation + (Benavides et
Polylactic acid (PLA) Corn 460,000
polymerization al. 2020)
Starch, Bacterial fermentation +
Bio-polybutylene (Tecchio et al.
glucose, or polycondensation with 80,000
succinate (bio-PBS)* 2016)
cellulose 1,4-butadienol
Polyhydroxyalkanoates Waste organic Fermentation + aerobic (Andreasi Bassi
40,000
(PHA) material stages + recovery et al. 2021)
Polyhydroxybutyrate (Posen et al.
Corn Fermentation + recovery -
(PHB) 2016)
Deoxygenation + steam
Bio-polypropylene Used cooking (Moretti et al.
cracking + 46,000
(bio-PP) oil 2020)
polymerization
Dehydration + oxidation
Bio-polyethylene (Hottle et al.
Bio-ethanol + polymerization with 150,000
terephthalate (bio-PET)* 2017)
terephtalic acid
Bio-polyvinyl chloride Dehydration + (Posen et al.
Bio-ethanol -
(bio-PVC) polymerization 2016)

*Partially bio-based. It is produced using at least one fossil-based monomer; a: (European Bioplastics, 2022)

In terms of sustainability, recent studies elucidate that bioplastics can represent an option

for the decarbonization of products (Walker and Rothman 2020). However, in reality, the

environmental assessment of bioplastics is more complex than what has been previously

reported. Challenges associated with the quality of the data and the lack of an integrated
 13
methodology to approach the unique features of biomass-derived products represent an obstacle

to understanding the sustainability of these materials (Grabowski et al. 2015). Also, there is a

current lack of knowledge on how these materials should be used or what type of products or

end-use promote or hinder their environmental advantages. Therefore, our analytical review

provides an excellent reference to the state-of-the-art knowledge pertaining to sustainability and

the proper use of bio-plastics, analyzing some existing scenarios. Our analysis intends to show

how the appropriate use of bio-plastics in specific families of products represents a unique

opportunity to reduce our current carbon footprint. Herein, we introduce the concept of “Smart

Use of Materials” (SUM). The SUM concept builds on the assumption that using certain

materials for specific families of products represents a major opportunity to promote the

decarbonization of our society. The novelty of this approach lies in the possibility of reducing

carbon footprints by strategically assigning certain bioplastics only to applications that guarantee

the likelihood of specific end-of-life management. This strategy would help approach the plastic

problem from the product conception stage, which we believe could be implemented in the short

term.

2.3 Methodology

The methodology is divided into three parts: i) the collection and analysis of scientific

articles and reports evaluating the environmental impact of bio-based plastics, ii) the cradle-to-

grave life cycle assessment of selected bio-based plastics, and iii) the modeling of scenarios to

demonstrate the potential of Smart Use of Materials (SUM) to reduce carbon footprint and other

environmental impacts associated to the manufacturing, use, and disposal of plastics.

 14
Search and screening of publications

An extensive and systematic review of publications was executed to assess state-of-the-

art knowledge on the environmental impacts of bio-based plastics. Scientific search engines,

such as Web of Science and Compendex, were used to retrieve peer-reviewed articles on Life

Cycle Assessment (LCA) of bio-based plastics from the past 5 years. LCA methodology has

been widely used to assess the environmental impact of a product by evaluating its production,

use, and disposal (European Commission 2010; International Organization for Standardization

2006).

The keywords in Table 2-2 were used to perform the search, and results from the query

were screened for further analysis. The following screening criteria were applied: i) studies

following ISO 14040 series guidelines (preferably) (International Organization for

Standardization 2006), ii) publications assessing the types of plastics listed in Table 2-2

(comprising ca. 80% of the bio-based plastic market), and iii) articles with system boundaries

cradle-to-gate or cradle-to-grave.
 15
Table 2-2. Keywords employed during the search.

Nature/Origin Material Environmental Assessment

Plastic*
Polymer*
Polyethylene*
Biobased Polypropylene* Life Cycle Assessment
Renewable Polyethylene terephthalate* Life Cycle Analysis
Bio- Polyamide* Impact assessment
Sustainable Polylactic acid Environmental impact
Green Polyvinyl chloride* Ecoprofile
Polytrimethylene terephthalate Sustainability
Polybutylene Terephthalate
Polybutylene succinate
Polyhydroxyalkanoates

*The symbol “*” denotes that derivatives and/or the plural of the word were also included in the search.

Analysis of the information

As LCA is highly dependent on assumptions (Djekic et al. 2019; Finkbeiner et al. 2014),

understanding the different scenarios considered for bio-based plastics is necessary. Peer-

reviewed articles selected in section 2.1.1 were analyzed in terms of methodology, goal, scope,

and results. Variables considered in the analysis include functional units, system boundaries,

geographical assumptions, end-of-life scenarios, environmental impact categories assessed, land-

use change, characterization methods, and any other factor affecting the environmental impact of

bio-based plastics. From this analysis, the assumptions were mapped, and a better understanding

of the current state-of-the-art knowledge pertaining to the sustainability of bio-based plastics was

achieved. Thus, a more objective comparison was performed, and more realistic scenarios and

conclusions were drawn.

 16
2.3.2 Life-Cycle Assessment of bio-based plastics

Life-Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) results of each bio-based plastic, specifically

Global Warming Potential, were collected. When possible, a Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) for each

material was built based on findings from the literature review. Cradle-to-gate results were used

to build cradle-to-grave assessments for each bio-based plastic. Therefore, in this study, different

end-of-life scenarios were simulated. Credits were taken in scenarios where displacement of

virgin materials or energy occurred. The software openLCA was used to perform the assessment,

and TRACI was employed as a characterization method. When environmental data was required

and not found in the literature, the database Ecoinvent was employed. As a functional unit, one

kg of managed bio-based plastics was selected. Finally, only the stages for raw materials

extraction, plastic production, collection, and end-of-life stages were considered. Under these

criteria, the steps to produce and use the final product (e.g., packaging or textiles) were omitted.

It is important to mention that, although different cradle-to-grave assessments were found in the

literature, these were only used to identify possible end-of-life strategies for bio-based plastics,

and their results were not employed in this research.

2.3.3 Modeling of scenarios and case studies: Smart Use of Materials (SUM)

Our study aims to demonstrate how the concept and practice of Smart Use of Materials

(SUM) can augment the environmental advantages of bio-based plastics and how these materials

should be used to mitigate the environmental burdens associated with plastics. To this extent, the

cradle-to-grave information generated in the previous section was used to build a model to assess

different scenarios which consider inputs, such as type of plastic, nature of the application, and

end-of-life (EoL) strategies. Specifically, landfilling was not considered within the EoL options

since one of the main problems related to plastics arises from their large presence in landfills.
 17
With this model, the environmental impact of using the same material in different products was

calculated and compared, and the application with the lowest environmental burden could be

selected as part of SUM. To illustrate this concept, the environmental performance of two bio-

based plastics, i.e., bio-PET and PLA, was evaluated in textile and packaging applications, and a

comparison between them was performed. Then the best material for each application was

determined based on environmental impact. This is the basis of SUM, where it is assumed that

limiting the use of specific materials to targeted families of products represents a major

opportunity to promote the decarbonization of our society. Finally, the subtraction between

results was calculated to understand the potential GHG savings of using one material versus the

other. Thus, the application providing higher savings is proposed as the targeted application

where the material should be used.

Also, a correction of SUM due to performance is proposed. The savings results were

adjusted based on the mechanical properties of the selected bio-based plastics. This adjustment

accounts for performance differences that could prevent using the same amount of both materials

in the same application. The authors acknowledge that mechanical properties do not necessarily

describe the key properties for all the possible applications. Thus, other characteristics, such as

barrier properties, could also be evaluated.

2.4 Results and discussion

2.4.1 Methodological aspects related to the analysis of the environmental impacts of bio-

based plastics

More than 630 articles were gathered and pre-screened during the query (Table 2-2).

From these findings, more than 30 studies met the criteria outlined in section 2.1.1. These
 18
publications were analyzed in terms of assumptions, methodology, goal, scope, and results. The

literature review showed a lack of consensus on approaching and analyzing unique aspects

related to the production and management of bio-based plastics. As also observed by Bishop and

collaborators (Bishop et al. 2021), the main methodological aspects included in the assessment of

the environmental impact of bio-based plastics can be summarized as follows i) Land Use

Change, ii) Credits related to the accounting approach for bio-based carbon, iii) End-of-life

management (when applicable), and iv) multifunctionality approach, i.e., the use of system

expansion or allocation. Other factors considered in some of the studies included geographical

location, characterization methods, and assumptions related to transportation, energy sources,

and emissions associated with biomass sources.

Land-Use Change (LUC)

Land-use change (LUC) can be defined as the changes in the original use or management

of land due to human activities, which may result in soil disturbances, potentially changing the

net flux of greenhouse gases (GHG) from the field (International Organization for

Standardization 2018). LUC can be classified as direct (dLUC) if the land-use changes happen

within the system boundaries under evaluation and indirect (iLUC) if the changes occur outside

the system boundaries but are a consequence of dLUC (International Organization for

Standardization 2018).

In general, LUC in the literature was only assessed when soil organic carbon (SOC)

changes and emissions data were available (Andreasi Bassi et al. 2021; Benavides et al. 2018;

Ingrao et al. 2017; Ita-Nagy et al. 2020; Kikuchi et al. 2017; Morão and de Bie 2019; Ni et al.

2021; Posen et al. 2016; Tsiropoulos et al. 2015) or through models considering biomass

demand, type of land transformation, biophysical factors, and economic equilibrium (Tonini et
 19
al. 2021). The most common types of land transformation considered in the literature were i)

grassland, ii) forest, and iii) pasture land to cropland, mostly related to sugarcane and maize (Ita-

Nagy et al. 2020; Kikuchi et al. 2017; Morão and de Bie 2019; Tonini et al. 2021); and cropland

to grassland, associated with Miscanthus (Ni et al. 2021). However, although LUC accounting

allowed for more robust analysis, the high variability of LUC emissions factors sometimes

constituted a methodological issue to understand the sustainability of bio-based plastics

compared to their fossil counterpart (Tsiropoulos et al. 2015).

Accounting of bio-based carbon

Biogenic carbon in a product or material can be defined as the carbon plants capture from

the atmosphere during their growth (International Organization for Standardization 2018). Since

biogenic carbon is absorbed during the growth of the biomass, and part of it could remain in bio-

based plastics after the end-of-life, a significant number of authors account for it as a credit due

to carbon dioxide storage or sequestration (Akanuma et al. 2014; Alvarenga et al. 2013;

Benavides et al. 2018, 2020; Changwichan et al. 2018; Van der Harst and Potting 2013; Hottle et

al. 2017; Ita-Nagy et al. 2020; Kookos et al. 2019; Morão and de Bie 2019; Moretti et al. 2020;

Musonda et al. 2020; Ni et al. 2021; Posen et al. 2016; Tonini et al. 2021; Tsiropoulos et al.

2015). Reported credit values (based on the carbon content in bio-based plastics) ranged from

0.45 to 3.14 kgCO2eq per kg of material (Benavides et al. 2018; Changwichan and Gheewala

2020; Morão and de Bie 2019; Tsiropoulos et al. 2015). Biogenic carbon accounting represented

one of the main advantages of bio-based plastics when compared to fossil-based counterparts,

resulting, in some cases, in net negative values of global warming potential.

Other authors took a neutral approach regarding biogenic carbon and did not consider any

credits (Maga et al. 2019; Nieder-Heitmann et al. 2019a; Papong et al. 2014; Semba et al. 2018;
 20
Suwanmanee et al. 2013). Specifically, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

states that biogenic carbon needs to be documented separately, and any emission or removal

should be considered as if it happens at the beginning of the period under evaluation

(International Organization for Standardization 2018, 2020a; b; c). Therefore, no credits should

be taken if the biogenic carbon can eventually be released into the atmosphere in the form of

carbon dioxide.

Accounting for biogenic carbon constitutes one of the most controversial methodological

aspects when assessing the sustainability of bio-based plastics seen in the literature causing large

differences between GWP results for the same type of bio-based plastic.

End-of-life management

When assessed, the options for end-of-life played an important role in the environmental

impact of bio-based plastics. Scenarios evaluated in the literature were diverse. The most

commons approaches include i) 100% recycling (Changwichan et al. 2018; Hottle et al. 2017;

Tonini et al. 2021), ii) 100% product incineration with energy recovery (Choi et al. 2018;

Kikuchi et al. 2017; Semba et al. 2018; Tonini et al. 2021; Vogli et al. 2020), iii) 100%

landfilling (Benavides et al. 2020; Choi et al. 2018; Hottle et al. 2017; Tonini et al. 2021), iv)

100% composting (Benavides et al. 2020; Changwichan and Gheewala 2020; Hottle et al. 2017;

Ingrao et al. 2017), v) anaerobic digestion (Changwichan and Gheewala 2020), and vi) hybrid

scenarios based on specific local practices (David et al. 2020; Tonini et al. 2021).

Other assumptions also played a key role in the environmental performance of bio-based

plastics when combined with some end-of-life scenarios. For instance, when biogenic carbon

was accounted as a credit for non-biodegradable plastics, landfilling was ironically the most

environmentally friendly option from a Global Warming Potential perspective compared to

 21
recycling, incineration for energy recovery, or a combination of aforementioned strategies

(Tonini et al. 2021). Under this approach, the consideration of environmental credits due to the

presence of biogenic carbon in landfilled bio-based plastic translates into carbon storage.

However, using these criteria as a guide to decide which end-of-life strategy can help mitigate

the plastics problems would lead to wrong conclusions. Therefore, limitations on the amount of

plastic landfilled or the consideration of other environmental categories different from GWP

should be followed. This constitutes the approach pursued in this study, where landfill is not

considered a possible end-of-life scenario, which aligns with recent legislation established in the

European Union (Directorate-General for Environment. European Comission n.d.).

In addition, it was evident that assessed cradle-to-grave LCA studies only focus on

analyzing the environmental impact of possible end-of-life scenarios of bio-based products

without considering the smart use of bio-based plastics. An example of this is the manufacture of

packaging products made from PLA, which avoids the possibility of recycling and restricts the

options of management strategies to landfill, incineration, or composting (Benavides et al. 2020;

Changwichan et al. 2018; David et al. 2020; Maga et al. 2019; Rybaczewska-Blazejowska and

Mena-Nieto 2020).

Multifunctionality of systems

Other factors influencing the environmental impact score for bio-based plastics are the

way to allocate environmental impacts in multiproduct systems, i.e., when more than one product

is obtained. Economic allocation has been the most widely used (Ita-Nagy et al. 2020; Kookos et

al. 2019; Ni et al. 2021; Silalertruksa and Gheewala 2020; Tsiropoulos et al. 2015), followed by

mass (Ita-Nagy et al. 2020; Kookos et al. 2019; Nieder-Heitmann et al. 2019b; Posen et al.

2016), and energy basis (Kikuchi et al. 2017; Kookos et al. 2019; Moretti et al. 2020; Posen et al.
 22
2016). A system expansion approach has also been used. (Andreasi Bassi et al. 2021; Morão and

de Bie 2019; Posen et al. 2016; Tsiropoulos et al. 2015).

2.4.2 Global Warming Potential of Bio-based plastics (cradle-to-gate)

Global Warming Potential (GWP) is the most evaluated environmental impact category

among the LCA studies for bio-based plastics. Most of the publications herein examined

included at least one additional category, such as fossil energy usage, eutrophication, or

acidification, with a significant amount of articles focusing only on GWP (Benavides et al. 2020;

Chen et al. 2020; Choi et al. 2018; Musonda et al. 2020; Ni et al. 2021; Semba et al. 2018;

Tonini et al. 2021). The renewable character of the biomass and the idea of using bio-based

plastics to reduce the carbon footprint might justify this trend.

Many studies have evaluated GWP for polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA and PHB), while a

small number of previous studies have assessed the environmental impact of bio-polypropylene

and bio-polyvinyl chloride. In most cases, large differences in results were observed for a

specific material (Figure 2-1). The methodological aspects outlined in the previous section are

responsible for this variance. For instance, PHA and PHB presented the highest variation, mainly

due to assumptions in the production modeling or allocation choices in the use of waste as raw

materials. Finally, uncertainty around LUC accounting or decisions regarding biogenic carbon in

bio-based plastics also added to the variability of the results.

 23

Figure 2-1. Global warming potential of selected bio-based plastics – Cradle-to-gate boundaries
(Andreasi Bassi et al. 2021; Chen et al. 2020; Ita-Nagy et al. 2020; Kamau-Devers and Miller
2020; Kookos et al. 2019; Moretti et al. 2020; Musonda et al. 2020; Nieder-Heitmann et al.
2019a; Posen et al. 2016; Roibás-Rozas et al. 2020; Silalertruksa and Gheewala 2020; Tecchio et
al. 2016; Tsiropoulos et al. 2015); Biogenic content was considered in the presented results. The
dots represent GWP values from the literature. The middle line in the box corresponds to the
median, while the X represents the mean of the data. The whiskers enlarge to the minimum and
maximum value of the data.

Despite the variability mentioned, it was evident that some bio-based plastics presented a

better environmental performance. For example, this is the case of Bio-PE compared to Bio-PBS

or some scenarios of PHA and PHB. This could be related to a more advanced state of

technology development, yielding more efficient and sustainable processes. Also, credits due to

biogenic carbon played an essential role.

 24
2.4.3 Assessment of Global Warming Potential for end-of-life scenarios for bio-based

plastics (cradle-to-grave)

Bio-based plastics can present diverse end-of-life scenarios depending on their

applications, nature of the plastic, and supply chain maturity for recycling. Based on current

practices and global concerns about diverting from landfills, different end-of-life possibilities

were outlined in our analysis for selected bio-based plastics, and a cradle-to-grave life cycle

assessment was performed. Due to the high variability of the cradle-to-gate results, scenarios

considering minimum, maximum, and average values for each material were assessed. It was

then assumed that these results are representative of the current scientific knowledge related to

the environmental impact of bio-based plastics. Incineration with or without energy recovery was

considered for all different materials studied. Recycling was only evaluated for bio-PET and bio-

PE since their fossil counterparts constitute the most recycled plastics in the U.S. (United States

Environmental Protection Agency 2021b), and the recycling data to build the analysis was

readily available. Finally, industrial composting was only assessed for selected biodegradable

bio-based plastics, i.e., PLA. Bio-PBS, PHA, and PHB were excluded from this analysis since no

robust data for this scenario were found.

Figure 2-2 shows the results of cradle-to-grave assessments for different bio-based

plastics. For this analysis, emissions related to product manufacture and use were not considered.

Better environmental performance was observed for those materials that can be recycled, i.e.,

bio-PET and bio-PE, due to credits for displacing their virgin fossil counterpart. Incineration

performed better when energy recovery (E.R.) was considered due to credits generated for

replacing current energy sources. Finally, industrial composting exhibited advantages compared

to incineration without E.R. In this scenario, most of the carbon present in the plastic is released
 25
into the atmosphere without any credits from a life-cycle perspective, and some carbon could go

to the soil. These findings confirmed the environmental benefits of recycling compared to other

end-of-life scenarios. Although only current recycling practices are presented, the authors are

aware of some programs at a small scale for recycling other bio-based plastics (Vinyplus 2021).

It is expected that a more mature future supply chain will allow extending our analysis to those

materials in the future.

8.0 Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max
Global warming potential

6.0
4.0
(kgCO2eq/kg)

2.0
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
-8.0
B-PET B-PE PLA B-PP B-PVC

Recycling (mechanical) Incineration without ER Incineration with ER Industrial composting

Figure 2-2. Cradle-to-grave Global Warming Potential of selected bio-based plastics. Production
and use stages were not considered.

2.4.4 Smart Use of Materials (SUM)

We wanted to evaluate the benefits of strategically assigning the use of bio-based plastics

to a given family of products with specific options for end-of-life strategies. The main goal was

to assess the impact of selective use of bio-based plastics on the reduction of the material’s

carbon footprint. The Smart Use of Materials (SUM) strategy relates to how materials are

assigned based on materials features (recyclability, compostability) and potential end-of-life

management. To gauge the impact of SUM, the LCA results presented in the previous section
 26
were used to outline two case studies on the use of bio-based plastics: i) packaging and ii) textile

products made either from partially bio-based PET (bio-PET) or PLA. These applications and

bioplastics were selected since they constitute the main sectors adopting bioplastics and both are

important materials within these applications respectively (European Bioplastics 2022). In both

case studies, cradle-to-grave emissions of PLA were subtracted from cradle-to-grave emissions

of bio-PET products to calculate the net emissions of using one material compared to another

(Figure 2-3).

3.0 0.0
a) b) 0.0

2.5
-0.5
Emissions (kgCO2eq/kg)

Emissions (kgCO2eq/kg)

2.0 -0.7
-1.0
1.5

-1.5
1.0

-2.0
0.5 -2.0

0.0 -2.5
Min. Avg. Max. Min. Avg. Max.

Figure 2-3. a) Net difference in cradle-to-grave emissions when making a packaging product
from PLA compared to bio-PET b) Net difference in cradle-to-grave emissions when making a
textile product from PLA compared to bio-PET.

The analysis shows that packaging products made from PET have the highest

recyclability rate (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2021b) compared to the same

product made from other plastics, constituting the most likely and environmentally beneficial

strategy. On the other hand, packaging products made from PLA can be composted or
 27
incinerated with energy recovery since no recycling supply chain for this bio-based plastic is

currently established. Therefore, for this case study, recycling was analyzed for bio-PET, while

composting was selected for PLA. It was estimated that 1.3 - 2.7 additional kgCO2eq per kg of

product could be emitted when using PLA instead of bio-PET for packaging applications (Figure

2-3a). Therefore, bio-PET seems to represent a better option for manufacturing packaging

materials, leading to carbon footprint reductions of up to 67% compared to PLA. Therefore,

Smart Use of Materials would employ bio-PET instead of PLA, which could save ca. 0.15 - 0.31

MMtonCO2eq per year based on the current use of PLA for packaging applications (Lange 2019).

PET blended with cotton constitutes one of the primary applications of this plastic in the

textile industry (Zou et al. 2011). Common mechanical recycling for PET in these blends is not

an option, and more complex techniques to upcycle textile waste are needed (Haslinger et al.

2019). Therefore, incineration with energy recovery constitutes the easiest (United States

Environmental Protection Agency 2020b) and more environmentally friendly waste management

strategy for PET-based textile products (Figure 2-2). Assuming that PLA can be used as a

replacement for PET in textile blends with cotton, industrial composting represents a feasible and

the most environmentally beneficial scenario for this material (Figure 2-2). Therefore,

incineration with energy recovery was analyzed for bio-PET, while composting was selected for

PLA for this case study. It was estimated that up to 2 kgCO2eq per kg of product could be

reduced when using PLA instead of bio-PET in textile applications, which is equal to carbon

footprint reductions of up to 80% (Figure 2-3b). From our analysis, PLA represents a lower

carbon footprint option to manufacture textile products. Therefore, Smart Use of Materials would

employ PLA instead of bio-PET for textile applications, which could help saving up to 0.03

MMtonCO2eq per year based on the current use of bio-PET for textile applications (Lange
 28
2019). Although this number is low compared to the first case study, it is expected that bio-based

plastics production will increase in the next years, which could boost the possible savings by

implementing a Smart Use of Materials.

Based on these results, it is clear that Smart Use of Materials can help select materials to

reduce the carbon footprint of bio-based plastic products based on an educated decision-making

process. The concept is based on only using specific materials in targeted products, ensuring that

the best environmental performance is achieved. The outlined case studies are only two possible

scenarios where SUM can be implemented. The concept can be extended to other bio-based

plastics in other applications, which could support decision-making for legislation and

regulations in using materials for specific applications. Herein, we provided the tools to

implement the SUM strategy in other families of products and bio-based materials.

2.4.5 Smart Use of Materials (SUM) corrected by the performance of bio-based plastics

To further validate the SUM concept, we performed additional analysis considering

correction by the performance of bio-based plastics. The approach shown in the previous section

assumes that a one-to-one replacement (i.e., substituting 1 kg of material A by 1 kg of material

B) is feasible, and differences in resin performance are not considered. To gauge the impact of

this assumption, data on resin performance were collected from main producers of PLA and the

literature for bio-PET. Then, a correction factor was calculated based on mechanical

performance, i.e., tensile strength at break. Specifically, the tensile strength of PLA was divided

by the same property for bio-PET, and the emissions of PLA were divided by this factor.

Therefore, a penalization to the bio-based plastic with inferior performance was applied. Net

emissions considering material performance were then estimated, as illustrated in previous

sections.
 29
Figure 2-4 shows the results of SUM corrected by performance for the first case study

outlined in section 3.4. It was estimated that 1.3 - 2.9 additional kgCO2eq per kg of product

could be emitted when using PLA instead of bio-PET for packaging applications. These findings

agree with the SUM approach without correction by performance, which validates results found

in previous sections. In this case, using bio-PET instead of PLA could lead to carbon footprint

reductions of up to 69%. PLA offers a slightly inferior performance than bio-PET, causing a

higher difference in net emissions than the value without correction. This study selected tensile

strength to illustrate how the net emissions would change when corrected by bio-based plastic

performance. However, based on the application, other properties can be chosen.

3.0

2.5
Emissions (kgCO2eq/kg)

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
Min. Avg. Max.

Figure 2-4. Corrected net difference in cradle-to-grave emissions when making a packaging
product from PLA compared to bio-PET.

2.4.6 Smart Use of Materials (SUM) considering other environmental impact categories

Up to this point, the benefits of SUM have been gauged based on Global Warming

Potential. However, other environmental impact categories should be considered as a part of the
 30
decision-making process. Since results for different environmental impact categories are not

always shown across the literature, a cradle-to-grave assessment was performed for bio-PET and

PLA. Data used to build the analysis was obtained from the database Ecoinvent or other studies

showing the life cycle inventory for the production or end-of-life management of these plastics

(Hottle et al. 2017; Chen et al. 2016; Tsiropoulos et al. 2015). Incineration with energy recovery

was analyzed for bio-PET, while industrial composting was considered for PLA.

As reported in previous sections, assuming that PLA is composted, PLA represents a

reduced GHG potential compared to incinerated bio-PET with energy recovery. This also applies

to fossil fuel depletion, where PLA presents a lower impact. However, this is not the case for

other impact categories, where bio-PET becomes a better option (acidification, eutrophication, or

ozone formation), as shown in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3. Cradle-to-grave assessment for bio-PET and PLA*.

Incinerated Net
Composted
Category bio-PET emissions Unit
PLA
with ER difference
Acidification 9.75E-03 2.10E-02 1.12E-02 kg SO2 eq
Ecotoxicity 7.21E+00 1.58E+01 8.61E+00 CTUe
Eutrophication 2.53E-03 1.85E-02 1.59E-02 kg N eq
Global Warming 4.32E+00 3.22E+00 -1.10E+01 kg CO2 eq
Carcinogenics 9.41E-08 1.59E-07 6.53E-08 CTUh
Non-carcinogenics 3.14E-07 5.23E-07 2.09E-07 CTUh
Ozone Depletion 4.13E-08 2.79E-07 2.37E-07 kg CFC-11 eq
Ozone formation 1.12E-01 1.76E-01 6.34E-02 kg O3 eq
Fossil fuels depletion 5.62E+00 4.07E+00 -1.56E+00 MJ surplus
Respiratory effects 6.10E-04 4.52E-03 3.91E-03 kg PM2.5 eq

*Emissions associated with product manufacturing and use were not considered
 31
These results show the need to identify a set of environmental categories to drive material

selection decisions. Options include calculating single-score factors to encompass the effect of

different indicators and ensure a more robust decision. Either way, the outcome based on SUM

will yield the answer on how bio-based plastics should be used to represent a better

environmental solution. Additionally, using specific materials in targeted applications could help

build a more strong supply chain for waste management alternatives such as recycling and

improving sustainability features.

The benefits of this smart use would translate into reducing the carbon footprint and other

impacts associated with plastics. With evolving technologies, it is necessary to evaluate if new

optimal scenarios can be achieved constantly. Still, governmental policies and incentives based

on this concept could help materialize a society that uses materials in a more smart and

sustainable way.

2.5 Conclusions

The carbon footprint of selected bio-based plastics was assessed through a systematic

review of previous studies consisting of cradle-to-gate life cycle assessments. The evaluation of

these reports was challenging since methodological aspects were not uniform, exemplifying the

need to adopt more standard methods. Nevertheless, it was assumed that these results represented

the current state of scientific knowledge related to the environmental impact of bio-based plastics

and were used in a comparative cradle-to-grave carbon footprint assessment.

As expected among the different waste management options, recycling exhibited the

lower environmental impact, followed by industrial composting (when applicable) and

incineration with energy recovery. From these findings, we propose adopting a strategy related to

the use of bio-based plastics, which considers their features (recyclability, compostability) and
 32
the current end-of-life strategies. The approach is called Smart Use of Materials (SUM), and is

based on the assumption that the utilization of specific materials on targeted families of products

represents a major opportunity to promote the decarbonization of our society. For instance, our

results show that the carbon footprint of some packaging products could be reduced up to 67%

by simply applying the SUM approach (use of bio-PET instead of PLA), employing the existing

supply chain and state-of-the-art technologies. Diversely, for applications where bio-PET cannot

be readily mechanically recycled, such as textiles, PLA might serve as a better alternative,

allowing for a carbon footprint reduction of up to 80%. Although two materials can be used in

the same application, one might provide major advantages in reducing associated environmental

burdens.

When other environmental indicators are considered in the analysis (other than Global

Warming Potential), the ranking for best environmental performance can change, professing the

need to establish a set of indicators driving the decision-making process around the Smart Use of

Materials. Despite the set of indicators selected, we have demonstrated that adopting the “SUM”

approach can help reduce the environmental burdens associated with plastics. Herein, we

propose a way to drastically reduce the environmental impact of plastic products by a smart

material allocation while using current technologies, materials, and supply chain capabilities.

The SUM approach and analyses discussed across the paper can provide policymakers with the

information required to establish programs to decarbonize our society. Governmental policies

based on SUM could then contribute to building a society that understands the place of bio-based

materials and tackles the plastic problem from a material selection point of view.
 33
2.6 References

Ahlstrom Munksjo. (n.d.). “Paper straw solutions.” <[Link]

[Link]/products/food-packaging-baking-and-cooking-solutions/food-packaging-

papers/paper-straw-solutions/>.

Akanuma, Y., Selke, S. E. M., and Auras, R. (2014). “A preliminary LCA case study:

Comparison of different pathways to produce purified terephthalic acid suitable for

synthesis of 100 % bio-based PET.” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,

19(6), 1238–1246.

Alvarenga, R., Dewulf, J., De Meester, S., Wathelet, A., Villers, J., Thommeret, R., and Hruska,

Z. (2013). “Life cycle assessment of bioethanol-based PVC. Part 1: Attributional

approach.” Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, (7), 386–395.

Amcor. (2020). “Matrix: Innovative, paraffin - free and recyclable paper-based packaging.”

<[Link]

Andreasi Bassi, S., Boldrin, A., Frenna, G., and Astrup, T. F. (2021). “An environmental and

economic assessment of bioplastic from urban biowaste. The example of

polyhydroxyalkanoate.” Bioresource Technology, Elsevier Ltd, 327(December 2020),

124813.

Benavides, P. T., Dunn, J. B., Han, J., Biddy, M., and Markham, J. (2018). “Exploring

comparative energy and environmental benefits of virgin, recycled, and bio-derived PET

bottles.” ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering, 6(8), 9725–9733.

Benavides, P. T., Lee, U., and Zarè-Mehrjerdi, O. (2020). “Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions

and energy use of polylactic acid, bio-derived polyethylene, and fossil-derived

polyethylene.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 277.

 34
Bishop, G., Styles, D., and Lens, P. N. L. (2021). “Environmental performance comparison of

bioplastics and petrochemical plastics: A review of life cycle assessment (LCA)

methodological decisions.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Elsevier B.V., 168,

105451.

Briassoulis, D., Pikasi, A., and Hiskakis, M. (2019). “End-of-waste life: Inventory of alternative

end-of-use recirculation routes of bio-based plastics in the European Union context.”

Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, Taylor & Francis, 49(20),

1835–1892.

Changwichan, K., and Gheewala, S. H. (2020). “Choice of materials for takeaway beverage cups

towards a circular economy.” Sustainable Production and Consumption, Elsevier B.V.,

22, 34–44.

Changwichan, K., Silalertruksa, T., and Gheewala, S. H. (2018). “Eco-efficiency assessment of

bioplastics production systems and end-of-life options.” Sustainability (Switzerland),

10(4), 1–15.

Chen, L., Pelton, R. E. O., and Smith, T. M. (2016). “Comparative life cycle assessment of fossil

and bio-based polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles.” Journal of Cleaner Production,

Elsevier Ltd, 137, 667–676.

Chen, W., Oldfield, T. L., Cinelli, P., Righetti, M. C., and Holden, N. M. (2020). “Hybrid life

cycle assessment of potato pulp valorisation in biocomposite production.” Journal of

Cleaner Production, 269.

Choi, B., Yoo, S., and Park, S. Il. (2018). “Carbon footprint of packaging films made from

LDPE, PLA, and PLA/PBAT blends in South Korea.” Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(7).
 35
David, G., Croxatto Vega, G., Sohn, J., Nilsson, A. E., Hélias, A., Gontard, N., and Angellier-

Coussy, H. (2020). “Using life cycle assessment to quantify the environmental benefit of

upcycling vine shoots as fillers in biocomposite packaging materials.” International

Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,

738–752.

Diageo. (2020). “Diageo announces creation of world’s first ever 100% plastic free paper-based

spirits bottle.” <[Link]

creation-of-world-s-first-ever-100-plastic-free-paper-based-spirits-bottle/>.

Directorate-General for Environment. European Comission. (n.d.). “Landfill waste.”

<[Link]

Djekic, I., Pojić, M., Tonda, A., Putnik, P., Kovačević, D. B., Režek-Jambrak, A., and

Tomasevic, I. (2019). “Scientific challenges in performing life-cycle assessment in the

food supply chain.” Foods, 8(8).

Ellen Macarthur Foundation. (2019). Reuse - Rethinking packaging.

European Bioplastics. (2018). What are bioplastics?

European Bioplastics. (2022). Bioplastics market update 2021.

European Commission. (2010). ILCD Handbook. Constraints.

European Environment Agency. (2020). “Biodegradable and compostable plastics — challenges

and opportunities Key messages What are the challenges ?” 1–12.

European Technology Platform for Sustainable Chemistry. (2020). Sustainable plastics strategy.

Finkbeiner, M., Ackermann, R., Bach, V., Berger, M., Brankatschk, G., Chang, Y.-J., Grinberg,

M., Lehmann, A., Martínez-Blanco, J., Minkov, N., Neugebauer, S., Scheumann, R.,

Schneider, L., and Wolf, K. (2014). “Challenges in life cycle assessment: An overview of
 36
current gaps and research needs.” Background and Future Prospects in Life Cycle

Assessment, 189–206.

Grabowski, A., Selke, S. E. M., Auras, R., Patel, M. K., and Narayan, R. (2015). “Life cycle

inventory data quality issues for bioplastics feedstocks.” International Journal of Life

Cycle Assessment, 20(5), 584–596.

Grow. (2020). “Pearl: Award winning paper pods.” <[Link]

Gruber, P. R. (2001). Commodity polymers from renewable resources: polylactic acid. Carbon

Management: Implications for R&D in the Chemical Sciences and Technology: a

workshop report to the chemical sciences roundtable.

Van der Harst, E., and Potting, J. (2013). “A critical comparison of ten disposable cup LCAs.”

Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Elsevier Inc., 43, 86–96.

Haslinger, S., Hummel, M., Anghelescu-Hakala, A., Määttänen, M., and Sixta, H. (2019).

“Upcycling of cotton polyester blended textile waste to new man-made cellulose fibers.”

Waste Management, The Author(s), 97, 88–96.

Hopewell, J., Dvorak, R., and Kosior, E. (2009). “Plastics recycling: Challenges and

opportunities.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,

364(1526), 2115–2126.

Hottle, T. A., Bilec, M. M., and Landis, A. E. (2013). “Sustainability assessments of bio-based

polymers.” Polymer Degradation and Stability, Elsevier Ltd, 98(9), 1898–1907.

Hottle, T. A., Bilec, M. M., and Landis, A. E. (2017). “Biopolymer production and end of life

comparisons using life cycle assessment.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling,

Elsevier B.V., 122, 295–306.

 37
Ingrao, C., Gigli, M., and Siracusa, V. (2017). “An attributional Life Cycle Assessment

application experience to highlight environmental hotspots in the production of foamy

polylactic acid trays for fresh-food packaging usage.” Journal of Cleaner Production,

Elsevier Ltd, 150, 93–103.

International, G. P. (n.d.). “KeelClip.” <[Link]

International Organization for Standardization. (2006). “ISO 14040:2006 Environmental

management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework.”

International Organization for Standardization. (2018). “ISO 14067 Greenhouse gases - Carbon

footprint of products - Requirements and guidelines for quantification.”

International Organization for Standardization. (2020a). “ISO 22526-1 Plastics — Carbon and

environmental footprint of biobased plastics — Part 1: General principles.”

International Organization for Standardization. (2020b). “ISO 22526-2 Plastics — Carbon and

environmental footprint of biobased plastics — Part 2: Material carbon footprint, amount

(mass) of CO2 removed from the air and incorporated into polymer molecule.”

International Organization for Standardization. (2020c). “ISO 22526-3 Plastics — Carbon and

environmental footprint of biobased plastics — Part 3: Process carbon footprint,

requirements and guidelines for quantification.”

Ita-Nagy, D., Vázquez-Rowe, I., Kahhat, R., Quispe, I., Chinga-Carrasco, G., Clauser, N. M.,

and Area, M. C. (2020). “Life cycle assessment of bagasse fiber reinforced

biocomposites.” Science of the Total Environment, 720.

JASA packaging solutions. (2021). “100% cardboard* sleeve packaging for apples.”

<[Link]
 38
Kamau-Devers, K., and Miller, S. A. (2020). “The environmental attributes of wood fiber

composites with bio-based or petroleum-based plastics.” International Journal of Life

Cycle Assessment, 25(6), 1145–1159.

Kikuchi, Y., Oshita, Y., Mayumi, K., and Hirao, M. (2017). “Greenhouse gas emissions and

socioeconomic effects of biomass-derived products based on structural path and life cycle

analyses: A case study of polyethylene and polypropylene in Japan.” Journal of Cleaner

Production, Elsevier Ltd, 167, 289–305.

Kookos, I. K., Koutinas, A., and Vlysidis, A. (2019). “Life cycle assessment of bioprocessing

schemes for poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) production using soybean oil and sucrose as carbon

sources.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Elsevier, 141(October 2018), 317–

328.

Lange, K.-B. (2019). Bioplastics market data update.

Lau, 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, A.

C., 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., and Palardy, J. E. (2020). “Evaluating scenarios toward

zero plastic pollution.” Science, 369(6509), 1455–1461.

Law, K. L., Starr, N., Siegler, T. R., Jambeck, J. R., Mallos, N. J., and Leonard, G. H. (2020).

“The United States’ contribution of plastic waste to land and ocean.” Science Advances,

6(44), 1–8.
 39
Liu, W., Liu, H., Liu, K., Du, H., Liu, Y., and Sia, C. (2020). “Paper-based products as

promising substitutes for plastics in the context of bans on non-biodegradables.” NTUT

Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Management, 9(1), 7309–7312.

Maga, D., Hiebel, M., and Aryan, V. (2019). “A comparative life cycle assessment of meat trays

made of various packaging materials.” Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(19).

Mervine, N., Brӓtt, K., and Saloni, D. (2020). “A review of sustainable materials used in

thermoplastic extrusion and powder bed melting additive manufacturing.” Advances in

Intelligent Systems and Computing, 1216 AISC, 95–102.

Morão, A., and de Bie, F. (2019). “Life cycle impact assessment of polylactic acid (PLA)

produced from sugarcane in Thailand.” Journal of Polymers and the Environment,

Springer US, 27(11), 2523–2539.

Moretti, C., Junginger, M., and Shen, L. (2020). “Environmental life cycle assessment of

polypropylene made from used cooking oil.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling,

Elsevier, 157(September 2019), 104750.

Musonda, F., Millinger, M., and Thrän, D. (2020). “Greenhouse gas abatement potentials and

economics of selected biochemicals in Germany.” Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(6).

Nestle. (2021). “Smarties becomes the first global confectionery brand to switch to recyclable

paper packaging.” <[Link]

confectionery-brand-recyclable-paper-packaging>.

Ni, Y., Richter, G. M., Mwabonje, O. N., Qi, A., Patel, M. K., and Woods, J. (2021). “Novel

integrated agricultural land management approach provides sustainable biomass

feedstocks for bioplastics and supports the UK’s ‘net-zero’ target.” Environmental

Research Letters, 16(1).

 40
Nieder-Heitmann, M., Haigh, K. F., and Görgens, J. F. (2019a). “Life cycle assessment and

multi-criteria analysis of sugarcane biorefinery scenarios: Finding a sustainable solution

for the South African sugar industry.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 239.

Nieder-Heitmann, M., Haigh, K., and Görgens, J. F. (2019b). “Process design and economic

evaluation of integrated, multi-product biorefineries for the co-production of bio-energy,

succinic acid, and polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) from sugarcane bagasse and trash

lignocelluloses.” Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 13(3), 599–617.

van den Oever, M., and Molenveld, K. (2017). “Replacing fossil based plastic performance

products by bio-based plastic products—Technical feasibility.” New Biotechnology,

Elsevier B.V., 37, 48–59.

Papong, S., Malakul, P., Trungkavashirakun, R., Wenunun, P., Chom-In, T., Nithitanakul, M.,

and Sarobol, E. (2014). “Comparative assessment of the environmental profile of PLA

and PET drinking water bottles from a life cycle perspective.” Journal of Cleaner

Production, Elsevier Ltd, 65, 539–550.

Posen, I. D., Jaramillo, P., and Griffin, W. M. (2016). “Uncertainty in the life cycle greenhouse

gas emissions from U.S. production of three biobased polymer families.” Environmental

Science and Technology, 50(6), 2846–2858.

Research and Markets. (2020). “Global paper, packaging Market: Growth, trends, competitive

landscape, and forecasts.”

Roibás-Rozas, A., Mosquera-Corral, A., and Hospido, A. (2020). “Environmental assessment of

complex wastewater valorisation by polyhydroxyalkanoates production.” Science of the

Total Environment, Elsevier B.V., 744, 140893.

 41
Rybaczewska-Blazejowska, M., and Mena-Nieto, A. (2020). “Circular economy: Comparative

life cycle assessment of fossil polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and its recycled and bio-

based counterparts.” Management and Production Engineering Review, 11(4), 121–128.

SantosMiranda, M. E., Marcolla, C., Rodriguez, C. A., Wilhelm, H. M., Sierakowski, M. R.,

BelleBresolin, T. M., and Alves de Freitas, R. (2008). “Perspective compostability of

polymers.” Polym Int, 57, 793–802.

Sataloff, R. T., Johns, M. M., and Kost, K. M. (2018). What a waste 2.0: A global snapshot of

solid waste management to 2050.

Semba, T., Sakai, Y., Sakanishi, T., and Inaba, A. (2018). “Greenhouse gas emissions of 100%

bio-derived polyethylene terephthalate on its life cycle compared with petroleum-derived

polyethylene terephthalate.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier Ltd, 195, 932–938.

Silalertruksa, T., and Gheewala, S. H. (2020). “Competitive use of sugarcane for food, fuel, and

biochemical through the environmental and economic factors.” International Journal of

Life Cycle Assessment, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 25(7), 1343–

1355.

Suwanmanee, U., Varabuntoonvit, V., Chaiwutthinan, P., Tajan, M., Mungcharoen, T., and

Leejarkpai, T. (2013). “Life cycle assessment of single use thermoform boxes made from

polystyrene (PS), polylactic acid, (PLA), and PLA/starch: Cradle to consumer gate.”

International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(2), 401–417.

Tecchio, P., Freni, P., De Benedetti, B., and Fenouillot, F. (2016). “Ex-ante life cycle assessment

approach developed for a case study on bio-based polybutylene succinate.” Journal of

Cleaner Production, Elsevier Ltd, 112, 316–325.

 42
Tonini, D., Schrijvers, D., Nessi, S., Garcia-Gutierrez, P., and Giuntoli, J. (2021). “Carbon

footprint of plastic from biomass and recycled feedstock: methodological insights.”

International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 26(2), 221–

237.

Tsiropoulos, I., Faaij, A. P. C., Lundquist, L., Schenker, U., Briois, J. F., and Patel, M. K.

(2015). “Life cycle impact assessment of bio-based plastics from sugarcane ethanol.”

Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier Ltd, 90, 114–127.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2020a). Advancing sustainable materials

management.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2020b). “Facts and figures about materials,

waste and recycling. Textiles: material- Specific data.” <[Link]

figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/textiles-material-specific-data>.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2021a). “National overview: Facts and figures

on materials, wastes and recycling.” <[Link]

materials-waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials>.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2021b). “Facts and figures about materials,

waste and recycling - Plastics: material - Specific data.” <[Link]

figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/plastics-material-specific-data> (Jun. 6,

2021).

Vinyplus. (2021). “VinylPlus, comited to sustainable development.” <[Link]

Vogli, L., Macrelli, S., Marazza, D., Galletti, P., Torri, C., Samorì, C., and Righi, S. (2020).

“Life cycle assessment and energy balance of a novel polyhydroxyalkanoates production

 43
process with mixed microbial cultures fed on pyrolytic products of wastewater treatment

sludge.” Energies, 13(11).

Walker, S., and Rothman, R. (2020). “Life cycle assessment of bio-based and fossil-based

plastic: A review.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier Ltd, 261, 121158.

Zou, Y., Reddy, N., and Yang, Y. (2011). “Reusing polyester/cotton blend fabrics for

composites.” Composites Part B: Engineering, Elsevier Ltd, 42(4), 763–770.

 44
3 A CASE STUDY ON THE USE OF BIO VERSUS FOSSIL RESIN WHEN

REPORTING THE LAB-SCALE MANUFACTURING OF SHEATH-CORE

POLYETHYLENE-POLYPROPYLENE SPUNBOND NONWOVENS

3.1 Abstract

Sustainability is driving innovation in the plastics industry by introducing bio-based

resins into the market. New nonwoven products containing bio-based plastics, such as bio-

polyethylene (bio-PE), can be found on the shelves to target more environmentally conscious

consumers. This study aims to produce bicomponent spunbond nonwovens containing either bio-

based or conventional polyethylene (PE) as a sheath and polypropylene (PP) as a core to

investigate the relationships between process parameters and product properties. It was observed

that bio-PE, with a melt flow index of 20 g/10 min, could be used in the lab scale production of

thermally-bonded spunbond nonwovens. In terms of bicomponent PE/PP fabric properties,

smaller fiber diameters and fabric thicknesses were observed as aspirator pressure was increased

on the research line. In turn, higher tensile and tear strength values were observed as higher

aspirator pressures improved the morphology of thermally-bonded nonwovens. This study

contributes to a better understanding of the use of bio-PE for thermally-bonded nonwovens,

which could lead to more extensive adoption of bioplastic fiber products in trying to achieve

sustainable features.

3.2 Introduction

Global trends to develop a more sustainable economy are creating a unique opportunity

to manufacture products with lower environmental impacts (Euromonitor Passport 2021).

Specifically, the resin market has witnessed an important offering of plastics made from natural
 45
resources that are suitable for a myriad of applications, including packaging, textiles, and

consumer goods, among others (see Table 3-1). The manufacture of bio-based plastics reached

2.4 million tons in 2021, with polylactic acid (PLA) and starch blends leading global production,

each with a share of approximately 19% (European Bioplastics 2022). Other bio-based resins

include those that commercially originated from petroleum, such as bio-polyethylene (bio-PE),

bio-polyethylene terephthalate (bio-PET), or bio-polyamide (bio-PA). These have around 10%,

6%, and 9% of the global share, respectively (European Bioplastics 2022).

The nonwovens industry is not an exception to this sustainability trend. Manufacturers

are progressively shifting towards the use of bio-based materials to meet consumer’s

expectations regarding the use of products having a lower carbon footprint, less impact on the

environment, and can accomplish stringent governmental policy to protect the environment

(Dahle 2020; Due and Broch 2020; Harmon 2020; Haynes 2020). Nevertheless, plastics

synthesized from petrochemical feedstocks still constitute the majority of products used within

the nonwovens sector (Albrecht, 2006), which could be accredited to the higher prices and

currently lower scales of production that are associated with purchasing bio-based plastics

(European Bioplastics 2020; Siracusa and Blanco 2020). For example, virgin polyethylene

terephthalate (PET) and polypropylene (PP) represent 65% of the feedstock utilized in nonwoven

products (EDANA 2019). Conversely, bio-based plastics and staple fibers comprise 20% of the

raw materials used in the nonwovens industry, with bio-based plastics representing less than 3%

(EDANA 2019).
 46

Table 3-1. Examples of bio-based plastics currently available in the market.

Production
Bio-based plastic Bio-source Applications
(ton/year)a
Extrusion/thermoforming, injection
Corn starch by-
molding, films, fibers and
product
nonwovens, foams, 3D printing
Polylactic acid
460,000 Rigid packaging, flexible
(PLA)
packaging, food serviceware,
Sugarcane sugar
durable goods, nonwovens, 3D
printing
Food and cosmetic packaging,
Bio-polyethylene
200,000 Sugarcane ethanol caps, bottles, blow molding, films,
(bio-PE)
toys, bags, pipes
Injection molding, extrusion,
Corn or cassava
thermoforming, blown films, fibers
dextrose
and nonwovens
Polyhydroxyalkanoates
Films, injection molding,
(PHA, PHBV, PHB, 40,000
Organic waste thermoforming, 3D printing and
PHBH)
fibers
Straws, cups, lids, bottles, bags,
Canola and soy oil
utensils, wipes, and toys

*Other bio-based plastics such as bio-PET and bio-nylon are currently produced as an intermediate material to
process them directly in articles like bottles and yarn. These resins are not available for purchasing; a(European
Bioplastics, 2022)

The use of bio-based plastics, in some cases, faces inherent challenges. Specifically, the

linear bio-polyesters have irreconcilable differences with petroleum-derived polyolefins like PP

to be considered direct replacements. In contrast to the polyolefins used in technical fiber and

nonwoven applications, linear bio-polyesters generally have lower performance properties and

processing temperatures (Rasal et al. 2010). Some examples of linear bio-polyesters include

polylactic acid (Melting temperature (Tm)= ~165 °C) and polyhydroxybutyrate (Tm=~170 °C)

(Hufenus et al. 2020).

 47
Further, bio-based materials do not ensure biodegradability in either industrial compost,

the environment, or the sea. Non-biodegradable bioplastics include bio-PE, bio-PP, and bio-PET

(European Bioplastics 2018). Despite these limitations, bioderived plastics have been recognized

for having a lower carbon footprint (European Bioplastics 2017), and consumers perceive them

as more sustainable than conventional plastics (Zwicker et al. 2021). Thus, nonwovens made

from these materials can be found in the market having sustainability claims such as bio-based,

renewable, biodegradable, “earth-conscious,” or “eco-conscious” to differentiate products (Attn:

Grace 2020; Kimberly-Clark 2021; The Honest Company Inc. 2021).

More specifically, Bio-PE has gained special attention over the past few years due to the

importance and high market share of its fossil-fuel version. Bio-PE is synthesized from bio-

ethanol, which is dehydrated into ethylene gas and subsequently polymerized (Siracusa and

Blanco 2020). As a result, various grades of bio-PE can be produced; these include low-density

polyethylene (LDPE), linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), and high-density polyethylene

(HDPE). In the nonwovens industry, uses of PE include residential and commercial wrapping,

protective apparel, as made through the flashspun process, the top sheets of absorbent diapers,

and feminine hygiene products as produced by the spunbond process (INDA 2019a).

Spunbond is one of the meltlaid technologies for manufacturing nonwoven fabrics from

thermoplastic polymers. In North America, 19% of nonwoven fabric production corresponds to

this spunbond process (INDA 2019b). Spunbond lines usually comprise one or more extruders

(for mono or multicomponent spinning) to transform polymer melt into filaments, quenching and

fiber drawing zones are achieved by air suction, the collection belt guides the web of fiber

through a bonding system that is designed to interlock fibers together, and a winder collects the

bonded web onto a roll (Russell 2006). Pertinent to web bonding, thermal technology such as
 48
calendering can be employed. In this process, thermal energy is used to partially melt the fibers

and have them stick together under pressure (Albrecht 2006). The properties of thermally bonded

spunbond nonwovens depend on operational variables, such as the quenching rate of the polymer

melt, fiber drawing, and take-up speeds, which are controlled by aspirator pressure, and the

condition of calender rolls, which affects web bonding (Russell 2006). Specifically, at the fiber

level, higher drawing reorganizes polymer chains, increases molecular orientation, and develops

polymer crystallinity, which improves the mechanical properties (Michielsen et al. 2006; Shim et

al. 2016).

In addition, meltlaid fibers having sheath-core bicomponent geometries can be used to

reduce bonding temperature. Among these systems, a lower melting temperature polymer forms

a sheath around the fiber core (Russell 2006). In this case, the ratio between sheath and core will

also influence the performance and mechanical properties of nonwoven fabrics, which is also

related to the quality of the interfacial adhesion between components and their compatibility

(Dasdemir et al. 2012). Specifically for the system PE-PP, Dasdemir et al. (2012) observed

higher maximum stress as the amount of PP in the core increased in relation to the PE sheath.

Therefore, it represents a variable, along with aspirator pressure, that can be modified by

manufacturers to adjust product performance.

Patent literature highlighting the use of bio-PE within absorbent hygiene products

features spunbond top- and backsheets comprised of bicomponent, sheath-core fibers.

Bicomponent nonwovens were manufactured from fibers comprised of PP or PET as the core

and bio-PE as the sheath (Arora et al. 2017; Chester et al. 2017; McCormick et al. 2019;

Novarino and Teschner 2019). Nevertheless, targeted studies on the lab-scale production and

characterization of spunbond sheath-core nonwovens using PE as sheath are limited (Liu et al.
 49
2017). Further, data on the processing of bio-PE as alternatives to petroleum-derived PE for

nonwoven applications are still missing.

Herein, the authors aim to fabricate and characterize sheath-core PE-PP, bicomponent

nonwovens that were spunbond at lab scale to investigate the effects of processing parameters on

fabric properties. Due to the growing popularity of sustainable materials on the market,

bicomponent nonwovens were manufactured from bio-PE for comparison to petrochemical PE.

The current offering of bio-PE on the market was evaluated for nonwoven applications, and the

characterization of PE resins was performed to understand how they should be processed into

nonwoven fabrics. We expect that a better understanding of sheath-core structures using bio-PE

as a sheath will help to fill the gap around their manufacturing, thus allowing for the more

extensive adoption of bioplastics into nonwoven products while expanding the sustainability of

products manufactured through the technical fabrics industry.

3.3 Materials and methods

3.3.1 Assessing the market offering of bio-PE for nonwovens applications

The market offering of bio-PE for nonwovens applications was assessed through a search

of resins that are currently available from polymer manufacturers. The search was focused on

fiber-grade bio-PE and their potential to be extruded through the spunbond process. More

specifically, the linearity and number of branches along the chains of PE play an essential role in

determining their suitability for fiber applications. Fiber-grade polyolefins are mostly linear,

easing chain packing and crystallization, opposed to being branched. Thus, spunbond grades of

PE resin are usually of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or linear-low density polyethylene

(LLDPE) resins, which have melt flow indices (MFIs) ranging from 12 to 70 g/10min (Russell,
 50
2006). In this study, the current offering of both bio-HDPE and bio-LLDPE was assessed, with a

focus on MFIs of 17 to 30 g/10 min.

3.3.2 Materials

A commercial, spunbond grade of PP (Exxon Mobil, Irving, TX, USA) was sourced for

use as the core of bicomponent nonwovens fabrics (see Table 3-2). As identified by the

suppliers, two spunbond grades of PE (Dow, Midland, MI, USA) and one non-fiber grade of bio-

PE (Braskem, São Paulo, State of São Paulo, Brazil) were obtained for use as the fiber sheath.

Although fiber extrusion was not listed among the recommended applications for this bio-PE

resin, its MFI and density values are potentially suitable for the spunbond process. Resin MFI

values ranged from 17 - 30 g/10min for all three resins of PE and bio-PE, and the density values

were similar.

Table 3-2. Sourced resins and properties.

Polymer Key code MFI (g/10 min)* Density (g/cm3)

PP PP-36 36a 0.900
Bio-PE BioPE-20 20b 0.955
PE PE-17 17 b 0.950
PE PE-30 30 b 0.955

*As per ASTM D1238 (2004) a(230 °C/2.16 kg); b(190 °C/2.16 kg)

3.3.3 Characterization of PE resins

Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR)

An attenuated total reflectance (ATR) spectrometer (Frontier; Perkin Elmer Frontier,

Waltham, MA, USA) was used to analyze the molecular structure of the different resins. The

spectra were collected in the wavelength range of 4,000 cm-1 to 650 cm-1, with a resolution of
 51
1.0 cm-1, and then normalized to the peak associated with the stretching of the C-H bond at

2915 cm-1. Before the characterization of each sample, the diamond ATR accessory was cleaned

using methanol, and a background scan was performed. The number of accumulations for each

sample was 16 scans per spectrum. The total force applied between the ATR crystal and sample

was above 100 N.

13Carbon nuclear magnetic resonance (13C NMR)

A 600 MHz NMR spectrometer (Bruker NEO, Bruker Corp., Billerica, MA, USA),

equipped with a 5-mm BBO probe, was used for carbon-13 (13C) analysis. The ASTM standard

D5017 (ASTM International, 2003) was used to determine the co-monomer composition and the

number of branches in the samples. The sample was prepared by dissolving 1.2 g of polymer in

1.5 mL ortho-dichlorobenzene (Fisher Scientific, Hampton, NH, USA) and 1.3 mL deuterated

ortho-dichlorobenzene (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories Inc., Tewksbury, MA, USA),

respectively, at 150 °C for 3 h. The spectra were then collected at 130 °C. The remaining

parameters for NMR analysis were set according to ASTM D5017 (ASTM International, 2003).

Additionally, the corresponding integration of peak intensities was performed using the software

Topspin 4.0.6 (Bruker Corp., Billerica, MA, USA ). All NMR measurements were made in the

Molecular Education, Technology, and Research Innovation Center (METRIC) at NC State

University (Raleigh, NC, USA).

Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA)

A TA Instruments TGA 500® (TA Instruments, New Castle, DE, USA) was used to

perform the thermal analysis. The thermal degradation of the samples in terms of weight loss at

higher temperatures was assessed by TGA and differential thermogravimetric analysis (DTGA).
 52
Sample specimens with a mass between 10 to 20 mg were used for the study. The analysis was

performed using a platinum pan and under nitrogen (N2) as the inert carrier gas (60 mL/min).

The temperature ranged from 30 °C to 670 °C, at a heating rate of 5 °C/min.

Differential scanning calorimetry

The melting and crystallization temperatures of the resins were measured from

thermograms using TA Instruments DSC Q2000® (TA Instruments, New Castle, DE, USA).

Approximately 5 to 6 mg of various samples were weighed and analyzed using an aluminum pan

in nitrogen (N2) as the carrier gas (50 mL/min). As outlined by Benitez et al. (2013), the

temperature ranged from -20 °C to 170 °C at a heating/cooling rate of 10 °C/min. Before starting

each run, the temperature was held at 170 °C for 3 min to erase the thermal history of the

polymers, then cooling and heating were performed in this order. Additionally, the percent

crystallinity of PE polymers was calculated according to Eq. 1,

∆𝐻𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑖
%𝑋 = ∗ 100 Eq. 1
∆𝐻𝑓𝑢𝑠100% 𝐶𝑟𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒

where %X is the crystallinity (%), ∆𝐻𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑖 is the enthalpy of fusion of the PE sample as

calculated from the integration of the DSC melting endotherm (J/g), and

∆𝐻𝑓𝑢𝑠100% 𝐶𝑟𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 =293 J/g as the enthalpy of fusion for a 100% crystalline sample (Benítez

et al., 2013).

Biobased carbon content

The content of bio-based carbon was evaluated through Accelerator Mass Spectrometry

(AMS) and Isotope Ratio Mass Spectroscopy (IRMS) following ASTM D6866 (ASTM

International, 2021). The analysis was performed in the accredited Beta Analytic Testing

Laboratory (FL, USA). The percentage of radiocarbon isotope (14C) relates to carbon from
 53
renewable resources rather than fossil-fuel sources. Therefore, the percentage of this carbon

isotope in the specimen relative to total organic carbon content is indicative of renewable carbon

content.

3.3.4 Lab-scale fabrication of thermally-bonded spunbond nonwovens

The Hills LBS 300 research line for spunbond nonwovens (Hills Inc., West Melbourne,

FL, USA) was used to produce lab-scale fabrics (Figure 3-1) (The Nonwovens Institute, North

Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA). The lab spunbond line for the manufacture of

bicomponent nonwoven fabrics consists of two extruders and one spin pack having 72 capillary

holes. The line is also equipped with an air quench cabinet, a variable speed blower for changing

aspirator pressure (i.e., drawing), a web forming table with a compaction roll, an engraved

calender (thermal point bonding), and a web winder to make 60 mm wide webs (Hills Inc, 2013).

Figure 3-1. Schematic of the Hills LBS 300 research line.

Bicomponent spunbond fabrics, with a basis weight of 148 (±8.9%) grams per square

meter, were manufactured from sheath-core geometries wherein different PE grades comprised
 54
the fiber sheaths, and all fiber cores were of the same PP grade (Table 3-2). Processing

conditions were set the same for all fabrics; these are summarized in Table 3-3 and Table 3-4.

Extruder and calender temperatures were determined based on the thermal analysis of resins,

which will be further discussed in the results section. Additionally, aspirator pressure and sheath-

core ratio were varied due to their remarkable influence on fiber performance (Dasdemir et al.,

2012; Russell, 2006). In total, 12 different samples were fabricated. Sample designations were

assigned based on PE resin used, sheath-core ratio, and aspirator pressure (e.g., BioPE-20 50/50

0.14 MPa).

Table 3-3. Extruder temperature profile*.

TZone1 (°C) TZone2 (°C) TZone3 Tmelt pump Tspinhead Tpack

Extruder
(°C) (°C) (°C) (°C)
Sheath 180 190 210 210
(PE or Bio-PE) 230 230
Core (PP) 190 220 230 230

*Extruder temperature profiles were selected by on the thermal analysis of resins

Table 3-4. Processing parameters for the manufacturing of nonwoven fabrics.

Parameter Value
Sheath-Core ratio 50/50; 25/75
Aspirator pressure (MPa) 0.14 ;0.28
Throughput ([Link]-1) 0.25
Type of aspirator system Open
Calender temperature (°C)* 105
Belt speed ([Link]-1) 2

*Calender temperature was established from thermal analysis

 55
3.3.5 Characterization of spunbond nonwoven fabrics

Microscopy imaging and fiber diameter

A digital microscope (VHX-6000; Keyence Corporation of America, Itasca, IL, USA)

was used to analyze the morphology of nonwoven fabrics and to measure fiber diameter.

Different magnifications were used to evaluate nonwoven structures. Keyence VHX software for

the analysis of optical micrographs was employed to measure the diameters of at least ten fibers

in the web at a magnification of 500×, and then an average was calculated. Statistical analysis (t-

Test, significance level of 0.05) of the fiber diameters was performed using the Data Analysis

functionality of Microsoft Excel 2016 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA).

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)

A field-emission scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM) Verios 460L (FEI Company,

Hillsboro, OR, USA) was used to perform cross-sectional imaging of the fabrics. The

accelerating voltage was operated at 2.0 kV. Cross-sections were prepared by cutting the samples

in liquid nitrogen transverse to the machine direction of fabrics and imaging them via SEM.

Thickness

The Lorentzen and Wettre (Micrometer 051; Lorentzen & Wettre A.B., Stockholm,

Sweden) tester was used to measure the thickness of nonwoven fabrics following ASTM D1777

(ASTM International, 2017) with an applied pressure of approximately 50 kPa. Statistical

analysis (t-Test, significance level of 0.05) of the thicknesses was performed using the Data

Analysis functionality of Microsoft Excel 2016 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA).

 56
Tensile strength

The tensile testing of nonwoven fabrics was performed on the Instron 4443 (Instron,

Norwood, MA) along the machine and cross-machine directions. Testing was performed

according to ASTM D5035 (ASTM International, 2015). The gauge length was fixed to 15 mm.

However, due to limitations in fabric size, samples 25 mm long and 18 mm wide were used.

After the measurement, the tensile index was calculated by dividing the maximum load by the

width and basis weight of each specimen. A total of seven specimens were analyzed. Statistical

analysis (t-Test, significance level of 0.05) of the tensile strength was performed using the Data

Analysis functionality of Microsoft Excel 2016 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA).

Tear strength

An Elmendorf tearing tester by Thwing-Albert Instrument Co. (Textile Model 60-400;

Philadelphia, PA, USA) with a maximum tearing force of 6,400 g was used to measure the tear

strength of the nonwoven fabrics along the machine and cross-machine directions. Samples that

were 50 mm long and 31 mm wide were used. Additionally, 10-mm slits were made transverse to

the machine direction of fabric samples for testing. After the measurement, the tear index was

calculated by dividing the tear force by the basis weight of each specimen. A total of seven

specimens were analyzed. Statistical analysis (t-Test, significance level of 0.05) of the tear

strength was performed using the Data Analysis functionality of Microsoft Excel 2016

(Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA).

 57
3.4 Results and discussion

3.4.1 Selection of bio-PE resins for nonwovens applications

The current offering of Bio-PE (shown in Figure 3-2) was evaluated. Results from the

search of bio-based PE offering show their recommended uses to comprise packaging, films, and

pipes; nonwoven fabrics and fibers were not designated for applications in these Bio-PE resins.

Most of the Bio-PE resins in Figure 3-2 had very low MFI values; only a few had an MFI close

to 20 g/10min. This supply gap represents an opportunity for the industry to produce this

material based on sustainability trends seen in the nonwovens industry. BioPE-20 showed

potential for spunbond applications based on its density and MFI, and it was sourced for this

study. Although two other grades for bio-PE are shown to have MFI values between 17 and 30

g/10 min, these LDPE-type resins were not deemed suitable for fiber applications.

Figure 3-2. Market of available Bio-PE resins. The shaded area represents PE-types resins
having potential use for spunbond process (based on MFI and Density).
 58
3.4.2 Characteristics of PE chemistries

Molecular structure of PE

The structural groups of bio-based and petroleum-based PE resins were assessed by FTIR

spectroscopy, as shown in Figure 3-3. Accordingly, the resins exhibited a characteristic spectrum

for PE (Jung et al., 2018). Peaks around 2915 cm-1 and 2845 cm-1 were characteristics of C-H

bond stretching. In the fingerprint region, peaks around 1462 to 1472 cm-1 and 717 to 730 cm-1

were associated with CH2 group bending and rocking, respectively (Jung et al., 2018). It is

important to note that low-intensity peaks were observed around the 1377 cm-1 band, which

relates to the bending of the CH3 group. Because this peak is related to the number of methyl

groups in the molecule, low-intensity peaks arise due to a low number of branches. Similar

intensity values among sample peaks indicate a similar number of branches among the structures

of resins.

BioPE-20 PE-17 PE-30

2915 2848

1472 717
1463 730
Absorbance

4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Figure 3-3. IR spectra of petroleum and bio-based PE resins.

 59
Branching and the composition of comonomers were measured through 13C NMR

spectroscopy. The resins exhibited spectral peaks that are expected for PE. The bio-based PE

sample also showed a peak characteristic of the ethylene-1-butene copolymer, while the

petroleum-based PE resin manifested peaks typical of ethylene-1-octene copolymer (De Pooter

et al., 1991). Longer branches, equal to six carbons, as noted by De Pooter (1991), were among

the petroleum-based resins. However, the peaks among the bio-based resins were shorter-chain

alkyl groups (two carbons chain as noted by De Pooter (1991)). The length of these alkyl unit

branches can affect the properties of the nonwoven fabrics.

In addition, the composition of co-monomer units and the number of branches per

1,000 C atoms in the PE chain were estimated. It was determined that PE samples contained

either 1-butene or 1-octene structural units at 0.54% and 0.99% mol units. The PE resins showed

between 2.7 and 4.8 branches per 1,000 C atoms (Table 3-5). This low frequency of branching

agrees with the findings from FTIR analysis, where a low-intensity peak for CH3 bending was

observed. Finally, it is important to note that BioPE-20 and PE-30 contained similar

concentrations of co-monomers and a similar number of branches (see Table 3-5).

Table 3-5. Structure of PE resins as determined from 13C NMR spectra.

Sample Comonomer %Mol comonomer #Branches per 1,000 C

BioPE-20 1-butene 0.54 2.7
PE-17 1-octene 0.99 4.8
PE-30 1-octene 0.59 2.9

Finally, the biobased carbon content of the PE resins was determined according to ASTM

D6866 (ASTM International 2021). The results indicate that BioPE-20 has 97.32 ± 0.24% 14C,

meaning it is made primarily from renewable resources. Moreover, this sample showed ~ 3%

carbon sourced from fossil fuel, which is related to the use of petroleum-derived comonomers,
 60
e.g., 1-butene, as determined by NMR. In contrast, petroleum-based PE contained < 0.44% bio-

derived carbon, which was expected.

Thermal Analysis of PE

Processing conditions for melt extrusion are determined based on the thermal properties

of resins, such as melting and degradation temperature (Tm and Tdeg, respectively), and were

evaluated through the thermal analysis of PE. The thermal degradation of PE resins was analyzed

by TGA. The thermograms of PE resins are characteristic of those found in the literature (Duque

et al., 2020) in terms of change in weight percentage and its derivative weight loss with

temperature, as evidenced by Figure 3-4. The release of volatile substances was not observed

among TGA thermograms, which confirms the purity of resin samples and it further supports the

results obtained from the FTIR analysis. Therefore, mass loss above 350 ⁰C is attributed to the

decomposition of PE polymer; this is supported by the presence of only one peak in the

derivative curve. Further, the bio-based sample of BioPE-20 presented a similar pattern of

thermal degradation to the petroleum-based sample PE-30, which has a similar value of

volumetric density.
 61
120
BioPE-20 PE-17 PE-30
a)
100

80

60
% Weight

40

20

0
50 150 250 350 450 550 650
Temperature (°C)

5.0
BioPE-20 PE-17 PE-30
b)
4.0
451.0 °C
446.7 °C
Deriv. Weight (%/°C)

3.0 448.1 °C

2.0

1.0

0.0

-1.0
50 150 250 350 450 550 650
Temperature (°C)

Figure 3-4. Thermograms of PE are shown in (a) TGA and (b) DTGA curves.

From these curves, crucial processing temperatures (such as the onset of degradation

temperature) were determined (Table 3-6). The PE resins exhibited thermal degradation

temperatures ranging from 447 °C to 451 °C, which agree by values between 335 °C to 450 °C

as reported by Kroschwitz et al. (Kroschwitz, 1988). More specifically, all the PE resins

presented similar on-set temperatures of degradation and peak temperatures for degradation at
 62
maximum weight loss, indicating a high similitude in its suitability for melt extrusion. The char

yield of mass residing from all PE resins at 650 ⁰C was lower than 0.5 wt. %.

Table 3-6. Thermal degradation behaviors of PE resins.

Sample Tonset (°C) Tpeak (°C) Δm (wt.%)

BioPE-20 425.6 446.7 99.9
PE-17 422.0 448.1 99.5
PE-30 423.9 451.0 99.8

The melting and crystallization temperatures of the PE resins were determined by the

DSC technique. Figure 3-5 shows the melting and crystallization curves for each PE resins, and

peak temperatures for crystalline melting (Tm) and crystallization temperature (Tc) were

measured as shown in Table 3-7. In general, the resins presented characteristic Tm values around

130 °C and Tc values around 115 °C for PE. The BioPE-20 showed similar Tm to oil-based PE-

30, which is of comparable density. Similarities among behaviors of these PE resins (based on

TGA and DSC) indicate that their processing conditions into meltlaid nonwoven fabrics will be

similar.
 63

0.0
BioPE-20 PE-17 PE-30
-0.5
a)

-1.0

-1.5
Heat flow (W/g)

-2.0

-2.5

-3.0

-3.5

-4.0 ΔHm=172.9 J/g

127.9 °C
-4.5 ΔHm=187.0 J/g ΔHm=194.6 J/g
129.2 °C 130.0 °C
-5.0
50 70 90 110 130 150
Temperature (°C)
7.0
BioPE-20 PE-17 PE-30
b)
6.0 118.4 °C
116.0 °C
5.0 114.4 °C
Heat flow (W/g)

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
50 70 90 110 130 150
Temperature (°C)

Figure 3-5. DSC (a) melting and (b) crystallization curves are shown for a molten polymer that
was held at 170 °C for 3 min prior to cooling at 10 °C/min and then heated at 10 °C/min.

Table 3-7. Results from the DSC curves for PE samples.

Sample Tmelting (°C) Tcrystallization (°C) Crystallinity (%)

BioPE-20 130.0 118.4 66.4
PE-17 127.9 114.4 59.0
PE-30 129.2 116.0 63.8
 64
From the thermal analysis shown herein, processing parameters, such as the temperature

profile of the extruder (Table 3-3) and bonding temperature (Table 3-4), were defined.

Specifically, melting and degradation temperatures allow for the determination of conditions for

the thermal processing of PE resins. Because these polymers presented melting peaks around

130 °C and the onset of degradation occurred around 423 °C, 180 °C to 230 °C represent suitable

temperatures for the melt-spinning of these resins. Additionally, as evidenced in Figure 3-5, PE

resins for the fiber-sheath exhibited a degree of melting at 105 °C, which was selected as the

temperature for calender bonding meltlaid webs.

3.4.3 Characteristics of thermally bonded PE/PP spunbond nonwovens

Fabric structure & fiber geometry

The structures of lab-scale fabrics were qualitatively assessed through SEM and optical

micrographs (Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7). Sheath-core nonwoven webs were successfully

manufactured through the Hills research line. The systems under study exhibited seamless

transitions between the bicomponent layers of PE-sheath and PP-core, which is associated with

strong adhesion at the interface of both polymers, as noted by Dasdemir et al. (2012). This was

more evident as the aspirator pressure was increased from 0.14 MPa to 0.28 MPa to yield better

quality fibers, i.e., less obvious seams at the interface of sheath and core (Figure 3-6b and Figure

3-6c). Further, fibers within the web were mostly aligned along the machine direction (Figure

3-6a) as expected for the spunbond process, where directionality is influenced by the speed of the

collection belt (Malkan and Wadsworth, 1993).

 65

Figure 3-6. Cross-sections of (a) spunbond, Bio-PE20/PP bicomponent nonwoven fabric and
50/50 sheath-core fibers within the webs collected at aspirator pressures of (b) 0.14 MPa and (c)
0.28 MPa are shown in SEM micrographs.

Regarding the structure of fabrics, the nonwovens exhibited a uniform web of fibers that

were imprinted with a point-bond pattern through engraved calender bonding (Figure 3-7).

However, at an aspirator pressure of 0.14 MPa and a sheath-core ratio of 50/50, the fabrics made

from BioPE-20 presented a considerable amount of loose fiber on the surface that was evident to

the naked eye (Figure 3-7a). The appearance of loose fibers was less evident, and the visual

uniformity of nonwoven fabrics improved at higher aspirator pressures and sheath-core ratios.
 66

Figure 3-7. Optical micrographs of nonwoven fabrics at various sheath-core components

and aspirator pressures of BioPE-20/PP at (a) 50/50 and 0.14 MPa, (b) 50/50 and 0.28 MPa, (c)

75/25 and 0.14 MPa, (d) 75/25 and 0.28 MPa; PE-17/PP at (e) 50/50 and 0.14 MPa, (f) 50/50 and

0.28 MPa, (g) 75/25 and 0.14 MPa, (h) 75/25 and 0.28 MPa, PE-30/PP at (i) 50/50 and 0.14 MPa

(j) 50/50 and 0.28 MPa, (k) 75/25 and 0.14 MPa, (l) 75/25 and 0.28 MPa.

Effect of process parameters on the properties of PE/PP spunbond nonwovens

The effect of aspirator pressure and sheath-core ratio on fiber diameter is depicted in

Figure 3-8.a. A reduction in diameter was observed as the aspirator pressure was increased,

which is related to a faster draw of meltlaid fiber. At lower aspirator pressure and higher sheath-

core ratio (0.14 MPa, 50/50), the bio-PE webs had presented a higher diameter compared to the

equivalent systems (same aspirator pressure and sheath-core ratio) made from fossil-based PE.

This could be attributed to a more temperature-resistant bio-based polymer that is associated

with a higher resin crystallinity, as shown during the thermal analysis; this has lessened the flow

of molten bio-PE resin at lower aspirator pressures and produced larger fibers. However, the

difference in fiber diameter between the systems is reduced at a higher aspirator pressure, finding
 67
no statistical difference between the diameter values at aspirator pressure of 0.28 MPa (α =0.05).

On the other hand, the sheath-core ratio did not influence the fiber diameter under the conditions

evaluated. Finally, it is important to note that fiber diameters ranged between 28 μm to 37 μm

and 22 μm to 25 μm at aspirator pressures of 0.14 and 0.28 MPa, respectively.

Figure 3-8.b shows the effect of aspirator pressure on the thickness of the fabrics. As a

general trend, a reduction in fabric thickness occurred as aspirator pressure was increased. This

behavior in fabric thickness can be attributed to the more compact structure of the nonwoven, as

well as the reduced fiber diameter as caused by an increase in the drawing due to a higher

aspirator pressure. In contrast, the effect of the sheath-core ratio on the thickness was not as

noticeable as the effect of aspirator pressure. As shown in Figure 3-8.b, at the same air aspirator

pressure but at changing sheath-core ratios, fabrics having similar values of thickness were

observed. As a result, fabric thicknesses ranged between 580 μm to 680 μm and 500 μm to 575

μm at aspirator pressures of 0.14 MPa and 0.28 MPa, respectively.

The effect of aspirator pressure on the average indexed tensile strength is shown in Figure

3-8c. An increment in fabric strength as the aspirator pressure increased was observed. This

behavior can be related to a smaller fiber diameter, which has been associated with better fiber

morphology, as shown in Figure 3-6 (Zhang et al., 1998). A higher aspirator pressure is also

associated with higher drawing, which improves the molecular orientation of fibers and increases

the strength of individual fibers and the web (Shim et al., 2016). It is important to note that the

tensile strength of thermally point-bonded nonwovens usually derives from the quality of the

bonding, meaning that strong fabrics can be produced from either strong or weak fibers as long

as the fabric is not under-bonded (Michielsen et al., 2006). However, for well-bonded systems,

the fabric failure among tensile tests has been reported to occur in the fibers around the bond
 68
edge due to fibers having lower strength than the bond (Michielsen et al., 2006). In this regard,

under the same conditions and quality of bonding, stronger fibers can help increase the strength

of the fabric, as shown herein.

In addition, a t-test was performed to analyze and compare the tensile properties of the

different fabrics produced in this study. It was determined that there is a statistical difference

(α=0.05) for equivalent systems (same aspirator pressure and sheath-core ratio), which can be

attributed to the nature of each polymer used. Specifically, a lower tensile strength was observed

when comparing the bio-based resin (BioPE-20) to the fossil-based material with a similar

density (PE-30). This difference could be attributed to higher values of crystallinity among the

bio-based resin, greater difficulty in re-orienting the bio-PE molecules with thermal bonding, and

differences between the degrees of sheath melting for both PE and bio-PE samples bonded at the

same temperature. Accordingly, it is necessary to understand that this difference indicates that

more drawing, i.e., energy and aspirator pressure, would be required to completely replace the

fossil-based PE with bio-based PE having higher temperature profiles for melting. Finally, a

higher tensile index was observed as the sheath-core ratio decreased, which could be related to

stronger fibers due to the greater use of PP, as noted by Dasdemir et al. (2012).

Figure 3-8.d depicts the effect of aspirator pressure on the average tear index. An increase

in air pressure translated into a higher tear index for some fabrics. As explained in the previous

section, a higher aspirator pressure translates into stronger fibers with a better morphology while

yielding better performance.

 69

Figure 3-8. Properties of sheath-core bicomponent spunbond nonwovens fabrics (a) fiber
diameter, (b) thickness, (c) tensile index, and (d) tear index.
 70

a)

b)
 71

c)

d)

3.5 Conclusions

Current offerings of bio-PE are recommended for packaging and other applications. Still,

this study assessed the suitability of applying a non-fiber grade of bio-PE towards the fabrication

of bicomponent nonwovens at the lab scale. Bio-PE was sourced along with petroleum-based PE;

both were characterized to understand how their properties could affect the structure and
 72
properties of nonwovens manufactured from sheath-core fibers of PE/PP. The results indicate

similarities in thermal behavior and structure, as represented by structural groups and the number

of branches, although the length of alkyl chains was shorter in bio-PE (four carbons compared to

six for regular PE). Nevertheless, the ‘new’ carbon content of bio-PE gives it a unique feature for

market differentiation in comparison to oil-based PE.

Sourced materials were used to manufacture bicomponent sheath-core nonwovens at the

lab scale. For this purpose, the ratio of (bio- and petroleum-based) PE-sheath to PP-core and

aspirator pressure on the structure and properties of the fabrics was studied. An increase in air

pressure produced fibers with a better morphology. Other properties, such as diameter, thickness,

tensile strength, and tear strength, highly depended on the abovementioned variables. Higher

aspirator pressure yielded fabrics with lower fiber diameters and fabric thicknesses but with

higher tensile and tear strength values. The use of different resins allowed us to understand to

what extent the only available bio-PE resin, with the potential to be used in nonwoven

applications, can replace other PE resins for use in spunbond nonwovens. In this regard, it was

noticed that as long as the thermal and physical properties of the resins are similar, both types of

PE (bio- and oil-based) are suitable for nonwoven processing. Accordingly, similar fabric

properties were observed, although a slightly higher aspirator pressure would be required to

match mechanical properties between bio-based and fossil-based PE of the same density. As

opposed to the snapshot shown herein, the market offering of bio-PE resins is likely to change

due to an increase in the demand for bio-based products by consumers. Thus, nonwoven fabric

manufacturers will benefit from the increasing availability of bio-PE. This study contributes to a

better understanding of the use of bio-PE among spunbond nonwovens, which has not been

previously presented in the literature to the best of the authors’ knowledge. Hence, it could lead
 73
to more extensive adoption of bio-PE in other nonwoven products that are looking to imbue

attractive sustainability features.

3.6 Acknowledgements

This work was supported by The Nonwovens Institute and its industry partners.
 74
3.7 References

Albrecht, W. (2006). Nonwoven fabrics: raw materials, manufacture, applications,

characteristics, testing processes. (W. Albrecht, Wilhelm, Fuchs, Hilmar, Kittelmann,

ed.).

Arora, K., Niezgoda, S., Poondru, S., Mullane, T., Whitely, N., and Hammons, J. (2017). “Patent

No US 20170143561 A1 Crimped fiber spunbond nonwoven webs/laminates.”

ASTM International. (2003). “ASTM D5017. Standard test method for determination of linear

low density polyethylene (LLDPE) composition by carbon-13 nuclear magnetic

resonance.” 10(Reapproved), 1–7.

ASTM International. (2004). “ASTM 1238. Standard test method for melt flow rates of

thermoplastics by extrusion plastometer.”

ASTM International. (2015). “ASTM D5035. Standard test method for breaking strength and

elongation of textile fabrics.”

ASTM International. (2017). “ASTM D1777. Standard test method for thickness of textile

materials.”

ASTM International. (2021). “ASTM D6866 - Standard test methods for determining the

biobased content of solid, liquid, and gaseous samples using radiocarbon analysis.”

Attn: Grace. (2020). “Attn: Grace.” <[Link]

Benítez, A., Sánchez, J. J., Arnal, M. L., Müller, A. J., Rodríguez, O., and Morales, G. (2013).

“Abiotic degradation of LDPE and LLDPE formulated with a pro-oxidant additive.”

Polymer Degradation and Stability, Elsevier Ltd, 98(2), 490–501.

Chester, S., Drews, G., Kong, D., and Dudley, D. (2017). “Patent No US 20170056253 A1

Absorbent article having a high content of bio-based materials.”

 75
Dahle, J. (2020). “Sustainability: narrowing a wide scope.” Conference proceedings RISE 2020.

Dasdemir, M., Maze, B., Anantharamaiah, N., and Pourdeyhimi, B. (2012). “Influence of

polymer type, composition, and interface on the structural and mechanical properties of

core/sheath type bicomponent nonwoven fibers.” Journal of Materials Science, 47(16),

5955–5969.

Due, M., and Broch, T. (2020). “Sustainability from the perspective of a nonwoven supplier to

disposable personal care products.” Conference Proceedings RISE 2020.

Duque, J. V. F., Martins, M. F., Debenest, G., and Orlando, M. T. D. A. (2020). “The influence

of the recycling stress history on LDPE waste pyrolysis.” Polymer Testing, Elsevier Ltd,

86(January), 106460.

EDANA. (2019). Sustainability report 5th edition.

Euromonitor Passport. (2021). Global sustainability trends.

European Bioplastics. (2017). “Do bioplastics have a lower carbon footprint than fossil based

plastics? How is this measured?” <[Link]

bioplastic-have-a-lower-carbon-footprint-than-fossil-based-plastics-how-is-this-

measured/> (Sep. 9, 2021).

European Bioplastics. (2018). What are bioplastics?

European Bioplastics. (2020). Bioplastics market update 2020.

European Bioplastics. (2022). Bioplastics market update 2021.

Harmon, P. (2020). “Plastics and a socially responsible future.” Conference proceedings RISE

2020.

Haynes, B. (2020). “The future of sustainable plastic alternatives and the impact of the SUPD on

innovation.” Conference proceedings RISE 2020.

 76
Hills Inc. (2013). “Lab scale bicomponent extruder fed spinning machine model LBS. equipment

specification.”

Hufenus, R., Yan, Y., Dauner, M., and Kikutani, T. (2020). “Melt-spun fibers for textile

applications.” Materials, 13(19), 1–32.

INDA. (2019a). “Intermediate nonwovens training course.” Raleigh, NC.

INDA. (2019b). North american nonwovens supply report 2019.

Jung, M. R., Horgen, F. D., Orski, S. V., Rodriguez C., V., Beers, K. L., Balazs, G. H., Jones, T.

T., Work, T. M., Brignac, K. C., Royer, S. J., Hyrenbach, K. D., Jensen, B. A., and

Lynch, J. M. (2018). “Validation of ATR FT-IR to identify polymers of plastic marine

debris, including those ingested by marine organisms.” Marine Pollution Bulletin,

Elsevier, 127(December 2017), 704–716.

Kimberly-Clark. (2021). “Huggies® special deliveryTM diapers.” <[Link]

us/diapers/specialdelivery> (Jun. 29, 2021).

Kroschwitz, J. I. (1988). Encyclopedia of polymer science and engineering.

Liu, J., Zhang, X., Zhang, H., Zheng, L., Huang, C., Wu, H., Wang, R., and Jin, X. (2017). “Low

resistance bicomponent spunbond materials for fresh air filtration with ultra-high dust

holding capacity.” RSC Advances, Royal Society of Chemistry, 7(69), 43879–43887.

Malkan, S. R., and Wadsworth, L. C. (1993). “Chapter 8: polymer-laid systems.” Nonwovens:

theory, process, performance & testing, 171–192.

McCormick, S. A., Kanya, K., Saevecke, D., and Giovanni, S. (2019). “Patent No US

20190083325 A1 Absorbent article.”

 77
Michielsen, S., Pourdeyhimi, B., and Desai, P. (2006). “Review of thermally point-bonded

nonwovens: Materials, processes, and properties.” Journal of Applied Polymer Science,

99(5), 2489–2496.

Novarino, E., and Teschner, F. (2019). “Patent no US 20190071802 A1 nonwoven fabric and

process for forming the same.”

De Pooter, M., Smith, P. B., Dohrer, K. K., Bennett, K. F., Meadows, M. D., Smith, C. G.,

Schouwenaars, H. P., and Geerards, R. A. (1991). “Determination of the composition of

common linear low density polyethylene copolymers by 13C‐NMR spectroscopy.”

Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 42(2), 399–408.

Rasal, R. M., Janorkar, A. V., and Hirt, D. E. (2010). “Poly(lactic acid) modifications.” Progress

in Polymer Science (Oxford), Elsevier Ltd, 35(3), 338–356.

Russell, S. J. (2006). Handbook of nonwovens. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL.

Shim, E., Pourdeyhimi, B., and Shiffler, D. (2016). “Process–structure–property relationship of

melt spun poly(lactic acid) fibers produced in the spunbond process.” Journal of Applied

Polymer Science, 133(47).

Siracusa, V., and Blanco, I. (2020). “Bio-polyethylene (Bio-PE), bio-polypropylene (Bio-PP)

and bio-poly(ethylene terephthalate) (Bio-PET): recent developments in bio-based

polymers analogous to petroleum-derived ones for packaging and engineering

applications.” Polymers, 12(8).

The Honest Company Inc. (2021). “Clean concious diaper.” <[Link]

conscious-diaper> (Jun. 20, 2021).

Zhang, D., Bhat, G., Sanjiv, M., and Wardsworth, L. (1998). “Evolution of structure and

properties in a spunbonding process.” Textile Research Journal, 27–35.

 78
Zwicker, M. V., Brick, C., Gruter, G. J. M., and van Harreveld, F. (2021). “(Not) doing the right

things for the wrong reasons: An investigation of consumer attitudes, perceptions, and

willingness to pay for bio-based plastics.” Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(12).

 79
4 A COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF

BIO-POLYETHYLENE FOR NONWOVENS APPLICATIONS

4.1 Abstract

The need of decarbonizing and reducing the impact of human activities is opening the

window for new bioproducts. Specifically, the industry of bioplastics has grown exponentially in

the past years, and it is expected to triple by 2026. Different bioplastics are currently produced,

but bio-polyethylene (bio-PE) presents a specific interest for the nonwovens industry since it is

widely used in commercial and house wrapping and absorbent hygiene products. However, the

true environmental impact of this bio-based plastic, compared to its fossil counterpart, remains

under controversial discussions. The high variation of results shown in the literature urges for a

comprehensive assessment to understand how different practices across the supply chain of this

material can affect its environmental burdens. Herein, we aim to thoroughly evaluate the

environmental impact of bio-PE for nonwovens applications across the different stages to

produce and dispose of a nonwoven fabric containing this material and used for hygiene

products. Also, our goal is to assess the unintended consequences of producing and adopting this

bio-based plastic. It was determined that land-use change represents the main aspect affecting the

environmental sustainability of bio-PE. From an attributional point of view, this bioplastic could

present lower carbon footprints than fossil PE if no deforestation occurs. On the other hand, from

a consequential standpoint, indirect deforestation as a response to producing more bioplastic

could negatively impact the environmental profile of this material. In both scenarios, policies

restricting deforestation are required to ensure that bio-PE can constitute an alternative to reduce

the carbon footprint of products. We expect this work to provide a robust evaluation to
 80
understand the environmental impact of bio-PE, which could help the industry understand the

place of this bio-based plastic and increase the offering of more sustainable products.

4.2 Introduction

The disturbing reality of global warming revealed by the latest report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2021)

is promoting remarkable efforts to achieve carbon neutrality and avoid a natural catastrophe

(McKinsey & Company 2021). The most optimistic scenario of temperatures rising below 2 °C

by 2100 demonstrates that climate change is a reality, and drastic measures are required

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2021). Amid these doleful projections, the bio-

based economy profiles as an alternative for reducing the impact of human activities.

Specifically, bio-based plastics are of significant interest due to the polluting and unsustainable

nature of the fossil-based plastic industry (Zaman and Newman 2021). Projections show that a

partial substitution (65.8%) of conventional plastics by bio-based plastics could help to reduce

between 240-320 MtCO2eq every year (Spierling et al. 2018). Moreover, the joint use of these

materials and more renewable sources of energy and waste management strategies can offset

current emissions associated with the life-cycle of plastics (Zheng and Suh 2019).

Bio-based plastics are produced from renewable resources and, along with biodegradable

plastics, constitute the family of bioplastics (European Bioplastics 2018). Although the current

supply of these materials remains low compared to their fossil counterparts, their production is

expected to triple by 2026 (European Bioplastics 2021). Different bioplastics are currently

produced, finding polylactic acid (PLA), bio-polyamides (bio-PA), and bio-polyethylene (bio-

PE) among the main players in this industry (European Bioplastics 2020). Specifically, bio-PE

has gained special attention since its fossil-based counterpart is one of the most used plastics
 81
worldwide (Siracusa & Blanco, 2020). Bio-PE is currently manufactured in Brazil from

sugarcane ethanol. The process starts with bioethanol dehydration to produce bio-ethylene,

which can be performed through three different technologies (Table 4-1). However, only the use

of adiabatic fixed-bed reactors is available at an industrial scale, and it constitutes the process

currently used to produce this bio-based plastic (Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017). After bio-ethanol is

dehydrated, bio-ethylene is quenched, washed with caustic soda and water, and passed through a

molecular sieve column to remove impurities. Then it is purified using cryogenic distillation,

which allows for obtaining polymer-grade bio-ethylene (de Andrade Coutinho et al. 2013; Fan et

al. 2013; Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017; Morschbacker 2009; Morschbacker et al. 2014; Tripodi et al.

2019). Once bio-ethylene is obtained, the polymerization process to produce bio-polyethylene is

the same as oil-based polyethylene. Therefore, different grades such as low-, high-, or linear low-

density bio-polyethylene can be produced (Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017; Siracusa and Blanco 2020).

In the nonwovens industry, polyethylene can be used to produce residential and

commercial wrapping and hygiene products, such as diapers and feminine care (INDA 2019).

Currently, the industry is adopting the bio-based version of this plastic and incorporating it in the

topsheet and backsheet of absorbent hygiene products (Attn: Grace 2020). In this case, a

spunbond bicomponent fiber configuration is used. Under this arrangement, the spunbond

process is employed, and filaments are produced from a thermoplastic, such as polypropylene or

polyethylene terephthalate, that acts as a fiber-core, and high-density or linear-low density bio-

PE that acts as a fiber-sheath (Russell 2006).

 82
Table 4-1. Technology review to produce bio-polyethylene (de Andrade Coutinho et al. 2013;
Fan et al. 2013; Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017; Morschbacker 2009; Morschbacker et al. 2014;
Tripodi et al. 2019).

Status of the
Dehydration technology Description
technology
Developed in 1913. A multi-tubular
fixed reactor is used. Ethanol Scale-up to large
Isothermal reactor
conversion ranges 98-99%, and capacities is limited
ethylene selectivity is 95-99%
Developed in the 1970s. A fluidized-
bed reactor is used. Ethanol
No industrial plants
Adiabatic fluidized reactor conversion is around 99.5%, and
are using this process
ethylene selectivity is more than
99%
Developed in the 1970s. One to four Industrial plants are
fixed-bed reactors and oxide currently using this
Adiabatic fixed-bed reactor catalysts are used. Ethanol process (production
conversion and ethylene selectivity rates of ca. 200
range 97-99% ktons/year)

Different studies have assessed the environmental impact of bio-polyethylene produced

from sugarcane in Brazil from a cradle-to-gate or a cradle-to-grave perspective (Hottle et al.

2017; Ita-Nagy et al. 2020; Kikuchi et al. 2017; Liptow and Tillman 2012; Tonini et al. 2021;

Tsiropoulos et al. 2015). In the latter case, the focus was on packaging or automotive products.

Overall, these studies presented a similar approach regarding methodological aspects associated

with bio-plastics. For instance, the majority of the works considered biogenic carbon uptake

from the atmosphere, although this contradicts guidelines from the International Organization for

Standardization for life-cycle assessments of bio-based plastics (International Organization for

Standardization 2020b; c; a). Also, more than half of the studies considered direct land-use
 83
change, but methods to account for this aspect varied from models to data available in the

literature. Additionally, almost all of the studies took attributional approaches, with only one

considering consequential scenarios through indirect land use change analysis. However, none of

them specifically accounted for the unintended consequences of producing and adopting this bio-

based plastic. It is important to mention that, although these studies evaluated similar aspects,

results exhibited a high variation. For instance, values for Global Warming Potential of bio-PE

ranged from -1.8 to 4.7 kgCO2eq per kg of bio-PE. This can be attributed to assumptions and

other methodological aspects such as environmental credits, system expansion or allocation

during ethanol production, the bio-PE grade under evaluation, and geography of the study,

among others Therefore, it is of utmost importance to perform a comprehensive analysis across

the whole supply chain of bio-PE to understand its true environmental sustainability and what are

the critical factors affecting its environmental impact. In addition, the sustainability features of

bio-PE applied to the nonwovens industry have not yet been evaluated. Moreover, to the best of

the authors’ knowledge, there is no previously published work assessing the environmental

impact of spunbond bicomponent nonwovens used in absorbent hygiene products, and it is

limited to regular spunbond nonwovens employed in shopping bags made from polypropylene

(Muthu et al. 2012).

Herein, we aim to comprehensively assess the environmental impact of bio-PE through a

life-cycle assessment across its supply chain. The goal is to understand how current practices in

the different process stages, i.e., sugarcane cultivation, ethanol production, and bio-polyethylene

manufacturing, can affect its environmental impact from an attributional point of view. Also, our

purpose is to assess the unintended consequences of adopting and using this bio-based plastic

through a consequential analysis. Finally, we aim to evaluate the environmental burdens

 84
associated with producing and disposing of bicomponent spunbond nonwovens for hygiene

absorbent products containing bio-polyethylene and compare them to their fossil counterpart. We

expect this work to provide a robust evaluation to understand the environmental impact of bio-

PE and assess under which scenarios it constitutes a more environmentally friendly alternative

than fossil PE to help the industry expand the offering of more sustainable products.

4.3 Methodology

4.3.1 Life Cycle Assessment as a tool to evaluate environmental sustainability

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has been widely recognized as a methodology to evaluate

the environmental impact of products across their entire life cycle (International Organization for

Standardization, 2006). This method is standardized under the International Organization for

Standardization (ISO) 14040 series of guidelines (International Organization for Standardization,

2006). Specifically, this organization has established standards for bio-based plastics

(International Organization for Standardization, 2018, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c) that outline which

factors should be considered when evaluating the carbon footprint of these materials.

The literature shows that two different approaches could be taken when performing LCA.

If the environmental impact is evaluated from a production, consumption, or disposal point of

view, where only linked processes within the system boundaries of the study are considered, the

analysis receives the name of attributional LCA (ALCA). This approach allows for

understanding the direct contribution of a product to the global environmental impact (Sanchez

et al., 2012). On the other hand, if the analysis evaluates environmental impacts as a response to

a decision, such as changes in the demand or supply of a product, it receives the name of

consequential LCA (CLCA) (Schaubroeck et al., 2021).

 85
Although the series of standards ISO 14040 for life cycle assessment do not expressly

define both approaches mentioned above, a good part of the studies dealing with bioproducts

differentiates one method from another and agree on their main methodological distinctions.

Besides differences in the goal of each approach, the primary dissimilarities are related to how to

handle multifunctional systems, the nature of the data used, and what type of land-use change

(LUC) is considered. Consequently, allocation procedures, average data, and direct land-use

change (dLUC) are used for ALCA. In contrast, system expansion, marginal data, and direct and

indirect land-use change (iLUC) are preferred in CLCA (Bishop et al., 2021; Venkatachalam et

al., 2018).

Specifically, land-use change (LUC) has been recognized as an essential factor affecting

the environmental impact of bio-based products, such as bioplastics (Piemonte & Gironi, 2010).

It can be defined as variations in the original use or management of land due to human activities,

which may result in soil disturbances, potentially changing the net flux of greenhouse gases

(GHG) from the ground (International Organization for Standardization, 2018). LUC can be

classified as direct (dLUC) if the land-use changes happen within the system boundaries of the

study or as indirect (iLUC) if the changes are a consequence of dLUC, occurring outside the

system boundaries (International Organization for Standardization, 2018).

LCA studies for bioplastics found in the literature intensely focus on ALCA, while just a

few adopt a CLCA approach (Bishop et al., 2021). More precisely, to the best of the authors’

knowledge, only four works perform full or partial CLCA for bio-PE, bio-polyethylene

terephthalate (bio-PET), bio-polyvinyl chloride (bio-PVC), or polylactic acid (PLA) (Alvarenga

et al., 2012; Liptow & Tillman, 2012b; Tonini et al., 2021; Tsiropoulos et al., 2015). Liptow and

Tillman (2012) (Liptow & Tillman, 2012b) performed ALCA and CLCA to understand what the
 86
main contributors to the environmental impact of bio-LDPE are. Although the authors applied

some methodological aspects characteristics of ALCA and CLCA, they assumed the effect of

direct land-use change to be negligible. In addition, the authors did not consider the

consequences of substituting fossil-PE with bio-PE from a market point of view, lacking an

entirely consequential approach. Tonini and collaborators (2021) (Tonini et al., 2021) adopted

features associated with CLCA in their assessment, such as system expansion and indirect land-

use change, to assess the environmental impact of bio-HDPE. However, they did not explicitly

claim the use of this approach within the research goal and used average instead of marginal data

for system expansion. In addition, the production of bio-ethylene and bio-polyethylene was

assumed to occur in Europe, being different from producing it in Brazil (current scenario). The

authors employed three different models to assess the land-use change. One of them considers

dLUC and iLUC associated with bioethanol combustible using economic equilibrium (Valin et

al., 2015). Tsiropoulos and collaborators (2015) (Tsiropoulos et al., 2015) included indirect land-

use change and system expansion in their study to assess the environmental impact of bio-PE.

However, the consequential approach was not the goal of the study, and the authors did not

account for the market consequences of producing this bio-plastic. Finally, Alvarenga and

collaborators (2012) performed a CLCA around bio-PVC manufacturing from sugarcane in

Brazil to understand the effects of adding this product to the market. For dLUC, the authors

assumed transitions from pasture to sugarcane, while for iLUC, changes from pasture to forest

were modeled. The authors included market effects in this study by assuming a substitution one-

to-one for bio-PVC and fossil-PVC. Therefore credits by displacing the fossil-based plastic were

taken.
 87
In this study, both attributional and consequential LCA for bio-PE were evaluated. The

next sections describe the main methodological aspects and assumptions considered to perform

the assessments.

4.3.2 Environmental sustainability of bio-PE: Attributional life cycle analysis (ALCA)

This part of the study aimed to quantify the environmental burdens associated with the

production of high-density bio-polyethylene across the whole supply chain through an

attributional LCA. For this purpose, the LCA framework followed the guidelines included in the

ISO 14040 and 22526 series of standards (International Organization for Standardization, 2006,

2020a, 2020b, 2020c). Bio-PE is currently synthesized from bio-ethanol, which is produced from

sugarcane in Brazil. As a result, there are different phases during the manufacturing of bio-PE

and its conversion to nonwoven products that contribute to the environmental impact of this bio-

based plastic. For purposes of this research, the evaluation of the sustainability of bio-PE has

been divided into the stages shown in Figure 4-1, containing specific factors or variations based

on current practices. Additionally, this section aims to assess how the environmental impact of

bio-PE can be affected by variations of its upstream processes in the supply chain.
 88

Figure 4-1. Stages and factors affecting the environmental sustainability of bio-PE and
nonwovens made from this material.

Environmental impact of sugarcane

The environmental impact of sugarcane grown using inorganic fertilizers was evaluated.

For this purpose, an attributional life-cycle analysis (LCA) around the cultivation of this crop

was performed. The LCA framework followed the guidelines included in the ISO 14040 series of

standards (International Organization for Standardization 2006), which comprises the steps

shown in Figure 4-2. Based on this methodology, the goal of the study was to quantify the

environmental burdens associated with the production of sugarcane in Brazil using only

inorganic fertilizers, i.e., man-made fertilizers.

 89

Figure 4-2. Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) framework (International Organization for

Standardization 2006).

The analysis spanned from cradle-to-gate, which included the evaluation of the extraction

of the raw materials through the sugarcane production plus transportation to the sugarcane mill

(Figure 4-3). The functional unit of the study was one tonne of sugarcane. Therefore, all the

inputs, outputs, and environmental results were related to this amount of material. The study

focused on the agricultural practices and type of soil of São Paulo State (Brazil) since it accounts

for 89% of the total sugarcane production in Brazil (Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association

(UNICA) n.d.). Mechanical harvesting methods were considered, and no sugarcane field burning

was taken into account due to environmental regulations and current practices of the state

(Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) n.d.). Also, the approach of this study was

carbon neutral, which does not consider uptake or emission of carbon dioxide from biogenic

sources when accounting for global warming potential. Therefore, credits due to biogenic carbon

were not taken as outlined in the ISO standards when dealing with bioplastics (International
 90
Organization for Standardization, 2018, 2020c). In addition, for this first phase of the study, no

land-use change emissions were assessed.

Emissions to air
Emissions to water
Emissions to soil

Sugarcane
production
Fertilizers
Establishment

Herbicides
Maintenance Transportation Sugarcane mill
Sugarcane
Chemicals

Diesel Harvesting

Figure 4-3. System boundaries for sugarcane production (cradle-to-gate).

The life-cycle inventory data was collected from the literature, i.e., secondary data such

as scientific articles, official reports, and the databases Ecoinvent. As the characterization

method, the Tool for Reduction and Assessment of Chemicals (TRACI) was employed, and the

software openLCA was used to conduct the environmental assessment. Tables 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4

show the different parameters, inputs, and main outputs considered for this analysis during the

stages of sugarcane cultivation. The rotation length of sugarcane was assumed to be six years

with five effective harvests due to current practices in the Brazilian fields (Bordonal et al. 2018;

Garcia and von Sperling 2010). Statistics from the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association

(UNICA) were consulted and analyzed for the last 20 years to estimate the sugarcane yield in

São Paulo State (Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) n.d.). In terms of nutrients,

sugarcane requires nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium to grow. In this section of the study,
 91
these nutrients were provided using inorganic fertilizers, such as urea, superphosphate, and

potassium chloride, respectively (Bordonal et al. 2018; Garcia and von Sperling 2010; Robinson

et al. 2011; Tenelli et al. 2019). After consulting with experts, no depletion of chemicals from the

soil was considered since all the nutrients required by sugarcane are supplied. Also, glyphosate

was reported as the main herbicide used in the sugarcane fields of São Paulo state (Pignati et al.,

2017; Tenelli et al., 2019). Pesticides also were considered based on current agricultural

practices (The Ecoinvent database v3 2020a). Fungicides were not considered since their use is

almost inexistent (Arrigoni et al. 2005; Pignati et al. 2017). Also, soil preparation and fuel

consumption during plantation and harvesting were included. Regarding the main outputs, the

different emissions to air, groundwater, water, and soil were evaluated (Costa et al., 2003; Garcia

& von Sperling, 2010; Renouf et al., 2010).

Table 4-2. General parameters used to assess the environmental impact of sugarcane.

Parameter Value Source

Rotation length (years) 6 (Bordonal et al. 2018; Garcia and von Sperling 2010)
Number of harvests 5 (Garcia and von Sperling 2010)
Sugarcane yield-Avg. (ton/[Link]) 72.5 (Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) n.d.)
 92
Table 4-3. Life cycle inventory for the production of sugarcane: Inputs.

Input Value Source

Urea growing and maintenance, as N 1.50 (Bordonal et al. 2018; Garcia and von Sperling
(kg/tonne) 2010; Robinson et al. 2011; Tenelli et al. 2019)
Superphosphate growing and 0.62 (Bordonal et al. 2018; Garcia and von Sperling
maintenance, as P2O5 (kg/tonne) 2010; Tenelli et al. 2019)
Potassium chloride growing and 1.99 (Bordonal et al. 2018; Garcia and von Sperling
maintenance, as K2O (kg/tonne) 2010; Tenelli et al. 2019)
Lime soil preparation (kg/tonne) 4.83 (Garcia and von Sperling 2010; Tenelli et al.
2019)
Gypsum (kg/tonne) 2.76 (Tenelli et al. 2019)
Glyphosate growing and maintenance 0.06 ( Pignati et al. 2017; Tenelli et al. 2019)
(L/tonne)
Pesticides (gactive ingredient/tonne) 0.063 (The Ecoinvent database v3 2020a)
Diesel plantation and harvesting 1.07 (Macedo et al. 2004; Ramos et al. 2016;
(kg/tonne) Tomazela et al. 2010)
Transportation (tonne*km) 30.26 (Chagas et al. 2016; Garcia and von Sperling
2010; Kaup et al. 2015)
 93
Table 4-4. Life cycle inventory for the production of sugarcane: Outputs.

Functional unit Value Source

Sugarcane (tonne/tonne) 1 -
Emissions to air* Value Source
Carbon dioxide from diesel 10.85 (Du et al. 2018; Nemecek and Kagi 2007)
combustion, urea, and limestone
(kg/tonne)
Carbon monoxide from diesel 0.01 (Du et al. 2018)
combustion (kg/tonne)
Nitrous oxide released by diesel 0.045 (Boddey et al. 2008; Bordonal et al. 2018;
combustion and urea (kg/tonne) Cherubin et al. 2016; Du et al. 2018; Garcia and
von Sperling 2010; Nihei et al. 2015; Oliveira et
al. 2017; P and Franco 2011; Silva-Olaya et al.
2017; Siqueira Neto et al. 2016)
Methane released by diesel 1.73E-04 (Du et al. 2018)
combustion (kg/tonne)
Ammonia released by urea (kg/tonne) 1.17 (Costa et al. 2003)
Nitrogen oxides released by urea 0.014 (Costa et al. 2003)
kg/tonne)
Emissions to groundwater* Value Source
Nitrate (kg/tonne) 0.72 (P and Franco 2011)
Emissions to water* Value Source
Glyphosate (kg/tonne) 8.79E-04 (Renouf et al. 2010)
Pesticides (kg/tonne) 9.44E-04 (Renouf et al. 2010)
Emissions to soil* Value Source
Nitrogen immobilized in the soil 0.48 (Garcia and von Sperling 2010)
(kg/tonne)
Glyphosate (kg/tonne) 0.058 (Renouf et al. 2010)
Pesticides (kg/tonne) 0.062 (Renouf et al. 2010)
Others (metals such as cadmium, lead, nickel,
(Nemecek and Kagi 2007)
copper, zinc and chromium)

*Only the most important emissions are listed

 94

In Brazil, it is a common practice to use both inorganic and organic fertilizers during the

cultivation of sugarcane. Specifically, organic fertilizers include vinasse and filter cake, which

are residues from the ethanol industry that can provide nutrients such as nitrogen and

phosphorous when applied to the soil, substituting a part of the inorganic fertilizers required

during the cultivation (Boddey et al. 2008; Bordonal et al. 2018; Cherubin et al. 2016; Nihei et

al. 2015; Oliveira et al. 2017; Prado et al. 2013; Silva-Olaya et al. 2017; Siqueira Neto et al.

2016). Therefore, the environmental impact of sugarcane grown using both types of fertilizers

was evaluated to understand the influence of this agricultural practice on the environmental

impact of sugarcane. As performed in the previous section, an attributional life-cycle analysis

(LCA) around the cultivation of this crop was made following the guidelines included in the ISO

14040 series of standards (International Organization for Standardization 2006). For this

scenario, the goal was to quantify the environmental burdens associated with the production of

sugarcane in Brazil using both inorganic and organic fertilizers.

Also, the analysis spanned from cradle-to-gate, which included the evaluation of the

extraction of the raw materials through the sugarcane production plus transportation to the

sugarcane mill shown in Figure 4-3, with the difference that both inorganic and organic

fertilizers were used for this scenario. The functional unit was one tonne of sugarcane. Therefore,

all the inputs, outputs, and environmental results were related to this amount of material. As

described in the previous section, the study focused on agricultural practices and soil type of São

Paulo State and mechanical harvesting methods. In terms of methodology, carbon neutrality and

no land-use change were assumed. Finally, secondary data, TRACI, and the software openLCA

were used to conduct the environmental assessment. Table 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7 depict the different
 95
parameters, inputs, and main outputs considered for this analysis during the stages of sugarcane

cultivation. The same type of inputs and outputs as in the previous section was used. The main

difference compared to previous scenarios lies in the use of vinasse and filter cake to replace

inorganic fertilizers partially and their respective emissions.

Table 4-5. General parameters used to assess the environmental impact of sugarcane.

Parameter Value Source

Rotation length (years) 6 (Bordonal et al. 2018; Garcia and von Sperling 2010)
Number of harvests 5 (Garcia and von Sperling 2010)
Sugarcane yield-Avg. (ton/[Link]) 72.5 (Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) n.d.)
 96
Table 4-6. Life cycle inventory to produce sugarcane using organic and inorganic fertilizers:
Inputs.

Input Value Source

Urea growing and maintenance, 0.74 (Boddey et al. 2008; Bordonal et al. 2018; Cherubin et al.
as N (kg/tonne) 2016; Garcia and von Sperling 2010; Nihei et al. 2015;
Oliveira et al. 2017; P and Franco 2011; Silva-Olaya et al.
2017; Siqueira Neto et al. 2016; Tenelli et al. 2019)
Superphosphate growing and 0.41 (Boddey et al. 2008; Bordonal et al. 2018; Cherubin et al.
maintenance, as P2O5 (kg/tonne) 2016; Garcia and von Sperling 2010; Nihei et al. 2015;
Oliveira et al. 2017; P and Franco 2011; Silva-Olaya et al.
2017; Siqueira Neto et al. 2016)
Potassium growing and 0.33 (Boddey et al. 2008; Bordonal et al. 2018; Cherubin et al.
maintenance, as K2O (kg/ha) 2016; Garcia and von Sperling 2010; Nihei et al. 2015;
Oliveira et al. 2017; P and Franco 2011; Silva-Olaya et al.
2017; Siqueira Neto et al. 2016)
Vinasse (m3/tonne) 2.8 (Boddey et al. 2008; Bordonal et al. 2018; Cherubin et al.
2016; Garcia and von Sperling 2010; Nihei et al. 2015;
Oliveira et al. 2017; P and Franco 2011; Silva-Olaya et al.
2017; Siqueira Neto et al. 2016)
Filter cake (tonne/tonne) 0.38 Boddey et al. 2008; Bordonal et al. 2018; Cherubin et al.
2016; Garcia and von Sperling 2010; Nihei et al. 2015;
Oliveira et al. 2017; P and Franco 2011; Silva-Olaya et al.
2017; Siqueira Neto et al. 2016)
Lime soil preparation (kg/tonne) 4.83 (Garcia and von Sperling 2010; Tenelli et al. 2019)
Gypsum (kg/tonne) 2.76 (Tenelli et al. 2019)
Glyphosate growing and 0.06 ( Pignati et al. 2017; Tenelli et al. 2019)
maintenance (L/tonne)
Pesticides (gactive ingredient/tonne) 0.063 (The Ecoinvent database v3 2020a)
Diesel plantation and harvesting 1.07 (Macedo et al. 2004; Ramos et al. 2016; Tomazela et al.
(kg/tonne) 2010)
Transportation (tonne*km) 33.0 (Chagas et al. 2016; Garcia and von Sperling 2010; Kaup
et al. 2015)
 97
Table 4-7. Life Cycle Inventory for sugarcane production using both inorganic and organic
fertilizers.

Functional unit Value Source

Sugarcane (tonne/tonne) 1 -
Emissions to air Value Source
Carbon dioxide from diesel combustion, 8.25 (Du et al. 2018; Nemecek and Kagi 2007)
urea and limestone (kg/tonne)
Carbon monoxide from diesel combustion 0.01 (Du et al. 2018)
(kg/tonne)
Nitrous oxide released by diesel 0.061 (Boddey et al. 2008; Bordonal et al. 2018;
combustion, urea, vinasse and filter cake Cherubin et al. 2016; Du et al. 2018; Garcia
(kg/tonne) and von Sperling 2010; Nihei et al. 2015;
Oliveira et al. 2017; P and Franco 2011;
Silva-Olaya et al. 2017; Siqueira Neto et al.
2016)
Methane released by diesel combustion 1.73E-04 (Du et al. 2018)
(kg/tonne)
Ammonia released by urea (kg/tonne) 0.58 (Costa et al. 2003)
Nitrogen oxides released by urea kg/tonne) 0.015 (Costa et al. 2003)
Emissions to groundwater Value Source
Nitrate (kg/tonne) 0.36 (P and Franco 2011)
Emissions to water Value Source
Glyphosate (kg/tonne) 8.79E-04 (Renouf et al. 2010)
Pesticides (kg/tonne) 9.44E-04 (Renouf et al. 2010)
Emissions to soil Value Source
Nitrogen immobilized in the soil (kg/tonne) 0.24 (Garcia and von Sperling 2010)
Glyphosate (kg/tonne) 5.77E-02 (Renouf et al. 2010)
Pesticides (kg/tonne) 6.20E-02
Others (metals such as cadmium, lead, nickel, copper,
( Du et al. 2018; Nemecek and Kagi 2007)
zinc and chromium)

*Only the most important emissions are listed

 98

The expansion of sugarcane in Brazil was studied to incorporate the effect of direct land-

use change (dLUC) on the environmental sustainability of sugarcane. For this purpose, historical

data from the MapBiomas platform (Sistema de Estimativas de Emissões de Gases de Efeito

Estufa do Observatório do Clima, 2021) was used, which provides information on land cover

across time in this country. It was determined that sugarcane has extended ca. 8.3 Mha in Brazil

from 1985 to 2019, mainly in the southeast and northeast region, with a minor presence in the

mid-west and north-west of the country (Figure 4-4). From the literature, it was identified that

67% of this expansion occurred over pasture areas (degraded or not), while 6% happened over

forest formations and native vegetation. Other types of expansion include farming and cropland,

with 27% of the share (Picoli et al. 2021).

Figure 4-4. Sugarcane expansion in Brazil from 1985 to 2019. The yellow area represents
sugarcane cultivation. Data from (Sistema de Estimativas de Emissões de Gases de Efeito Estufa
do Observatório do Clima 2021).
 99
In order to translate these land-use changes into environmental impacts, the methodology

described by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change 2003) was applied for the specific case of Brazil (Tier 1 and Tier 2). For this

purpose, the carbon stocks, i.e., the amount of carbon present in biomass above- and below-

ground, and the changes in soil organic carbon for each land use were assessed using values from

the literature. Total changes in carbon stocks (changes in biomass and organic carbon) were

transformed into GHG emissions and amortized over a period of 20 years according to Equation

1 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2003):

Eq. 1
Ct2 − Ct1 44
CO2 dLUC = ∗( )
T 12

where CO2dLUC: dLUC-related CO2 emissions from sugarcane expansion, Ct2: carbon stock in

land use prior to conversion, Ct1: carbon stock in land use after conversion, T: amortization

period (20 years (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2003)), and 44/12: conversion

factor to convert C to CO2.

Due to the importance of these transitions and current information availability (past five

years), two different expansions were evaluated: i) pasture and ii) forest/native vegetation to

sugarcane. In total, five studies assessing at least one component of the carbon stock for these

types of transitions were found. Specifically, three of the studies (Oliveira et al. 2016, 2017,

2019) only evaluated changes in soil organic carbon. Therefore, they were complemented using

values for carbon present in biomass from the other two studies (Alkimim and Clarke 2018; Vera

et al. 2020). Finally, the results obtained from the assessment were transformed in emissions per
 100
tonne of sugarcane using average yields in the region of Sao Paulo, Brazil, and were added to the

analysis performed in previous sections for the environmental impact of sugarcane.

Environmental impact of bioethanol

The environmental impact of bioethanol produced in an autonomous facility was

evaluated. For this purpose, an attributional life-cycle analysis (LCA) was performed. The LCA

framework followed the guidelines included in the ISO 14040 series of standards (International

Organization for Standardization 2006), which comprises the steps shown in Figure 4-2. The

goal of the study was to quantify the environmental burdens associated with the production of

ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil.

The analysis spanned from cradle-to-gate, which included the extraction of the raw

materials, transportation, and the different stages of bioethanol production in Sao Paulo State

(Figure 4-5). The functional unit of the study was one liter of ethanol (95 wt.%). Therefore, all

the inputs, outputs, and environmental results were related to this amount of material. For this

first scenario, the study focused on an autonomous facility. This scheme was preferred as the

starting point to understanding the different factors related to the process and the possibility of

adding more stages and co-products in future scenarios. Also, first-generation ethanol production

was chosen since 99.9% of the ethanol in Brazil is produced through this pathway (Barros 2019).
 101
Emissions to air
Emissions to water
Emissions to soil

Ethanol (1G) production

Washing Electricity
Juice extraction
Water
Pre-treatment
Ethanol 95 %
Sugarcane Fermentation
Distillation and
Vinasse
Chemicals dehydration

Energy gen. Filter cake

Figure 4-5. System boundaries for bioethanol production in an autonomous facility

(cradle-to-gate).

A process simulation on Aspen Plus v11 was performed. It includes the steps described

by Kumar et al., Bertrand et al., and Dimian & Sorin (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin

2008; Kumar et al. 2014). First, the sugarcane is received at the mill and then washed to remove

dust and other impurities. Next, the cane is chopped, shredded, crushed to extract the juice, and

passed through a screen to remove solids. The juice is then chemically treated, heated, and

filtered. After the treatment, the sugars present in the juice are fermented by yeast action, and an

alcoholic mixture is produced along with carbon dioxide. The mixture is centrifuged to separate

the yeasts that are recycled to the process from the stream. Finally, distillation and dehydration

using molecular sieves are used to obtain ethanol 95 % as a product. It is worth mentioning that

bagasse is produced and burnt to generate energy, covering the energy demand of the plant

during the process. Also, residual streams, known as vinasses, and filter cake, are generated.
 102
The life-cycle inventory data (Table 4-8 and Table 4-9) was collected from the simulation

mentioned above, built based on the literature, i.e., secondary data such as scientific articles,

official reports, and the database Ecoinvent. As the characterization method, the Tool for

Reduction and Assessment of Chemicals (TRACI) was employed, and the software openLCA

was used to conduct the environmental assessment. It is important to mention that the economic

allocation was applied since an excess of electricity is co-generated during the process.

Allocation was chosen over taking credits through system expansion for future fair comparison

to the annexed facility scenario, where only allocation can be applied. In addition, in attributional

LCA, allocation is mostly used (Bishop et al., 2021; Venkatachalam et al., 2018). Average

ethanol and electricity prices from 2018 to 2021 were used to estimate the allocation factors

shown in Table 4-10.

Table 4-8. Life Cycle Inventory for ethanol production: Inputs.

Input Value Source

Sugarcane (kg/L) 11.83 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar et al. 2014)
Water, fresh (kg/L) 21.7 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar et al. 2014)
Sulfur dioxide (kg/L) 3.0E-04 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar et al. 2014)
Lime (kg/L) 0.02 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar et al. 2014)
Diammonium 1.1E-03
(Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar et al. 2014)
phosphate (kg/L)
Diesel (kg/L) 1.1E-03 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar et al. 2014)
Oxygen (kg/L) 4.82 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar et al. 2014)
Transport for 13.62
(Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar et al. 2014)
chemicals (kg*km)
 103
Table 4-9. Life Cycle Inventory for ethanol production: Outputs.

Products Value Source

Ethanol, 95 wt.% (L/L) 1.0 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008;
Kumar et al. 2014)
Electricity (kWh/L) 0.176 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008;
Kumar et al. 2014)
Emissions to air Value Source
(Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008;
Kumar et al. 2014; The Ecoinvent database v3
Carbon dioxide, fossil (kg/L) 3.59E-03 2020b)
(Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008;
Kumar et al. 2014; The Ecoinvent database v3
Dinitrogen monoxide (kg/L) 1.37E-07 2020b)
(Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008;
Kumar et al. 2014; The Ecoinvent database v3
Carbon monoxide (kg/L) 1.30E-05 2020b)
Methane (kg/L) 1.84E-07 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008;
Kumar et al. 2014; The Ecoinvent database v3
2020b)
Nickel (kg/L) 8.58E-11 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008;
Kumar et al. 2014; The Ecoinvent database v3
2020b)
Nitrogen oxides (kg/L) 1.37E-03 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008;
Kumar et al. 2014; The Ecoinvent database v3
2020b)
PAH, polycyclic aromatic 1.19E-06 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008;
hydrocarbons (kg/L) Kumar et al. 2014; The Ecoinvent database v3
2020b)
Particulates, < 10 um (kg/L) 1.56E-03 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008;
Kumar et al. 2014; The Ecoinvent database v3
2020b)
 104
Table 4-9. (continued).

Water (kg/L) 1.47 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008;
Kumar et al. 2014; The Ecoinvent database v3
2020b)
Emissions to soil Value Source
Filter cake (kg/L) 1.5E-01 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008;
Kumar et al. 2014)
Vinasse (kg/L) 13.51 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008;
Kumar et al. 2014)
Emissions to water Value Source
Water (kg/L) 8.39 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008;
Kumar et al. 2014)

Table 4-10. Ethanol and electricity prices in Brazil (2018-2021).

Description Price Source Allocation factor

Ethanol 2.10 R$/L (United States Department 0.98
of Agriculture 2021a)
Electricity 0.26 R$/kWh (Camara de 0.02
Comercializacao de
Energia Electrica (CCEE)
2021)

The environmental impact of bioethanol production in an annexed facility (also

producing sugar and electricity) was evaluated by performing an attributional life-cycle analysis

(LCA) following the guidelines included in the ISO 14040 series of standards (International

Organization for Standardization 2006). The goal of the study was to quantify the environmental
 105
burdens associated with the production of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil in an annexed

facility.

As described in the previous section, the analysis spanned from cradle-to-gate (Figure

4-6). The functional unit of the study was one liter of ethanol (95 wt.%). Therefore, all the

inputs, outputs, and environmental results were related to this amount of material. For this

scenario, the study focused on an annexed facility, i.e., a biorefinery, producing ethanol, sugar,

and electricity from burning bagasse. Specifically, 50% of the sugarcane juice was used to make

ethanol, while the rest was used to produce sugar (Santos et al. 2012). The production of first-

generation ethanol was chosen since 99.9% of the ethanol in Brazil is produced through this

pathway (Barros 2019).

Emissions to air
Emissions to water
Emissions to soil

Ethanol (1G) production Electricity

Fermentation
Sugarcane preparation Ethanol 95 %
Distillation and
Water dehydration
Molasses

Washing Vinasse
Sugarcane Juice extraction
Sugar production
Pre-treatment
Chemicals Evaporation Filter cake

Crystalization
Sugar
Energy gen.

Figure 4-6. System boundaries for bioethanol production in an annexed facility (cradle-to-gate).

The simulation mentioned in the previous section was adapted to produce sugar and

ethanol using 50% of the sugarcane juice for each of these products (Santos et al. 2012). Also,

electricity was generated by burning sugarcane bagasse. The life-cycle inventory data (Table
 106
4-11 and Table 4-12) was collected from the simulation mentioned above, built based on

secondary. Additionally, TRACI and openLCA were used to perform the assessment. It is

important to mention that, since an excess of electricity and sugar are also co-generated during

the process, economic allocation was performed following an attributional approach. Average

ethanol, sugar, and electricity prices from 2018 to 2021 were used to estimate the allocation

factors shown in Table 4-13.

Table 4-11. Life Cycle Inventory for ethanol production: Inputs.

Input Value Source

Sugarcane (kg/L) 23.67 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar
et al. 2014) (Santos et al. 2012)
Water, fresh (kg/L) 42.5 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar
et al. 2014) (Santos et al. 2012)
Sulfur dioxide (kg/L) 6.0E-04 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar
et al. 2014) (Santos et al. 2012)
Lime (kg/L) 0.05 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar
et al. 2014) (Santos et al. 2012)
Diammonium phosphate 2.2E-03 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar
(kg/L) et al. 2014) (Santos et al. 2012)
Diesel (kg/L) 2.2E-03 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar
et al. 2014) (Santos et al. 2012)
Oxygen (kg/L) 9.64 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar
et al. 2014) (Santos et al. 2012)
Transport for chemicals 27.24 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar
(kg*km) et al. 2014) (Santos et al. 2012)
 107
Table 4-12. Life Cycle Inventory for ethanol production: Outputs.

Products Value Source

Ethanol, 95 wt.% (L/L) 1.0 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar et
al. 2014) (Santos et al. 2012)
Electricity (kWh/L) 0.263 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar et
al. 2014) (Santos et al. 2012)
Sugar (kg/L) 1.71 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar et
al. 2014) (Santos et al. 2012)
Emissions to air Value Source
(Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar et
al. 2014; The Ecoinvent database v3 2020b) (Santos et al.
Carbon dioxide, fossil (kg/L) 7.19E-03 2012)
(Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar et
al. 2014; The Ecoinvent database v3 2020b) (Santos et al.
Dinitrogen monoxide (kg/L) 2.75E-07 2012)
(Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar et
al. 2014; The Ecoinvent database v3 2020b) (Santos et al.
Carbon monoxide (kg/L) 2.61E-05 2012)
Methane (kg/L) 3.69E-07 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar et
al. 2014; The Ecoinvent database v3 2020b) (Santos et al.
2012)
Nickel (kg/L) 1.72E-10 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar et
al. 2014; The Ecoinvent database v3 2020b) (Santos et al.
2012)
Nitrogen oxides (kg/L) 2.75E-03 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar et
al. 2014; The Ecoinvent database v3 2020b) (Santos et al.
2012)
PAH, polycyclic aromatic 2.38E-06 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar et
hydrocarbons (kg/L) al. 2014; The Ecoinvent database v3 2020b) (Santos et al.
2012)
Particulates, < 10 um (kg/L) 3.12E-03 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar et
al. 2014; The Ecoinvent database v3 2020b) (Santos et al.
2012)
 108
Table 4-12. (continued).

Water (kg/L) 1.47 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar et
al. 2014; The Ecoinvent database v3 2020b) (Santos et al.
2012)
Emissions to soil Value Source
Filter cake (kg/L) 3.0E-01 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar et
al. 2014) (Santos et al. 2012)
Vinasse (kg/G) 13.51 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar et
al. 2014) (Santos et al. 2012)
Emissions to water Value Source
Water (kg/G) 16.03 (Bertrand et al. 2016; Dimian and Sorin 2008; Kumar et
al. 2014) (Santos et al. 2012)

Table 4-13. Ethanol, sugar and electricity prices in Brazil (2018-2021).

Description Price Source Allocation

factor
Ethanol 2.10 R$/L (United States Department of Agriculture 2021a) 0.43
Electricity 0.26 R$/kWh (Camara de Comercializacao de Energia Electrica 0.01
(CCEE) 2021)
Sugar 1.58 R$/kg (United States Department of Agriculture 2021b) 0.56

Environmental impact of bio-polyethylene

The environmental impact of high-density bio-polyethylene production was evaluated.

The LCA framework followed the guidelines included in the ISO 14040 series of standards

(International Organization for Standardization 2006). The goal of the study was to quantify the

environmental burdens associated with the production of high-density bio-polyethylene from

ethanol in Brazil.
 109
The analysis spanned from cradle-to-pellet, which included the extraction of the raw

materials, transportation, and the different stages of bio-polyethylene production in Brazil

(Figure 4-7). The functional unit of the study was one kilogram of high-density bio-polyethylene.

Therefore, all the inputs, outputs, and environmental results were related to this amount of

material.

Emissions to air
Emissions to water
Emissions to soil

Bio-PE production

Electricity
Ethylene prod.
Water
Ethylene recov. Bio-polyethylene
Ethylene purif. (pellet)
Ethanol
Polymerization
Chemicals

Steam

Figure 4-7. System boundaries for bio-polyethylene production (cradle-to-pellet).

For the dehydration of ethanol, adiabatic fixed-bed reactors were selected since, as

explained before, it constitutes the process currently used to produce this bio-plastic

(Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017). Also, slurry polymerization technology was used in this study since

high-density polyethylene is being evaluated (Securities and Exchange Comission n.d.). Finally,

1-butene was selected as a co-monomer since it constitutes the substance currently used during

the production of high-density bio-polyethylene.

The life-cycle inventory data (Table 4-14 and Table 4-15) was collected from a process

simulation performed on Aspen Plus v11 (Figure 4-8). It was built based on the literature, i.e.,

secondary data such as scientific articles, official reports, and the database Ecoinvent. As the
 110
characterization method, the Tool for Reduction and Assessment of Chemicals (TRACI) was

employed, and the software openLCA was used to conduct the environmental assessment. The

cut-off method was applied for inputs contributing less than 0.1% to the total mass input of the

product system.

Figure 4-8. Process simulation for bio-polyethylene production (Aspen Plus v11).

Table 4-14. Life-Cycle Inventory for the production of bio-polyethylene (HDPE): Inputs.

Input Value Source

Ethanol, 95 2.21 (de Andrade Coutinho et al. 2013; Fan et al. 2013; Maraschin 2005;
wt.% (L/kg) Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017; Morschbacker 2009; Morschbacker et al. 2014;
Tripodi et al. 2019)
Electricity 0.39 (de Andrade Coutinho et al. 2013; Fan et al. 2013; Maraschin 2005;
(kWh/kg) Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017; Morschbacker 2009; Morschbacker et al. 2014;
Tripodi et al. 2019)
Sodium 2.9E-03 (de Andrade Coutinho et al. 2013; Fan et al. 2013; Maraschin 2005;
hydroxide Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017; Morschbacker 2009; Morschbacker et al. 2014;
(kg/kg) Tripodi et al. 2019)
Steam (kg/kg) 2.54 (de Andrade Coutinho et al. 2013; Fan et al. 2013; Maraschin 2005;
Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017; Morschbacker 2009; Morschbacker et al. 2014;
Tripodi et al. 2019)
Water, fresh 1.00 (de Andrade Coutinho et al. 2013; Fan et al. 2013; Maraschin 2005;
(kg/kg) Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017; Morschbacker 2009; Morschbacker et al. 2014;
Tripodi et al. 2019)
 111
Table 4-14. (continued).

Transportation 139.81 (de Andrade Coutinho et al. 2013; Fan et al. 2013; Maraschin 2005;
(kg*km) Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017; Morschbacker 2009; Morschbacker et al. 2014;
Tripodi et al. 2019)

Table 4-15. Life-Cycle Inventory for the production of bio-polyethylene (HDPE): Outputs.

Product Value Source

Bio-polyethylene - HDPE (kg/kg) 1.0 (de Andrade Coutinho et al. 2013; Fan et al. 2013;
Maraschin 2005; Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017;
Morschbacker 2009; Morschbacker et al. 2014;
Tripodi et al. 2019)
Wax (kg/kg) 0.01 (Hakim and Moballegh 2006; McDaniel and
DesLauriers 2015; Meng et al. 2013;
Samphawamontri et al. 2016; Soares and
McKenna 2012; Wang et al. 2018)
Emissions to air Value Source
(de Andrade Coutinho et al. 2013; Fan et al. 2013;
Maraschin 2005; Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017;
Morschbacker 2009; Morschbacker et al. 2014;
Methane (kg/kg) 6.95E-04 Tripodi et al. 2019)
(de Andrade Coutinho et al. 2013; Fan et al. 2013;
Maraschin 2005; Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017;
Morschbacker 2009; Morschbacker et al. 2014;
Hydrogen (kg/kg) 3.09E-04 Tripodi et al. 2019)
(Hakim and Moballegh 2006; McDaniel and
DesLauriers 2015; Meng et al. 2013;
Samphawamontri et al. 2016; Soares and
Nitrogen (kg/kg) 4.25E-02 McKenna 2012; Wang et al. 2018)
 112
Table 4-15. (continued).

Emissions to water Value Source

Acetaldehyde (kg/kg) 2.61E-03 (de Andrade Coutinho et al. 2013; Fan et al. 2013;
Maraschin 2005; Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017;
Morschbacker 2009; Morschbacker et al. 2014;
Tripodi et al. 2019)
Butadiene (kg/kg) 4.83E-03 (de Andrade Coutinho et al. 2013; Fan et al. 2013;
Maraschin 2005; Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017;
Morschbacker 2009; Morschbacker et al. 2014;
Tripodi et al. 2019)
Ethylene (kg/kg) 6.37E-02 (de Andrade Coutinho et al. 2013; Fan et al. 2013;
Maraschin 2005; Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017;
Morschbacker 2009; Morschbacker et al. 2014;
Tripodi et al. 2019)
Ethanol (kg/kg) 3.19E-02 (de Andrade Coutinho et al. 2013; Fan et al. 2013;
Maraschin 2005; Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017;
Morschbacker 2009; Morschbacker et al. 2014;
Tripodi et al. 2019)
Sodium carbonate (kg/kg) 4.34E-03 (de Andrade Coutinho et al. 2013; Fan et al. 2013;
Maraschin 2005; Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017;
Morschbacker 2009; Morschbacker et al. 2014;
Tripodi et al. 2019)
Water (kg/kg) 1.68 (de Andrade Coutinho et al. 2013; Fan et al. 2013;
Maraschin 2005; Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017;
Morschbacker 2009; Morschbacker et al. 2014;
Tripodi et al. 2019)

Environmental impact of bicomponent sheath-core spunbond nonwovens

In the nonwovens industry, the use of bio-polyethylene is mainly reported in inventions

for absorbent hygiene products, specifically top- and backsheets for diapers, which have a

sheath-core configuration and are made from the spunbond process. In this regard, the
 113
environmental impact of producing a sheath-core bicomponent spunbond nonwoven was

assessed. For this purpose, an attributional life-cycle analysis (LCA) was performed following

the guidelines included in the ISO 14040 series of standards (International Organization for

Standardization 2006). The goal of the study was to quantify the environmental burdens

associated with the production of the nonwoven fabric mentioned above, constituted by

polypropylene (PP) as fiber-core and bio-polyethylene or fossil-polyethylene as fiber-sheath.

The analysis spanned from cradle-to-gate, which included the extraction of the raw

materials, transportation, and the different stages for nonwoven production in the south-east

United States (Figure 4-9). This includes the transportation of bio-polyethylene from southeast

Brazil. The functional unit of the study was one kg of fabric. Therefore, all the inputs, outputs,

and environmental results were related to this amount of material. Also, the sheath-core ratio

evaluated was 50-50 based on industrial practices for this type of materials and configurations.

Emissions to air
Emissions to water
Emissions to soil

Bicomponent sheath-
core spunbond Nonwoven waste
Electricity
nonwoven
Polymer
Water
extrusion Sheath-core PE-PP
Bio-PE or Web forming nonwoven fabric
Fossil-PE
Web bonding
Chemicals Web winding
Waste water
Polypropylene

Figure 4-9. System boundaries for the production of bicomponent sheath-core spunbond
nonwoven.
 114
The life-cycle inventory data (Table 4-16 and Table 4-17) was built based on the

literature, i.e., secondary data such as scientific articles, official reports, and the database

Ecoinvent. As the characterization method, TRACI was employed, and the software openLCA

was used to perform the environmental analysis.

Table 4-16. Life Cycle Inventory for the production of sheath-core spunbond nonwoven: Inputs.

Input Bio-PE/PP Fossil-PE/PP Source

Polypropylene 0.524 0.524 (Ievtushenko 2012; Muthu et al. 2012; The
(kg/kg) Ecoinvent database v3 2021a)
Polyethylene 0.524 0.524 (Ievtushenko 2012; Muthu et al. 2012; The
(kg/kg) Ecoinvent database v3 2021a)
Electricity (kWh/kg) 1.27 1.27 (Ievtushenko 2012; Muthu et al. 2012; The
Ecoinvent database v3 2021a)
Water (kg/kg) 9.52 9.52 (Ievtushenko 2012; Muthu et al. 2012; The
Ecoinvent database v3 2021a)
Sodium hydroxide, 0.013 0.013 (Ievtushenko 2012; Muthu et al. 2012; The
cleaning (kg/kg) Ecoinvent database v3 2021a)
Transport, terrestrial 1,212.3 1,537.2 Estimations
(kg*km)
Transport, maritime 5,240.7 - Estimations
(kg*km)
 115
Table 4-17. Life Cycle Inventory for the production of sheath-core spunbond nonwoven:
Outputs.

Products Bio-PE/PP Fossil-PE/PP Source

Sheath-core 1.0 1.0 (Ievtushenko 2012; Muthu et al. 2012; The
spunbond fabric Ecoinvent database v3 2021a)
(kg/kg)
Emissions to soil Bio-PE/PP Fossil-PE/PP Source
Nonwoven waste 0.048 0.048 (Ievtushenko 2012; Muthu et al. 2012; The
(kg/kg) Ecoinvent database v3 2021a)
Emissions to water Bio-PE/PP Fossil-PE/PP Source
Water (kg/kg) 9.52 9.52 (Ievtushenko 2012; Muthu et al. 2012; The
Ecoinvent database v3 2021a)

Environmental impact of the end-of-life of sheath-core spunbond nonwovens

As explained in previous sections, bio-polyethylene in the nonwovens industry is

associated with absorbent hygiene products. Therefore, the environmental impact of the end-of-

life for the spunbond fabric previously evaluated was assessed considering end-of-life options

assuming that it would be used in absorbent products. For this purpose, an attributional life-cycle

analysis (LCA) was performed following the guidelines included in the ISO 14040 series of

standards (International Organization for Standardization 2006). The goal of the study was to

quantify and compare the environmental burdens (global warming potential) associated with the

waste treatment of the nonwoven fabric mentioned above, constituted by polypropylene (PP) as

fiber-core and bio-polyethylene or fossil-polyethylene as fiber-sheath.

The analysis spanned from cradle-to-grave, which included the extraction of the raw

materials, transportation of products, and end-of-life treatments (Figure 4-10). The functional

unit of the study was one kg of fabric. Therefore, all the inputs, outputs, and environmental

results were related to this amount of material. Also, to evaluate which end-of-life strategies
 116
make sense for the application, it was assumed that the nonwoven was used in an absorbent

hygiene product. Using information from the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(United States Environmental Protection Agency 2021), absorbent hygiene products, such as

diapers, only have two possible end-of-life: i) landfill and ii) combustion with energy recovery.

Therefore, a scenario where 80% of the product is landfilled and 20% incinerated was selected

based on the statistics mentioned above (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2021).

This is equivalent to 0.4 kg of PE and 0.4 kg of PP landfilled, and 0.1 kg of PE and 0.1 kg of PP

incinerated per kg of waste nonwoven. It is important to mention that the absorbent product

manufacture and use stages were not considered since they are expected to be the same for both

types of products, i.e., bio-PE/PP and fossil-PE/PP.

Emissions to air
Emissions to water
Emissions to soil

End-of-life Electricity from

combustion
Combustion with
Absorbent energy recovery
hygiene product

Landfilling

Figure 4-10. System boundaries for disposal of absorbent hygiene products (cradle-to-grave).
Production and use stages of the nonwoven were not considered.

The life-cycle inventory data was built based on secondary data. Processes from the

database Ecoinvent for landfilling and incineration of waste polyethylene and polypropylene

were used (The Ecoinvent database v3 2021b; 2021c; 2021d; 2021e). Following the carbon-
 117
neutral approach, carbon dioxide emissions coming from bio-PE were not taken into account.

Also, since electricity is co-generated during the waste-management treatments, system

expansion was applied, providing credits to the overall process due to the displacement of other

ways to produce electricity. It is interesting to note that, although allocation is preferred in

attributional approaches, for the studied end-of-life, mass, volume, or energy allocation cannot

be applied since landfilled plastic and electricity do not present the same basis to fit any of these

methods. Specifically for economic allocation, the landfilled plastic does not have economic

value, and therefore this approach cannot be applied. As the characterization method, the Tool

for Reduction and Assessment of Chemicals (TRACI) was employed, and the software openLCA

was used to conduct the environmental assessment. Table 4-18 summarizes the life cycle

inventory associated with the end-of-life under study.

4.3.3 Environmental sustainability of bio-PE: Consequential life cycle analysis (CLCA)

The goal of this part of the study is to understand the unintended environmental

consequences of increasing the production of bio-polyethylene. The analysis spanned from

cradle-to-grave, which included the extraction of the raw materials, transportation, the different

stages of bio-polyethylene production in Brazil, and production and disposal of sheath-core

spunbond nonwoven (Figure 4-11). As in the previous attributional analysis, sugarcane and

ethanol production occurred in Sao Paulo state. For sugarcane cultivation, the use of organic and

inorganic fertilizers was assumed. The life cycle inventory was built based on secondary data

(i.e., literature and the Ecoinvent database) and process simulations previously discussed.

TRACI was used as the characterization method, and the software openLCA was employed to

perform the analysis. Also, this type of consequential approach is based on future projections for
 118
the increase in production of bio-polyethylene (Braskem, 2021; European Bioplastics, 2021),

which could have consequences at different levels of the supply chain described below.

At the sugarcane cultivation level, an increase in demand for bio-PE could translate into

direct land-use changes since, as stated by different authors, the available agricultural land in Sao

Paulo is limited (Ferreira Filho & Horridge, 2014). Based on past trends, direct land-use changes

from pasture to sugarcane could be expected and constitute the most likely scenario (Picoli et al.,

2021). This dLUC eventually could cause the need for pasture land in another location in the

country, promoting an effect of iLUC (Andrade de Sá et al., 2013; Picoli et al., 2021).

Specifically, sugarcane expansion in Brazil has been linked to indirect deforestation to create

new pasture areas (Alvarenga et al., 2012; Andrade de Sá et al., 2013; Jusys, 2017; Picoli et al.,

2021). Therefore, forest to pasture land constitutes the scenario for iLUC assessed in this part of

the study.

Different deforestation to sugarcane expansion ratios have been proposed, which means

that one hectare of sugarcane expansion does not necessarily cause one hectare of indirect

deforested land, mainly due to the densification of pasture areas (Lapola et al., 2010). As

proposed by Alvarenga and collaborators (2012) (Alvarenga et al., 2012) and based on the

historical expansion of pasture over forests (Picoli et al., 2021), deforestation to sugarcane

expansion ratios of 1:1, 0.6:1, and 0.13:1 were evaluated (e.g., 0.6:1 means that 0.6 ha of

deforestation will occur as a consequence of the expansion of 1 ha of sugarcane). It is important

to clarify that these values are obtained from the literature, specifically from Brazil, and are

based on modeling the partial economic equilibrium of agriculture at a regional level. Finally,

based on these factors and land transitions, the IPCC guidelines (Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change, 2003) to estimate land-use change emissions were employed as described in
 119
section 2.1.1. For clear-cutting direct emissions, the Ecoinvent database was used (The

Ecoinvent database v3, 2021f.).

At the ethanol production level, it is assumed that the ethanol required was obtained from

an autonomous facility (no sugar is produced in the biorefinery, and only ethanol and electricity

are made). This was assumed given that making bio-PE is the primary goal of the system, and

this scheme would maximize land yield. However, since this type of facility represents a

multifunctional system, system expansion was applied within the consequential approach, taking

credits for displacing electricity generated by the Brazilian grid in 2021. For this, marginal

compositional data for the electricity displaced was estimated using information from the

Brazilian Ministry of Energy (Ministerio de minas e energia, 2022) (Table 4-18).

Table 4-18. Composition of the electricity displaced for the consequential approach (Ministerio
de minas e energia, 2022).

Description %
Hydro 2.1
Natural gas 62.1
Coal 3.4
Diesel 0.7
Other fossil 0.1
Nuclear 5.8
Sugarcane bagasse 1.6
Black liquor 0.9
Biomass 0.7
Biogas 0.1
Wind 15.2
Solar 7.3
 120
Finally, fossil-PE and derived products were considered avoided. This is based on the

assumption that one unit of bio-PE would replace one unit of fossil PE, which is expected for

markets in equilibrium (Alvarenga et al., 2012; Palazzo et al., 2020). From a methodological

point of view, this allows taking environmental credits due to the displacement.

Emissions to air
Emissions to water
Emissions to soil

Fossil-PE
Sugarcane emissions
production avoided
iLUC Electricity Electricity
displacement
dLUC
Sugarcane Nonwoven
Ethanol (1G) Bio-PE Transportation End-of-life
Sugarcane Transportation Transportation production
production production
cultivation Ethanol Bio-polyethylene
(pellet)

Fertilizers Herbicides Chemicals Diesel Natural gas Electricity Water Propylene

Figure 4-11. Systems boundaries – Consequential analysis.

4.4 Results and discussion

4.4.1 Attributional analysis

Environmental assessment of sugarcane

Once the life-cycle inventory was collected, the environmental impact analysis for

sugarcane production following possible agricultural practices was performed. Table 4-19

contains the results of the environmental impact assessment for sugarcane production using only

inorganic fertilizers. Specifically, this crop presents a global warming potential (GWP),

acidification and eutrophication of 39.26 kgCO2 eq/tonne, 2.31 kgSO2 eq/tonne and 0.36 kgN
 121
eq/tonne respectively. As shown in Figure 4-12, direct emissions are the main contributor to the

GWP of sugarcane, with almost 62% of the total contribution. These emissions are associated

with greenhouse gases (GHG) released after burning fuels in agricultural machinery, urea

application for soil fertilization, and limestone for soil preparation. Urea production and

transportation of chemicals are also significant contributors to this environmental impact

category, with an influence of 14% and 13%, respectively. For other categories, such as

acidification and eutrophication, direct emissions are the main contributors, with 96 % and 86 of

the contribution, respectively. In this regard, reducing fuel usage, fertilizer consumption, and

transportation distances could help to mitigate the environmental impact of this crop.

Table 4-19. Environmental assessment results for one tonne of sugarcane cultivated using
inorganic fertilizers.

Category Units Value

Acidification kgSO2 eq 2.31E+00

Ecotoxicity CTUe 7.36E+01

Eutrophication kgN eq 3.60E-01
Global Warming Potential kgCO2 eq 3.93E+01

Human health - Carcinogenic CTUh 5.71E-07

Human health – Non-carcinogenic CTUh 2.89E-06
Ozone depletion kgCFC-11 eq 4.86E-06
Photochemical ozone formation kgO3 eq 1.69E+00

Resource depletion – Fossil fuels MJsurplus 3.63E+01

Repiratory effects kgPM2.5 eq 9.38E-02
 122
45.0

Global warming potential

40.0
35.0
(kgCO2eq/tonne) 30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Inorganic fert.
Transport, freight Urea Triple superphosphate

Glyphosate Pesticides Diesel

Lime Potassium chloride Transport, tractor

Gypsum Direct emissions

Figure 4-12. Contribution tree of global warming potential of sugarcane cultivated using
inorganic fertilizers.

Table 4-20 contains the results of the environmental impact assessment of sugarcane

cultivated using inorganic and organic fertilizers. Specifically, GWP presents a value of 37.7

kgCO2 eq/tonne under this practice. The contribution tree for this category (Figure 4-13) depicts

that direct emissions are the main contributor with almost 70% of the total value. These

emissions are associated with GHG emissions released after burning fuels in agricultural

machinery, urea, vinasse, filter cake application for soil fertilization, and limestone for soil

preparation. Urea production and transportation of chemicals are also significant contributors to

GWP, with an influence of 7% and 14%, respectively. Other important categories such as

acidification and eutrophication have values of 1.18 kgSO2 eq/tonne and 0.19 kgN eq/tonne,

respectively. For these categories, direct emissions are the main contributors, with 94 % and

81%, respectively. As outlined previously, reducing fuel and fertilizer consumption and

transportation distances could help to mitigate the environmental impact of this crop.
 123
Table 4-20. Environmental assessment results for one tonne of sugarcane cultivated using both
inorganic and organic fertilizers.

Category Units Value

Acidification kgSO2 eq 1.18E+00
Ecotoxicity CTUe 5.26E+01
Eutrophication kgN eq 1.91E-01
Global Warming Potential kgCO2 eq 3.77E+01
Human health - Carcinogenic CTUh 4.09E-07
Human health – Non-carcinogenic CTUh 1.89E-06
Ozone depletion kgCFC-11 eq 4.25E-06
Photochemical ozone formation kgO3 eq 1.58E+00
Resource depletion – Fossil fuels MJsurplus 2.86E+01
Repiratory effects kgPM2.5 eq 5.05E-02

45.0
Global warming potential

40.0
35.0
(kgCO2eq/tonne)

30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Organic fert.

Transport, freight Urea Triple superphosphate

Glyphosate Pesticides Diesel
Lime Potassium chloride Transport, tractor
Gypsum Direct emissions

Figure 4-13. Contribution tree for global warming potential of sugarcane.

The comparison between both scenarios for sugarcane production can be observed in

Figure 4-14. The results for the different categories were normalized to the scenario with the
 124
highest environmental impact, i.e., the use of inorganic fertilizers, and it constitutes the baseline

for the comparison. In terms of GWP, it is evident that organic fertilizers present a slightly lower

impact than inorganic fertilizers. This can be related to a lower use of inorganic fertilizers under

this scenario. However, this difference is higher for other categories such as eutrophication,

acidification, or human health. The impact of using organic fertilizers is only 51%, 53%, and

66% compared to using both types of fertilizers, respectively. Although both scenarios present a

very similar value for GWP, the results in other categories favor the use of vinasse and filter

cake.

Acidification
120%
Respiratory effects 100% Ecotoxicity
80%
60%
Resource depletion - 40% Eutrophication
fossil fuels
20%
0%

Photochemical ozone
Global Warming
formation

Human Health -
Ozone Depletion
carcinogenics
Human Health - non-
carcinogenics

Inorganic fert. Organic fert.

Figure 4-14. Comparison between sugarcane practices.

The benchmarking and comparison with the results shown in the literature were also

performed. Du et al. (2018) reported a GWP for mechanically harvested sugarcane of 40.6

kgCO2eq/tonne versus 37.7-39.3 kgCO2eq/tonne in this study. In addition, other categories, such as
 125
acidification, presented similar values to those of the present study, which validates the results.

On the other hand, Claros & Von Sperling (Garcia and von Sperling 2010) reported emissions of

1,539.6 kgCO2eq/[Link], which equals 66.9 kgCO2eq/tonne when the impact is allocated to the

sugarcane produced. However, the harvesting methods are not entirely mechanical for the study

mentioned above, and sugarcane is burnt before being harvested, which explains a larger GWP.

The present assessment allowed for determining the environmental impact of sugarcane

produced in Brazil, specifically in São Paulo State, under two different cultivation scenarios,

which will be used as input in the environmental assessment of bioethanol production. In order to

extend this analysis, the influence of land-use change will be evaluated in the next section.

Table 4-21 contains results for carbon dioxide emissions per hectare per year associated

with the different transitions under study. These are pasture to sugarcane (LUC-Pasture) and

forest/native vegetation to sugarcane (LUC-Forest). It was determined that the transition LUC-

Forest translates into positive carbon dioxide emissions as a result of changing from a carbon-

rich land (forest) to land with a lower amount of carbon (sugarcane). On the other hand, the

transition LUC-Pasture can present negative emissions, i.e., carbon dioxide capture, associated

with changing from a degraded land (pasture) to land with higher productivity and carbon

content (sugarcane).
 126
Table 4-21. Emissions associated with the direct land-use change of sugarcane.

CO2dLUC
Transition Source
(tonCO2eq/[Link])
Forest/native vegetation to sugarcane 0.0 - 14.0 (Vera et al. 2020)
Pasture to sugarcane (Alkimim and Clarke 2018;
(-5.2) – 2.8
Oliveira et al. 2016, 2017, 2019)

Results shown in the table above were transformed in emissions per tonne of sugarcane

using average yields in the region of Sao Paulo, Brazil, and were added to the analysis performed

in the previous section for the environmental impact of sugarcane. As shown in Figure 4-15, it

was determined that sugarcane cultivated in a land that previously was a forest (LUC-Forest)

presents a much higher environmental impact (120.5 kgCO2eq/tonne) compared to sugarcane

cultivated in a former pasture (LUC-pasture) (17.4 kgCO2eq/tonne). In addition, the scenario

where no Land-Use Change is considered (No-LUC) differs by more than 83 kgCO2eq/tonne and

20 kgCO2eq/tonne compared to LUC-Forest and LUC-Pasture, respectively. In this regard, land-

use change has an important influence on the environmental impact of this crop. Therefore,

regulations limiting deforestation to expand agricultural crops are critical to ensure a lower

environmental impact associated with the primary precursor of bio-PE.

 127

Figure 4-15. Global warming potential considering direct land-use change emissions for
sugarcane produced using organic fertilizers (average values for dLUC were used).

Environmental impact of bioethanol

The environmental impact of bioethanol produced in two different biorefinery schemes

was assessed. Table 4-22 contains the results of the impact analysis of ethanol produced in an

autonomous facility. It considers the variations in agricultural practices outlined in the previous

stage. Specifically, bioethanol (95 wt.%) presents a global warming potential, acidification and

eutrophication of 0.48-0.49 kgCO2 eq/l, 1.5-2.8E-02 kgSO2 eq/l and 2.5-4.5E-03 kgN eq/l,

respectively. As depicted in Figure 4-16 for GWP, sugarcane represents the main contributor to

the environmental impact of this chemical. Therefore, reducing impacts associated with this crop

will translate into environmental improvements for bioethanol. Also, it is important to note that

GWP was not highly influenced by the type of fertilizers used during the cultivation stage.

However, for other categories, the impact between both scenarios can be almost double.
 128
Table 4-22. Results for bioethanol produced in an autonomous facility.

Category Units Inorganic fert. Organic fert.

Acidification kgSO2 eq 2.8E-02 1.5E-02
Ecotoxicity CTUe 1.2E+00 9.4E-01
Eutrophication kgN eq 4.5E-03 2.5E-03
Global Warming Potential kgCO2 eq 4.9E-01 4.8E-01
Human health - Carcinogenic CTUh 8.6E-09 6.7E-09
Human health – Non-carcinogenic CTUh 5.1E-08 3.9E-08
Ozone depletion kgCFC-11 eq 6.5E-08 5.7E-08
Photochemical ozone formation kgO3 eq 7.5E-02 7.4E-02
Resource depletion – Fossil fuels MJsurplus 5.1E-01 4.2E-01
Repiratory effects kgPM2.5 eq 1.6E-03 1.1E-03

0.60
Global warming potential

0.50
(kgCO2eq/L)

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
Autonomous - Inorganic fert. Autonomous - Organic fert.

Sugarcane Diammonium phosphate Transport, freight

Diesel Lime Direct emissions

Figure 4-16. Contribution tree for global warming potential of ethanol produced in an
autonomous facility (LUC of sugarcane is not considered).

Table 4-23 contains the results of the impact analysis of ethanol produced in an annexed

facility considering differences during the sugarcane cultivation stage. Under this scheme, GWP

of ethanol (95 wt.%) was estimated at 0.41-0.43 kgCO2 eq/l. Other important categories such as
 129
acidification and eutrophication have values ranging from 1.3-2.5E-02 kgSO2 eq/l and 2.2-3.9-03

kgN eq/l. When analyzing the contribution tree of the different impact categories, sugarcane still

represents the main contributor to the environmental impact of the chemical, as exemplified in

Figure 4-17 for GWP. Therefore, as previously explained, reducing the impacts associated with

this crop is crucial. Finally, as observed before, GWP was not highly influenced by the type of

practices followed during the cultivation stage.

Table 4-23. Results for bioethanol produced in an annexed facility.

Category Units Inorganic fert. Organic fert.

Acidification kgSO2 eq 2.5E-02 1.3E-02
Ecotoxicity CTUe 1.0E+00 8.0E-01
Eutrophication kgN eq 3.9E-03 2.2E-03
Global Warming Potential kgCO2 eq 4.3E-01 4.1E-01
Human health - Carcinogenic CTUh 7.4E-09 5.7E-09
Human health – Non-carcinogenic CTUh 4.3E-08 3.3E-08
Ozone depletion kgCFC-11 eq 5.6E-08 5.0E-08
Photochemical ozone formation kgO3 eq 4.8E-02 4.7E-02
Resource depletion – Fossil fuels MJsurplus 4.4E-01 3.6E-01
Repiratory effects kgPM2.5 eq 1.3E-03 8.7E-04
 130

0.60

Global warming potential

0.50

(kgCO2eq/L)
0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
Annexed - Inorganic fert. Annexed - Organic fert.

Sugarcane Diammonium phosphate Transport, freight

Diesel Lime Direct emissions

Figure 4-17. Contribution tree for global warming potential of ethanol produced in an
autonomous facility (LUC emissions are not considered).

The comparison between both scenarios for ethanol production, i.e., autonomous and

annexed facility, can be observed in Figure 4-18. The results for the different categories were

normalized to the scenario with the highest environmental impact, i.e., the production of ethanol

in an autonomous facility using sugarcane cultivated with inorganic fertilizers. Therefore, it

constitutes the baseline for the comparison. In terms of Global Warming Potential, it is evident

that producing ethanol in an annexed facility presents a slightly lower impact than producing in

an autonomous facility. This can be explained by the fact that as more products are obtained,

more environmental burdens can be distributed among them. Also, since more sugar is produced

than ethanol and their prices are not very different, sugar will have a higher allocation factor,

reducing the environmental impact of ethanol. Ethanol produced in an annexed facility also

presents a lower environmental impact than other environmental categories. For instance,

acidification and eutrophication are only 87 % of the autonomous facility scenario.

 131

Acidification
120%
Respiratory effects 100% Ecotoxicity
80%
60%
Resource depletion - fossil 40% Eutrophication
fuels
20%
0%

Photochemical ozone
Global Warming
formation

Ozone Depletion Human Health - carcinogenics

Human Health - non-

carcinogenics
Annexed - Inorganic fert. Annexed - Organic fert.
Autonomous - Inorganic fert. Autonomous - Organic fert.

Figure 4-18. Comparison between ethanol production schemes.

The benchmarking and comparison with the results shown in the literature were also

performed. Maga et al. (2019) reported a GWP for first-generation (1G) ethanol produced in

Brazil of ca. 0.42 kgCO2eq/l versus 0.41-0.43 kgCO2eq/l in this study. The authors mentioned

above showed that sugarcane is the main contributor to the environmental impact of ethanol,

which also agrees with the herein results.

Environmental impact of bio-polyethylene

The environmental assessment of bioethanol allowed to perform the equivalent analysis

for high-density bio-polyethylene . Table 4-24 contains the results of the impact assessment.

Specifically for GWP, this bioplastic presents a value of 1.7-1.9 kgCO2 eq/kg depending on the

biorefinery scheme and the practices for sugarcane cultivation. When analyzing the contribution

tree of the different impact categories, ethanol and steam generation represents the main

contributors to the environmental impact of bio-polyethylene (Figure 4-19). In addition,

 132
electricity and chemical usage also contribute to this environmental category. The use of oil-

based raw materials, such as 1-butene, increases the usage of fossil substances during the

polymerization stage and contributes to the GHG emissions associated with upstream processes.

For other categories, such as eutrophication, ethanol, steam generation, and direct emissions,

have the highest contribution.

Table 4-24. Environmental assessment results of high-density bio-polyethylene using ethanol

produced in different biorefinery schemes and sugarcane practices.

Annexed- Annexed- Autonomous- Autonomous-

Category Units
Inorganic Organic Inorganic Organic
Acidification kgSO2 eq 5.73E-02 3.19E-02 6.51E-02 3.61E-02

Ecotoxicity CTUe 3.25E+00 2.78E+00 3.64E+00 3.10E+00

Eutrophication kgN eq 1.59E-02 1.21E-02 1.71E-02 1.28E-02
Global Warming 1.77E+00 1.73E+00 1.91E+00 1.87E+00
kgCO2 eq
Potential
Human health - 3.22E-08 2.86E-08 3.49E-08 3.08E-08
CTUh
Carcinogenic
Human health – Non- 1.33E-07 1.11E-07 1.50E-07 1.25E-07
CTUh
carcinogenic
Ozone depletion kgCFC-11 eq 2.17E-07 2.03E-07 2.36E-07 2.21E-07
Photochemical ozone 1.33E-01 1.30E-01 1.92E-01 1.90E-01
kgO3 eq
formation
Resource depletion – 2.60E+00 2.43E+00 2.75E+00 2.56E+00
MJsurplus
Fossil fuels
Repiratory effects kgPM2.5 eq 3.25E-03 2.27E-03 3.95E-03 2.84E-03
 133

Global warming potential 2.5

2.0
(kgCO2eq/kg)

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
Annexed - Inorganic Annexed - Organic fert. Autonomous - Autonomous - Organic
fert. Inorganic fert. fert.
Ethanol Steam Electricity Butene Transport, freight

Nitrogen Hexane Sodium hydroxide Direct emissions

Figure 4-19. Contribution tree for global warming potential of high-density bio-polyethylene (No
LUC are considered). Biogenic carbon in bio-PE: 3.14 kgCO2eq/kg.

The effect of the type of ethanol used during the production of high-density bio-

polyethylene can be observed in Figure 4-20. The results for the different categories were

normalized to the scenario with the highest environmental impact, i.e., the use of ethanol

produced in an autonomous facility using sugarcane cultivated with inorganic fertilizers, and it

constitutes the baseline for the comparison. In terms of GWP, it is evident that producing bio-PE

using ethanol obtained from an annexed facility presents a slightly lower impact than producing

in an autonomous facility. This is associated with a lower environmental impact for ethanol

under the first scheme. For other categories, the difference mentioned above is more obvious,

reaching differences of up to 50% in some cases. Therefore, although the type of ethanol used

does not highly influence GWP, other categories, such as acidification, present a better

performance depending on the scenario for ethanol production.

 134

Acidification
120%
Respiratory effects 100% Ecotoxicity
80%
60%
Resource depletion - fossil
40% Eutrophication
fuels
20%
0%

Photochemical ozone
Global Warming
formation

Ozone Depletion Human Health - carcinogenics

Human Health - non-

carcinogenics
Annexed - Inorganic fert. Annexed - Organic fert.
Autonomous - Inorganic fert. Autnomous - Organic fert.

Figure 4-20. Comparison between scenarios evaluated for bio-polyethylene.

The benchmarking and comparison with the results shown in the literature were also

performed. Tisoropoulos et al. (2015) reported a GWP for high-density bio-polyethylene

produced in Brazil of 2.40 kgCO2eq/kg versus 1.7-1.9 kgCO2eq/kg in the present study. It is

important to note that the value mentioned above includes transportation to Europe, which

contributes to a higher result compared to this study. Also, the difference could be attributed to

different ethanol production databases used or the polymerization method studied. In addition,

the authors mentioned above did not specify the polymerization method used, which could also

explain the difference in the results. However, the similarity in these values validates the results

of this study.

Results previously obtained for the effect of land-use change on the environmental

sustainability of sugarcane were used to estimate how this factor can affect the environmental
 135
impact of bio-polyethylene. Results can be observed in Figure 4-21 for the case of using ethanol

produced in an annexed facility and employing inorganic and organic fertilizers during sugarcane

cultivation. If LUC-Forest constitutes the land-use change scenario, bio-polyethylene presents a

much higher environmental impact (3.6 kgCO2eq/kg) than LUC-Pasture (1.3 kgCO2eq/kg). This is

related to differences in carbon stocks between land uses, causing either GHG emissions or

captures after the land-use change occurs. Also, No-LUC differs in more than 1.9 kgCO2eq/kg

and 0.4 kgCO2eq/kg compared to LUC-Forest and LUC-Pasture, respectively. These values agree

with LUC emissions associated with bio-PE shown in the literature, which can be up to 2.7

kgCO2eq/kgbioPE (Ita-Nagy et al. 2020).

In addition, when comparing these results with the fossil-based counterpart, results reveal

that bio-polyethylene can present a higher environmental impact if the transition from forest to

sugarcane occurs. However, if the transition corresponds from pasture to sugarcane, the benefits

of bio-polyethylene versus the fossil counterpart are apparent, with a reduction in Global

Warming Potential of almost 50%. As previously explained, this transition constitutes the most

likely scenario of land-use change in Brazil (Picoli 2021). However, regulations limiting the

transition to forest or implementing a code of conduct for ethanol suppliers are critical to ensure

a lower carbon footprint of bio-PE. Finally, if other environmental categories are compared

(Table 4-25), fossil-PE presents better environmental performance than bio-PE, which is the case

for acidification and eutrophication. Thus, this must be considered when comparing both types of

plastics, and the choice of material needs to be made based on which environmental indicator is

more important for the specific application.

 136

4.0
Global warming potential
3.5
3.0
(kgCO2eq/kg)

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
BioPE - No LUC* BioPE - Forest * BioPE - Pasture* Fossil PE - Fossil PE -
Ecoinvent Harding et al.

Ethanol Steam Electricity Butene Transport, freight

Nitrogen Hexane Sodium hydroxide Direct emissions Fossil PE

Figure 4-21. Global warming potential considering direct Land-Use Change Emissions for high-
density polyethylene and comparison to Fossil-PE (Harding et al. 2007; The Ecoinvent database
v3 2020c). Cradle-to-gate. *Biogenic carbon: 3.14 kgCO2eq/kg.

Table 4-25. Environmental impacts of high-density bio-PE (No LUC) and fossil-PE.

Category Units Bio-PE (No LUC) Fossil-PE*

Acidification kgSO2 eq 3.19E-02 6.5E-03
Ecotoxicity CTUe 2.78E+00 5.5E+00
Eutrophication kgN eq 1.21E-02 3.8E-03
Global Warming Potential kgCO2 eq 1.73E+00 2.1E+00
Human health - Carcinogenic CTUh 2.86E-08 1.0E-07
Human health – Non-carcinogenic CTUh 1.11E-07 2.2E-07
Ozone depletion kgCFC-11 eq 2.03E-07 6.4E-08
Photochemical ozone formation kgO3 eq 1.30E-01 8.0E-02
Resource depletion – Fossil fuels MJsurplus 2.43E+00 9.4E+00
Repiratory effects kgPM2.5 eq 2.27E-03 1.4E-03

* (The Ecoinvent database v3, 2020c)

 137
Environmental impact of bicomponent sheath-core spunbond nonwovens

Table 4-26 contains the results for the impact assessment of the spunbond nonwoven

made from bio-PE/PP or fossil-PE/PP. Specifically for GWP, nonwovens made using bio-PE/PP

could present a lower impact compared to fossil-PE depending on the scenario for land-use

change and the data source for fossil-PE (Harding et al. 2007; The Ecoinvent database v3

2020c). This is also the case for other categories, such as ecotoxicity, human health, and fossil

fuel depletion, where systems bio-PE/PP have a better environmental performance than fossil-

PE/PP. However, nonwovens made from bio-PE have a higher impact than fossil PE for

acidification, eutrophication, ozone depletion, photochemical ozone formation, and respiratory

effects. Also, when analyzing the contribution tree of the different impact categories,

polypropylene, electricity use, and polyethylene are the main contributors to the environmental

impact of the product, as exemplified in Figure 4-22. In the figure mentioned above, it is

noticeable again that LUC plays an essential role in the sustainability of materials made from

bio-PE, finding a lower impact of up to 0.7 kgCO2eq/kg if LUC-Pasture is considered.

 138
Table 4-26. Environmental assessment results for spunbond nonwoven made from Bio-PE/PP or
Fossil-PE/PP.

Bio-PE/PP Fossil-PE/PP
Category Units
nonwoven nonwoven
Acidification kgSO2 eq 2.6E-02 1.1E-02
Ecotoxicity CTUe 7.7E+00 9.2E+00
Eutrophication kgN eq 1.4E-02 9.4E-03
Global Warming Potential kgCO2 eq 2.8-4.1E+00 3.2-3.5E+00
Human health - Carcinogenic CTUh 1.2E-07 1.6E-07
Human health – Non-carcinogenic CTUh 3.0E-07 3.6E-07
Ozone depletion kgCFC-11 eq 2.7E-07 2.0E-07
Photochemical ozone formation kgO3 eq 1.9E-01 1.6E-01
Resource depletion – Fossil fuels MJsurplus 7.3E+00 1.1E+01
Repiratory effects kgPM2.5 eq 4.2E-03 3.7E-03

4.5
Global warming potential

4.0
3.5
(kgCO2eq/kg)

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
BioPE - No LUC* BioPE - Forest * BioPE - Pasture * Fossil PE - Fossil PE -
Ecoinvent Harding et al.

Polypropylene Electricity Bio-polyethylene Transport, land

Transport, sea Sodium hydroxide Direct emissions Fossil polyethylene

Figure 4-22. Contribution tree and comparison between spunbond nonwovens made from Bio-
PE/PP or Fossil-PE/PP. Cradle-to-gate. *Biogenic carbon: 1.57 kgCO2eq/kgNonwoven.
 139
The present assessment estimated the environmental impact of sheath-core bicomponent

spunbond nonwoven produced from bio-PE/PP or fossil-PE/PP. The comparison allowed to

contrast both systems, finding that products containing bio-PE can offer an environmental

advantage (20% less GWP) if the LUC of the sugarcane stage corresponds to pasture-sugarcane.

On the other hand, if LUC corresponds to forest-sugarcane, systems containing bio-PE can

present a higher impact.

Results of the assessment can be observed in Figure 4-23. It was determined that the

scenario LUC-Pasture for bio-PE could present up to 0.9 kgCO2eq/kg less than the scenario

where fossil-PE is employed. On the other hand, if LUC-Forest is considered, the systems

containing bio-PE have a higher impact, up to 0.4 kgCO2eq/kg, than fossil-PE. In light of these

results, using this bioplastic for nonwovens applications could benefit the industry by reducing

the carbon footprint of products. However, the environmental performance is highly dependent

on the LUC scenario, which could produce counter-productive effects and release more GHG

emissions if the land was deforested to cultivate sugarcane. Thus, the adoption of this bioplastic

could be affected by the uncertainty associated with which LUC occurs during the process.
 140

5.0
4.5
Global warming potential 4.0
3.5
(kgCO2eq/kg)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
BioPE - No LUC BioPE - Forest BioPE - Pasture Fossil PE - Fossil PE -
Ecoinvent Harding et al.

Nonwoven Incineration Credits electricity

Figure 4-23. Global Warming Potential for waste treatment of spunbond nonwoven containing
Bio-PE or Fossil PE. Cradle-to-grave.

4.4.2 Consequential analysis

Environmental impact of sugarcane

As described in the Methodology section, including indirect land-use change is necessary

to evaluate the unintended consequences of increasing the production of bio-polyethylene. In this

part of the study, the iLUC scenario under evaluation corresponds to deforestation to create new

pasture land. The GHG results of this assessment and comparison with values from the literature

are presented in Table 4-27. As expected, it was determined that the transition from forests to

pasture translates into the release of carbon dioxide emissions (ca. 16.4 tonCO2eq/[Link]) as a

result of changing from a carbon-rich land (forest) to land with a lower amount of carbon

(pasture). Values from the literature vary from ca. 14 – 18 tonCO2eq/[Link], mainly due to

differences in the amount of biomass and soil organic carbon for each use.
 141
Table 4-27. GHG emissions associated with the indirect land-use change of sugarcane.

CO2iLUC
Transition Source
(tonCO2eq/[Link])
14.0 (Alvarenga et al., 2012)
16.4 This study
Forest to pasture
17.7 (The Ecoinvent database
v3, 2021f)

Results shown in the table above were transformed in emissions per tonne of sugarcane

using average yields in the region of Sao Paulo, Brazil, and were added to the analysis performed

in previous sections for the environmental impact of sugarcane. Figure 4-24 depicts the GWP of

sugarcane, considering a consequential approach where direct and indirect land-use change

emissions are accounted for. Also, it shows the comparison to the attributional approach, where

only direct emissions of transitioning from pasture to sugarcane are considered. It can be

observed that the consequential scenarios present a higher impact compared to the attributional

analysis. This is mainly driven by the contribution of iLUC emissions, which is more evident at

higher deforestation ratios (i.e., 1:1 and 0.6:1). Therefore, iLUC emissions represent an essential

factor influencing the environmental impact of sugarcane used to produce bio-PE, which is not

considered in the attributional approach. Previously in this work, the need to include dLUC was

determined. However, these results support the need to assess global LUC (dLUC and iLUC)

when dealing with biomass to produce bio-based goods. Also, it is important to mention that the

LUC values depend on the amortization period employed during the assessment, which in this

case is 20 years (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2003). If other values for this

variable are used, the results could drastically change. However, this parameter implies that the

new land will remain unchanged for a certain period (i.e., 20 years). Therefore, assuming higher
 142
values could be questionable due to the uncertainty of ensuring that there will not be further

changes associated with human activities on the land.

Figure 4-24. Global warming potential of sugarcane – Comparison of consequential approach

(CLCA) to attributional approach (ALCA).

Environmental impact of bio-polyethylene

Figure 4-25 depicts the GWP of bio-PE for a consequential cradle-to-gate study. The

analysis shows that GWP can range from ca. (-0.2) – 4.9 CO2eq/kgBio-PE under this type of

analysis. From this figure, one can point to ethanol, and therefore iLUC, as the main responsible

for the high environmental impact. Also, as expected, the CLCA scenarios present a considerably

higher GWP than the ALCA one, demonstrating the importance of considering iLUC in the

analysis once more time. Due to the methodological nature of CLCA, where credits by

displacing fossil-PE are taken, these values indeed represent the carbon dioxide savings (-) or

emissions (+) associated with the use of bio-PE compared to fossil PE. From these results, it is

then possible to state that under CLCA, this bioplastic could present no environmental advantage

(for GWP) compared to conventional PE or be a carbon-neutral material. However, whether bio-

 143
PE could be a material with a lower environmental impact or not depends on the deforestation

caused as a consequence of dLUC. Strict regulations limiting deforestation could help ensure

materials with a lower carbon footprint. However, these types of policies are not currently in

place in Brazil, where Federal governments are not enforcing the protection of forest land

(MapBiomas, 2022), which has caused high historical values for deforestation (The Guardian,

2022), jeopardizing the sustainability of sugarcane-derived materials.

Figure 4-25. Global warming potential of bio-PE – Comparison of consequential approach

(CLCA) to attributional approach (ALCA). Cradle-to-gate. *Biogenic carbon: 3.14 kgCO2eq/kg.

Environmental impact of the end-of-life of sheath-core spunbond nonwovens

Figure 4-26 depicts the full consequential cradle-to-grave analysis results of a nonwoven

made 50%/50% from bio-PE/PP. In this case, credits for the displacement of a nonwoven made

from 50%/50% fossil-PE/PP were taken at the end-of-life level and not at the resin production

level. The analysis shows that GWP can range from ca. (-0.1) – 2.6 CO2eq/kgNonwoven under

this type of analysis. Thus, this nonwoven could present no environmental advantage (for GWP)
 144
compared to products made from conventional PE or be a carbon-neutral material. Nevertheless,

as previously explained, due to the uncertainty of which deforestation scenario represents the

most prone to occur, it is difficult to ensure that a nonwoven made from bio-PE can have a better

environmental performance than one made from the fossil counterpart.

8.0
Global warming potential end-of-

6.0
life (kgCO2eq/kgnonwoven)

4.0

2.0

0.0

-2.0

-4.0

-6.0
CLCA - Ratio 1:1 CLCA - Ratio 0.6:1 CLCA - Ratio 0.13:1

Nonwoven Incineration Transport Landfill Fossil nonwoven Total

Figure 4-26. Global Warming Potential for waste treatment of spunbond nonwoven containing
Bio-PE or Fossil PE. Cradle-to-grave.

Implications of attributional and consequential results

In this study, the environmental sustainability of bio-polyethylene has been evaluated

from an attributional and consequential point of view. Results herein obtained help understand

the main factors affecting the environmental impact of this bio-based plastic and could serve as a

guide to understanding how the environmental impact of bioplastics should be evaluated and

which elements should be considered (Table 4-28).

 145
Table 4-28. Aspects that need to be evaluated to understand the environmental sustainability of
bio-PE.

Stage Factors to be considered

Agricultural practices (fertilizers, soil preparation, fuels)
Direct land-use change
Agriculture
Indirect land-use change
Co-products generated (if applicable)
Intermediate (e.g., ethanol) and Unit operations of the process (raw materials, water, chemicals)
final products (e.g., bio-PE or
Co-products generated
nonwoven)
End-of-life scenarios (based on the application)
End-of-life
End-of-life management (inputs and outputs for each strategy)
Product displacement Displacement of fossil products (if applicable)

Land-use change (dLUC and iLUC) was profiled as a critical aspect that cannot be

overlooked. Doing this would cause an underestimation of the actual environmental

sustainability of these materials. Specifically for bio-PE, deforestation as a direct or indirect

land-use change scenario represents the main factor harming its environmental impact. Rigorous

policies restricting deforestation are required to ensure a low carbon for this bio-based plastic.

However, the current state of affairs in Brazil, where policies enforcing forest protection lack,

makes it challenging to ensure that this bio-plastic constitutes an alternative to reduce the carbon

footprint of products compared to fossil-PE. Although a code of conduct could be implemented

at the production level to ensure that raw materials are not associated with land-use change (e.g.,

the land has remained unchanged for more than 20 years), the truth is that as the production of

this bioplastic expands, more sugarcane land will be needed. In reality, this demand could cause

indirect effects that could translate into the harmful effects already outlined in this study. Thus,

these results open the window to rethink how current sugarcane-based bioplastics should be
 146
produced, promoting the search for other renewable raw materials free of associated land-use

changes, such as food waste or other residue streams, or which policies should be implemented

to protect forest land.

Finally, it is important to mention that the results above for LUC denote the effect for the

first 20 years after the direct and indirect transitions occur, associated with the assumed

amortization period. Afterward, if the land remains unchanged, no LUC should be related to

sugarcane, and the environmental impact of this crop would be more similar to the attributional

scenario without LUC.

4.5 Conclusions

The sustainability of bio-PE was assessed through attributional and consequential life-

cycle assessments across its supply chain. From an attributional point of view, for sugarcane, it

was determined that the type of used fertilizer does not highly influence the global warming

potential (GWP) of this crop, which can vary from 37.7 and 39.3 kgCO2eq/tonnesugarcane.

However, for other impact categories, such as acidification and eutrophication, the difference

between practices is close to 50%, favoring the use of both inorganic and organic fertilizers

simultaneously. In addition, it was estimated that land-use change (LUC) presents a strong

influence on the GWP of sugarcane. If transitions from forest to sugarcane plantations occur, the

GWP of this crop could increase to 120.5 kgCO2eq/tonnesugarcane. On the other hand, the value

for sugarcane planted in lands that previously were pastures could decrease to 17.4

kgCO2eq/tonnesugarcane.

For bio-ethanol, the GWP was determined in 0.41-0.46 kgCO2eq/l (if no land-use change

is considered), depending on the biorefinery scheme selected. In this regard, simultaneous

production of ethanol, sugar, and electricity (annexed facility) favors a decrease in the
 147
environmental impact of this chemical. This can be attributed to methodological aspects,

specifically economic allocation, that allow sharing the total burdens based on economic value.

Specifically for bio-polyethylene, it was estimated that GWP could vary from 1.3-3.6

kgCO2eq/kgBio-PE depending on the LUC scenario. When comparing the environmental impact

of this bioplastic to fossil-PE, there is a clear environmental advantage if LUC corresponds to

pasture or if no LUC is considered. Greenhouse gas emissions under this scenario could be 1.2

kgCO2eq/kgPE lower, which could represent a reduction of ca. 50%. On the other hand, if LUC

from forest to sugarcane occurred, bio-based PE could have a higher environmental impact. In

other environmental impact categories, bio-PE and fossil-PE present some trade-offs. For

instance, the fossil-based alternative could perform better in acidification and eutrophication.

Therefore, the preference of one material over the other requires specific criteria in terms of

which environmental impact wants to be reduced.

From a consequential point of view, indirect land-use change was profiled as the main

factor affecting the environmental sustainability of bio-PE. Indirect deforestation associated with

new sugarcane plantations makes it difficult to ensure that this bio-based plastic can represent a

better alternative than oil-based PE. This approach shows that bio-PE can present a GWP of ca. 5

kgCO2eq/kgPE or be a carbon-neutral alternative mainly driven by how much land is deforested

as a consequence of sugarcane expansion over pasture land. However, the uncertainty associated

with which deforestation scenario is the most likely to occur and the lack of rigorous policies

limiting deforestation could be a challenge to answer whether bio-PE is a better alternative than

fossil-based to decarbonize our society.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this work constitutes the more robust study in the

literature presenting how the environmental impact of bio-PE can be affected by other factors
 148
across its supply chain. Therefore, it is expected that industry players find answers pertaining to

the environmental sustainability of this material under different scenarios. Furthermore, this

study could guide future research and policymakers to tackle the main environmental challenges

preventing bio-PE from presenting better environmental performance than fossil-PE.

 149
4.6 References

Alkimim, A., and Clarke, K. C. (2018). “Land use change and the carbon debt for sugarcane

ethanol production in Brazil.” Land Use Policy, Elsevier, 72(August 2017), 65–73.

Alvarenga, R. A., Dewulf, J., De Meester, S., Wathelet, A., Villers, J., Richard, T., and Hruska,

Z. (2012). “Life cycle assessment of bioethanol-based PVC. Part 2: Consequential

approach.” Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 6(3), 246–256.

Alvarenga, R., Dewulf, J., De Meester, S., Wathelet, A., Villers, J., Thommeret, R., and Hruska,

Z. (2013). “Life cycle assessment of bioethanol-based PVC. Part 1: Attributional

approach.” Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, (7), 386–395.

de Andrade Coutinho, P. L., Morita, A. T., Cassinelli, L. F., Morschbacker, A., and Werneck Do

Carmo, R. (2013). “Braskem’s Ethanol to Polyethylene Process Development.” Catalytic

Process Development for Renewable Materials, 149–165.

Andrade de Sá, S., Palmer, C., and Di Falco, S. (2013). “Dynamics of indirect land-use change:

Empirical evidence from Brazil.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,

65(3), 377–393.

Arrigoni, E. D. B., Almeida, L. C., and (UNICA), B. S. I. A. (2005). “Defensivos (pesticidas e

outros).” A energia da cana-de-açúcar–doze estudos sobre a agroindústria da cana-de-

açúcar no Brasil e a sua sustentabilidade.

Attn: Grace. (2020). “Attn: Grace.” <[Link]

Barros, S. (2019). “Biofuels Annual.” Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN) Report,

(December), 1–30.

Bertrand, E., Vandenberghe, L., Soccol, C., Sigoillot, J.-C., and Faulds, C. (2016). First

Generation Bioethanol. Green Energy and Technology.

 150
Bishop, G., Styles, D., and Lens, P. N. L. (2021). “Environmental performance comparison of

bioplastics and petrochemical plastics: A review of life cycle assessment (LCA)

methodological decisions.” Resources, Conservation andEnvironmental performance

comparison of bioplastics and petrochemical plastics: A review of life cycle assessment

(LCA) methodological decisions Recycling, Elsevier B.V., 168, 105451.

Boddey, R. M., Soares, L. H. D. B., Alves, B. J. R., and Urquiaga, S. (2008). “Bio-ethanol

production in Brazil.” Biofuels, Solar and Wind as Renewable Energy Systems: Benefits

and Risks, 321–356.

Bordonal, R. de O., Carvalho, J. L. N., Lal, R., de Figueiredo, E. B., de Oliveira, B. G., and La

Scala, N. (2018). “Sustainability of sugarcane production in Brazil. A review.”

Agronomy for Sustainable Development, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 38(2).

Braskem. (2021). “Braskem invests US$61 million to increase biopolymer production.”

<[Link]

biopolymer-production>.

Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA). (n.d.). “UNICA Data.”

<[Link]

Camara de Comercializacao de Energia Electrica (CCEE). (2021). “Electricity Prices in Brazil.”

<[Link]

rl-

state=1buvsbz9zc_1&_afrLoop=189040018261741#!%40%40%3F_afrLoop%3D189040

018261741%26_adf.ctrl-state%3D1buvsbz9zc_5>.
 151
Chagas, M. F., Bordonal, R. O., Cavalett, O., João Luis N., C., Bonomi, A., and Newton, L. S. J.

(2016). “Environmental and economic impacts of different sugarcane production systems

in the ethanol biorefinery.” Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 10(1), 89–106.

Cherubin, M. R., Karlen, D. L., Franco, A. L. C., Tormena, C. A., Cerri, C. E. P., Davies, C. A.,

and Cerri, C. C. (2016). “Soil physical quality response to sugarcane expansion in

Brazil.” Geoderma, Elsevier B.V., 267(2016), 156–168.

Costa, M. C. G., Vitti, G. C., and Cantarella, H. (2003). “Volatilização de N-NH3 de fontes

nitrogenadas em cana-de-açúcar colhida sem despalha a fogo.” Revista Brasileira de

Ciência do Solo, 27(4), 631–637.

Dimian, A., and Sorin, C. (2008). Chemical Process Design.

Du, C., Kulay, L., Cavalett, O., Dias, L., and Freire, F. (2018). “Life cycle assessment addressing

health effects of particulate matter of mechanical versus manual sugarcane harvesting in

Brazil.” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, The International Journal of Life

Cycle Assessment, 23(4), 787–799.

European Bioplastics. (2018). What are bioplastics?

European Bioplastics. (2021). Bioplastics market update 2021.

Fan, D., Dai, D. J., and Wu, H. S. (2013). “Ethylene formation by catalytic dehydration of

ethanol with industrial considerations.” Materials, 6(1), 101–115.

Ferreira Filho, J. B. de S., and Horridge, M. (2014). “Ethanol expansion and indirect land use

change in Brazil.” Land Use Policy, Elsevier Ltd, 36, 595–604.

Garcia, J. C. C., and von Sperling, E. (2010). “Emissão de gases de efeito estufa no ciclo de vida

do etanol: Estimativa nas fases de agricultura e industrialização em Minas Gerais.”

Engenharia Sanitaria e Ambiental, 15(3), 217–222.

 152
Hakim, S., and Moballegh, L. (2006). “Simulation of a series of industrial slurry reactors for

HDPE polymerization process using deconvolution of the GPC graph of only the first

reactor.” Iranian Polymer Journal (English Edition), 15(8), 655–666.

Harding, K. G., Dennis, J. S., von Blottnitz, H., and Harrison, S. T. L. (2007). “Environmental

analysis of plastic production processes: Comparing petroleum-based polypropylene and

polyethylene with biologically-based poly-β-hydroxybutyric acid using life cycle

analysis.” Journal of Biotechnology, 130(1), 57–66.

Hottle, T. A., Bilec, M. M., and Landis, A. E. (2017). “Biopolymer production and end of life

comparisons using life cycle assessment.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling,

Elsevier B.V., 122, 295–306.

Ievtushenko, O. (2012). “Cost Modeling of Nonwoven Manufacturing Processes.”

INDA. (2019). “Intermediate nonwovens training course.” Raleigh, NC.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2003). Good Practice Guidance for Land Use,

Land-Use Change and Forestry.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2021). Climate change 2021: The physical science

basis.

International Organization for Standardization. (2006). “ISO 14040:2006 Environmental

management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework.”

International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 14067 Greenhouse gases - Carbon

footprint of products - Requirements and guidelines for quantification.

International Organization for Standardization. (2020a). “ISO 22526-3 Plastics — Carbon and

environmental footprint of biobased plastics — Part 3: Process carbon footprint,

requirements and guidelines for quantification.”

 153
International Organization for Standardization. (2020b). “ISO 22526-1 Plastics — Carbon and

environmental footprint of biobased plastics — Part 1: General principles.”

International Organization for Standardization. (2020c). “ISO 22526-2 Plastics — Carbon and

environmental footprint of biobased plastics — Part 2: Material carbon footprint, amount

(mass) of CO2 removed from the air and incorporated into polymer molecule.”

Ita-Nagy, D., Vázquez-Rowe, I., Kahhat, R., Quispe, I., Chinga-Carrasco, G., Clauser, N. M.,

and Area, M. C. (2020). “Life cycle assessment of bagasse fiber reinforced

biocomposites.” Science of the Total Environment, 720.

Jusys, T. (2017). “A confirmation of the indirect impact of sugarcane on deforestation in the

Amazon.” Journal of Land Use Science, 12(2–3), 125–137.

Kaup, F., Role, T., Sector, D., Path, I., and Sustainability, T. (2015). The Sugarcane Complex in

Brazil.

Kikuchi, Y., Oshita, Y., Mayumi, K., and Hirao, M. (2017). “Greenhouse gas emissions and

socioeconomic effects of biomass-derived products based on structural path and life cycle

analyses: A case study of polyethylene and polypropylene in Japan.” Journal of Cleaner

Production, Elsevier Ltd, 167, 289–305.

Kumar, A., Lopes, T., Rodrigo, E., Reis, V., Cavalett, O., Ccopa, E., Coelho, V., Bonomi, A.,

and Silverio, S. (2014). Techno-Economic Analysis of Second-Generation Ethanol in

Brazil: Competitive, Complementary Aspects with First-Generation Ethanol. Biofuels in

Brazil: Fundamental Aspects, Recent Developments, and Future Perspectives.

Lapola, D. M., Schaldach, R., Alcamo, J., Bondeau, A., Koch, J., Koelking, C., and Priess, J. A.

(2010). “Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil.”
 154
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,

107(8), 3388–3393.

Liptow, C., and Tillman, A. M. (2012a). “A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Study of

Polyethylene Based on Sugarcane and Crude Oil.” Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16(3),

420–435.

Liptow, C., and Tillman, A. M. (2012b). “A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Study of

Polyethylene Based on Sugarcane and Crude Oil.” Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16(3),

420–435.

Macedo, I. C., Leal, M. R. L. V., and Siflva, J. E. A. . (2004). Assessment of Greenhouse Gas

Emissions in the Production and Use of Fuel Ethanol in Brazil, São Paulo State.

Maga, D., Thonemann, N., Hiebel, M., Sebastião, D., Lopes, T. F., Fonseca, C., and Gírio, F.

(2019). “Comparative life cycle assessment of first- and second-generation ethanol from

sugarcane in Brazil.” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, The International

Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24(2), 266–280.

Maraschin, N. (2005). “Polyethylene, Low Density.” Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical

Technology.

McDaniel, M. P., and DesLauriers, P. J. (2015). Ethylene Polymers, HDPE. Kirk-Othmer

Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.

McKinsey & Company. (2021). Five fifty: From brown to green.

Meng, W., Li, J., Chen, B., and Li, H. (2013). “Modeling and simulation of ethylene

polymerization in industrial slurry reactor series.” Chinese Journal of Chemical

Engineering, Chemical Industry and Engineering Society of China (CIESC) and

Chemical Industry Press (CIP), 21(8), 850–859.

 155
Ministerio de minas e energia. (2022). ANÁLISE SOCIOAMBIENTAL DAS FONTES

ENERGÉTICAS DO PDE 2031. [Link]

Mohsenzadeh, A., Zamani, A., and Taherzadeh, M. J. (2017). “Bioethylene Production from

Ethanol: A Review and Techno-economical Evaluation.” ChemBioEng Reviews, 4(2),

75–91.

Morschbacker, A. (2009). “Bio-ethanol based ethylene.” Polymer Reviews, 49(2), 79–84.

Morschbacker, A., Siqueira, C., Cassiano, L., Roza, L., Almada, F., and Werneck do Carmo, R.

(2014). “Bio-polyethylene.” Handbook of green materials, 89–104.

Muthu, S. S., Li, Y., Hu, J. Y., Mok, P. Y., and Liao, X. (2012). “Carbon footprint of production

processes of polypropylene nonwoven shopping bags.” Fibres and Textiles in Eastern

Europe, 92(3), 12–15.

Nemecek, T., and Kagi, T. (2007). Life cycle inventories of Agricultural Production Systems,

Ecoinvent report No. 15. Final report ….

Nihei, T., Hayashi, H., and Shirota, R. (2015). “Characteristics of sugarcane production in the

State of São Paulo, Brazil.” Geographical space, 8(1), 53–80.

Oliveira, D. M. da S., Paustian, K., Davies, C. A., Cherubin, M. R., Franco, A. L. C., Cerri, C.

C., and Cerri, C. E. P. (2016). “Soil carbon changes in areas undergoing expansion of

sugarcane into pastures in south-central Brazil.” Agriculture, Ecosystems and

Environment, 228, 38–48.

Oliveira, D. M. S., Cherubin, M. R., Franco, A. L. C., Santos, A. S., Gelain, J. G., Dias, N. M. S.,

Diniz, T. R., Almeida, A. N., Feigl, B. J., Davies, C. A., Paustian, K., Karlen, D. L.,

Smith, P., Cerri, C. C., and Cerri, C. E. P. (2019). “Is the expansion of sugarcane over
 156
pasturelands a sustainable strategy for Brazil’s bioenergy industry?” Renewable and

Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier Ltd, 102(December 2018), 346–355.

Oliveira, D. M. S., Williams, S., Cerri, C. E. P., and Paustian, K. (2017). “Predicting soil C

changes over sugarcane expansion in Brazil using the DayCent model.” GCB Bioenergy,

9(9), 1436–1446.

P, T., and Franco, H. (2011). “Balanço de nitrogênio de fertilizantes e a sustentabilidade de

agrossistemas: o estado da arte e necessidade de pesquisas.” Congresso Brasileiro de

Ciência do Solo.

Palazzo, J., Geyer, R., and Suh, S. (2020). “A review of methods for characterizing the

environmental consequences of actions in life cycle assessment.” Journal of Industrial

Ecology, 24(4), 815–829.

Picoli, M. C. A., Louvain, U. De, Machado, P. G., and London, I. C. (2021). “Land use change :

the barrier for sugarcane sustainability.” Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 1–13.

Piemonte, V., and Gironi, F. (2010). “Land-Use Change Emissions: How Green Are the

Bioplastics?” Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 30(4), 685–691.

Pignati, W. A., e Lima, F. A. N. de S., de Lara, S. S., Correa, M. L. M., Barbosa, J. R., Leão, L.

H. D. C., and Pignatti, M. G. (2017). “Distribuição espacial do uso de agrotóxicos no

Brasil: Uma ferramenta para a vigilância em saúde.” Ciencia e Saude Coletiva, 22(10),

3281–3293.

Prado, R. D. M., Caione, G., and Campos, C. N. S. (2013). “Filter cake and vinasse as fertilizers

contributing to conservation agriculture.” Applied and Environmental Soil Science, 2013.

 157
Ramos, C. R. G., Lanças, K. P., de Lyra, G. A., and Sandi, J. (2016). “Fuel consumption of a

sugarcane harvester in different operational settings.” Revista Brasileira de Engenharia

Agricola e Ambiental, 20(6), 588–592.

Renouf, M. A., Wegener, M. K., and Pagan, R. J. (2010). “Life cycle assessment of Australian

sugarcane production with a focus on sugarcane growing.” International Journal of Life

Cycle Assessment, 15(9), 927–937.

Robinson, N., Brackin, R., Vinall, K., Soper, F., Holst, J., Gamage, H., Paungfoo-Lonhienne, C.,

Rennenberg, H., Lakshmanan, P., and Schmidt, S. (2011). “Nitrate paradigm does not

hold up for sugarcane.” PLoS ONE, 6(4).

Russell, S. J. (2006). Handbook of nonwovens. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL.

Samphawamontri, Y., Srinophakun, T. R., Dittanet, P., and Charoencham, K. (2016). “Heat

Integrated Process Design, Simulation and Control of Polymerization and Drying

Sections for HDPE Production.” KMUTNB International Journal of Applied Science and

Technology, 9(2), 1–16.

Sanchez, S. T., Woods, J., Akhurst, M., Brander, M., O’Hare, M., Dawson, T. P., Edwards, R.,

Liska, A. J., and Malpas, R. (2012). “Accounting for indirect land-use change in the life

cycle assessment of biofuel supply chains.” Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 9(71),

1105–1119.

Santos, F., Borem, A., and Caldas, C. (Eds.). (2012). Sugarcane: Bioenergy, sugar and ethanol.

Brasilia.

Schaubroeck, T., Schaubroeck, S., Heijungs, R., Zamagni, A., Brandão, M., and Benetto, E.

(2021). “Attributional & consequential life cycle assessment: Definitions, conceptual

characteristics and modelling restrictions.” Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(13), 1–47.

 158
Securities and Exchange Comission. (n.d.). “Form 20-F Braskem S.A.”

<[Link]

htm>.

Silva-Olaya, A. M., Cerri, C. E. P., Williams, S., Cerri, C. C., Davies, C. A., and Paustian, K.

(2017). “Modelling SOC response to land use change and management practices in

sugarcane cultivation in South-Central Brazil.” Plant and Soil, Plant and Soil, 410(1–2),

483–498.

Siqueira Neto, M., Galdos, M. V., Feigl, B. J., Cerri, C. E. P., and Cerri, C. C. (2016). “Direct

N2O emission factors for synthetic N-fertilizer and organic residues applied on sugarcane

for bioethanol production in Central-Southern Brazil.” GCB Bioenergy, 8(2), 269–280.

Siracusa, V., and Blanco, I. (2020). “Bio-polyethylene (Bio-PE), bio-polypropylene (Bio-PP)

and bio-poly(ethylene terephthalate) (Bio-PET): recent developments in bio-based

polymers analogous to petroleum-derived ones for packaging and engineering

applications.” Polymers, 12(8).

Sistema de Estimativas de Emissões de Gases de Efeito Estufa do Observatório do Clima.

(2021). “MapBiomass.” <[Link]

Soares, J. B. P., and McKenna, T. F. L. (2012). “Polyolefin Reactors and Processes.” Polyolefin

Reaction Engineering, 87–129.

Spierling, S., Knüpffer, E., Behnsen, H., Mudersbach, M., Krieg, H., Springer, S., Albrecht, S.,

Herrmann, C., and Endres, H. J. (2018). “Bio-based plastics - A review of environmental,

social and economic impact assessments.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier Ltd,

185, 476–491.
 159
Tenelli, S., de Oliveira Bordonal, R., Barbosa, L. C., and Carvalho, J. L. N. (2019). “Can

reduced tillage sustain sugarcane yield and soil carbon if straw is removed?” Bioenergy

Research, 12(4), 764–777.

The Ecoinvent database v3. (2020a). “Sugarcane production.”

The Ecoinvent database v3. (2020b). “Ethanol production from sugarcane.”

The Ecoinvent database v3. (2020c). “Polyethylene production, high density, granulate.”

The Ecoinvent database v3. (2021a). “Production of spunbond nonwoven made from

polypropylene.”

The Ecoinvent database v3. (2021b). “Treatment of waste polypropylene, municipal incineration

with fly ash extraction.”

The Ecoinvent database v3. (2021c). “Treatment of waste polyethylene, municipal incineration

with fly ash extraction.”

The Ecoinvent database v3. (2021d). “Treatment of waste polypropylene, sanitary landfill.”

The Ecoinvent database v3. (2021e). “Treatment of waste polyethylene, sanitary landfill.”

The Ecoinvent database v3. (2021f). “Clear-cutting, primary forest to arable land, pasture, man

made.”

The Guardian. (2022, May 6). ‘Record after record’: Brazil’s Amazon deforestation hits April

high, nearly double previous peak.

[Link]

deforestation-hits-april-high-nearly-double-previous-peak

Tomazela, M., Daniel, L. A., and Ferreira, J. C. (2010). “Administração limpa e enxuta em

sistemas hidráulicos de colhedoras de cana-de- açúcar.” Engenharia Agrícola, 30, 358–

366.
 160
Tonini, D., Schrijvers, D., Nessi, S., Garcia-Gutierrez, P., and Giuntoli, J. (2021). “Carbon

footprint of plastic from biomass and recycled feedstock: methodological insights.”

International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 26(2), 221–

237.

Tripodi, A., Belotti, M., and Rossetti, I. (2019). “Bioethylene production: From reaction kinetics

to plant design.” ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering, 7(15), 13333–13350.

Tsiropoulos, I., Faaij, A. P. C., Lundquist, L., Schenker, U., Briois, J. F., and Patel, M. K.

(2015). “Life cycle impact assessment of bio-based plastics from sugarcane ethanol.”

Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier Ltd, 90, 114–127.

United States Department of Agriculture. (2021a). Biofuels Annual - Brazil.

United States Department of Agriculture. (2021b). Sugar Annual - Sao Paulo.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2021). “Nondurable Goods: Product-Specific

Data.” <[Link]

recycling/nondurable-goods-product-specific-data#DisposableDiapers>.

Valin, H., Peters, D., van den Berg, M., Frank, S., Havlik, P., Forsell, N., and Hemlick, C.

(2015). “The land use change impact of biofuels in the EU: Quantification of area and

greenhouse gas impacts.” August, 261.

Venkatachalam, V., Spierling, S., Horn, R., and Endres, H. J. (2018). “LCA and Eco-design:

Consequential and Attributional Approaches for Bio-based Plastics.” Procedia CIRP,

69(May), 579–584.

Vera, I., Wicke, B., and van der Hilst, F. (2020). “Spatial variation in environmental impacts of

sugarcane expansion in Brazil.” Land, 9(10), 1–20.

 161
Wang, D., Yang, G., Guo, F., Wang, J., and Jiang, Y. (2018). “Progress in Technology and

Catalysts for Continuous Stirred Tank Reactor Type Slurry Phase Polyethylene

Processes.” Petroleum Chemistry, 58(3), 264–273.

Zaman, A., and Newman, P. (2021). “Plastics: are they part of the zero-waste agenda or the

toxic-waste agenda?” Sustainable Earth, Sustainable Earth, 4(1).

Zheng, J., and Suh, S. (2019). “Strategies to reduce the global carbon footprint of plastics.”

Nature Climate Change, Springer US, 9(5), 374–378.

 162
5 UNDERSTANDING THE CONVERSION ECONOMICS OF BIO-POLYETHYLENE

5.1 Abstract

The bio-based industry has developed significantly in the last years, and it is expected to

keep growing as a response to consumers’ interest in more sustainable products. Specifically, the

bioplastics industry is forecasted to reach a growth of 216% by 2026. However, the current

production of bioplastics still represents a minor amount of global plastics production (ca. 1%).

Different aspects, such as technical challenges, misconceptions between manufacturers and

consumers, and higher prices associated with bioplastics, defer their adoption. As one of the

main players in the bioplastics industry, bio-polyethylene is of particular interest since its fossil-

based counterpart is one of the most widely produced plastics worldwide. Nevertheless, research

on the conversion economics of this material is lacking, which could prevent potential

manufacturers from producing it. Herein, we aim to perform a techno-economic analysis to

assess the primary factors driving the manufacturing cost and selling price of bio-PE.

Additionally, this study aims to estimate the influence of technology improvement and

market/non-market effects on the conversion economics of this bioplastic. It was determined that

the manufacturing cost of bio-PE can range from 0.94 to 1.20 USD/kgBio-PE, mainly influenced

by the price of ethanol. Additionally, based on current cost structures and profits expected by

manufacturers, a premium of up to 27% is required compared to fossil-PE prices. Finally, based

on technological improvement and prices of ethanol, future manufacturing costs of bio-PE could

range between 0.8-1.7 USD/kgBio-PE. We expect this work to provide a better understanding of

the conversion economics of bio-polyethylene, which will provide the financial information

required by investors and future manufacturers interested in producing this material.

 163
5.2 Introduction

Bio-based products have captured the attention of consumers in the past years due to

sustainability trends (Deloitte 2020), and it is still an essential feature for some consumers even

after the COVID-19 pandemics (Deloitte 2021). In 2020, the global bio-based products market

was valued at ca. $587 billion, and it is forecasted to keep growing at a compound annual growth

rate (CAGR) of 8.1% until 2025, reaching the value of ca. $868 billion (BCC Publishing 2021).

However, there are inherent challenges associated with this industry. Specifically, new

investments face well-documented risks, such as low technology readiness levels, variability of

biomass composition, feedstock availability, and product prices (Assis et al. 2021). This last

issue affects the economic competitiveness of bio-based products compared to conventional

fossil-based counterparts, and it is associated with higher raw materials, i.e., biomass and

processing costs (Gao et al. 2020).

As part of the bio-based industry, bioplastics have emerged as an alternative to fossil-

based polymers. Due to their renewable and, sometimes, biodegradable characteristics, they have

been adopted for numerous applications such as packaging, consumer goods, textiles,

automotive, construction, and others (European Bioplastics 2020). This trend is expected to

continue in the next years, and the total production of these materials is forecasted to grow more

than 216 % by 2025 (European Bioplastics 2021). Nevertheless, bioplastics remain a very small

percentage (ca. 1%) of the global plastic production, which can be related to higher production

costs and other disadvantages such as recycling challenges, misconceptions among producers

and consumers, and lack of regulations incentivizing their adoption (Ezgi Bezirhan Arikan and

Havva Duygu Ozsoy 2015).

 164
Different bioplastics currently produced include polylactic acid (PLA), bio-polyamides

(bio-PA), and bio-polyethylene (bio-PE), which are the most produced materials within the

bioplastics industry (European Bioplastics 2020). Specifically, bio-PE presents a special interest

since its fossil-based counterpart is the most widely manufactured plastic worldwide (Agboola et

al. 2017). The packaging industry has mainly adopted it (European Bioplastics 2020), but the

nonwovens industry is also employing this material in absorbent hygiene products (Attn: Grace

2020). However, even though it constitutes one of the main players in the bioplastics sector, it is

only currently produced at large scale in Brazil, and its offering is limited to one manufacturer

(Braskem 2021a). Moreover, information on conversion economics for this material, which

constitutes one of the primary aspects of bioplastics adoption, is lacking. Some studies estimate

that bio-PE is 30% more expensive than regular PE (Siracusa and Blanco 2020), but no detailed

information is provided. Also, some research has been performed to understand the economics of

bio-ethylene (Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017), but the polymerization stage is critical to understanding

the total manufacturing cost and economic aspects of bio-PE.

In this study, we aim to assess the conversion economics of bio-PE through a techno-

economic analysis. The goal is to understand the cost structure and selling price of this bio-based

plastic and compare it to its fossil-based counterpart. Additionally, this study aims to evaluate the

influence of future technology improvement and other market/non-market effects on the

conversion economics of bio-PE. We expect this work to provide the financial information

required by investors and future manufacturers interested in producing this material and guide

future research in this field.

 165
5.3 Methodology

This section of the study aims to evaluate the conversion economics of bio-polyethylene

produced in Brazil. This constitutes an essential factor in understanding the role of this bio-based

plastic in the bio-based industry. For this purpose, the methodology shown in Figure 5-1 was

applied (Abbati De Assis et al. 2018). First, as explained in the previous chapter, process

information and technical inputs collected from the literature were used to build a process

simulation on Aspen Plus for the production of bio-polyethylene. Then, the mass and energy

balance obtained from the model mentioned above (see Chapter 4) was input into Microsoft

Excel to build a summary of raw materials required to produce this bio-based plastic (Table

4-14). Finally, the financial assessment was performed based on i) capital investment estimation,

ii) cost data, and iii) financial assumptions. It is important to mention that the scenario studied

herein corresponds to the nth plant producing ca. 190,000 tonBio-PE/year for the year 2020. Also,

co-location next to a plant currently producing fossil-based polyethylene was assumed. In this

regard, only capital investments associated with the production of bio-ethylene were considered.

It was anticipated that reactors to perform the polymerization of this material and utilities

equipment are already available in the plant. For detailed information about the manufacturing

process of bio-PE, one can refer to Chapter 4 of this study.

 166

Figure 5-1. Methodology to evaluate conversion economics of bio-polyethylene (Adapted from

Abbati De Assis et al. (2018)).

The Economic Evaluation tool from Aspen Plus was used to obtain bare equipment costs,

and they were validated using other common sources for cost estimation (Matches 2021; Peters

et al. 2003). Then, costs were corrected by inflation depending on the year quote and the year of

this project (2020). Total Capital Investment was estimated employing these corrected equipment

costs and installation factors widely used in the literature (Peters et al. 2003). Table 5-1 contains

average direct and indirect costs factors constituting the installation factors aforementioned.

Table 5-1. Direct and indirect costs constituting installation factors (Peters et al. 2003).

Direct costs for installation factors* Indirect costs for installation factors**
Description % Description %
Purchased equipment erection 40.0 Engineering 11.0
Instrumentation and control 26.0 Construction expenses 14.0
Piping 24.0 Legal expenses 3.0
Electrical systems 23.0 Contractor Fee 5.0
Buildings 25.0 Contingency 18.0
Yard improvements 13.0

*As a percentage of bare equipment costs; **As a percentage of total direct cost (including equipment cost)
 167
Cost data were obtained from the literature. Specifically, labor, energy, ethanol,

transportation, and chemicals prices were considered and can be found in Table 5-2. When

available, average prices specific for Brazil were used. Based on industry standards and practices

for the economic evaluation of projects, financial assumptions (Table 5-3) were employed to

complete the financial assessment.

Table 5-2. Cost of main inputs to produce bio-polyethylene.

Description Value Source

Ethanol price (Avg. 2016-2020 Brazil), USD/L 0.34 (United States Department
of Agriculture 2021a)
Electricity price (Avg. 2018-2020), USD/MWh 50.16 (Camara de
Comercializacao de
Energia Electrica (CCEE)
2021)
Transportation, USD/kgBio-PE 0.14 (Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017)
Fuel for steam production, USD/MMBTU 2.67 (Index Mundi 2021)
Labor, MMUSD/year* 0.48 (SalaryExplorer 2021)

*Base salaries for supervisors, employees, superintendents, and managers were considered

Table 5-3. Financial assumptions used to perform the financial assessment.

Description Value
Replacement Asset Value (RAV), % 1.0
Maintenance capital, %RAV 1.2
Cost maintenance, %RAV 0.7
Overhead, %Revenue 4.0
Other fixed cost, %Revenue 0.5
Depreciation schedule 10Y SL
Working hours, hours/year 8,400
CAPEX spent in year -1, % 50
 168
Table 5-3. (continued).

CAPEX spent in year -2, % 50

Tax rate, % 26
Working capital, % Revenue 5
Hurdle rate, % 12

Using the methodology and data described above, the manufacturing cost of bio-PE was

estimated. Approximate gross profits expected by current manufacturers (Braskem, 2021b) were

used to estimate the selling price of this material. Additionally, the influence of technology

improvement and other market/non-market effects on the future manufacturing cost of bio-PE

was assessed. For this purpose, factors affecting the future manufacturing cost of bioplastics

were identified and included in the financial assessment.

5.4 Results and discussion

5.4.1 Manufacturing cost and selling price of bio-PE

Figure 5-2 depicts the total capital investment by area to produce and store bio-ethylene

that is consequently polymerized in another area of the plant (co-location scenario). Total Capital

Investment was estimated at ca. 47 MMUSD for the proposed scenario considering areas for

storage, ethanol dehydration (reaction), bio-ethylene purification, and recovery. Mohsenzadeh et

al. (Mohsenzadeh et al. 2017) reported a similar capital investment (ca. 51 MMUSD) for a plant

producing bio-ethylene, which represents only a difference of 10% in the estimation. The storage

time assumed by these authors is higher than the times herein proposed, which increases the

capital equipment cost and could explain the difference.

 169

Figure 5-2. Capital investment per area (bare equipment costs obtained from Aspen Plus).

After completing the collection of financial parameters, the financial assessment was

performed using Microsoft Office Excel. It was estimated that the production cost of bio-PE is

ca. 1.07 USD/kg. Also, a minimum selling price (MSP) of 1.10 USD/kgBio-PE is required to

achieve a 12% internal rate of return (%IRR) under the current cost structure. As shown in

Figure 5-3, the main contributors to the cost are ethanol (70.8%), transportation (13.1%), and

chemicals (4.9%). Other authors evaluating the cost of producing bio-ethylene found similar

trends (Haro et al. 2013). In this regard, a sensitivity analysis was performed around ethanol

price, process yield, and capital investment (Figure 5-4). It was determined that the

manufacturing costs of bio-polyethylene could vary between 0.94-1.20 USD/kgBio-PE based on

the historical fluctuation of ethanol prices (±17%). Therefore, variations in the price of this

chemical highly affect the cost of producing bio-polyethylene, influencing the profit margins of

the organization. The other evaluated factors presented a smaller influence on the cost of bio-

polyethylene, which could range from 1.02-1.13 USD/kgBio-PE or 1.06-1.08 USD/kgBio-PE if yield

and depreciation vary, respectively.

 170
Finally, bio-polyethylene prices were estimated using gross margin percentages reported

by current manufacturers (ca. 22.5%) (Braskem 2021). Based on this value, the price of bio-

polyethylene could be ca. 1.28 USD/kgBio-PE. Average prices for fossil-PE have been reported at

ca. 1.10 USD/kgPE in Latin America for 2020 (Independent Commodity Intelligence Services

(ICIS) 2020), which represents 16% less compared to estimations for bio-PE. In addition, if the

highest price for ethanol is considered, the price to produce bio-polyethylene with a gross margin

of 22.5% would increase to 1.44 USD/kgBio-PE, which represents ca. 27% more than the price

mentioned above for fossil-PE. This premium difference is aligned with estimations found in the

literature, where prices for bio-PE are reported to be up to 30% more than petrochemical PE

(Siracusa and Blanco 2020). On the other hand, if ethanol prices achieve their historical

minimum, a price of 1.12 USD/ kgBio-PE would allow achieving the expected 22.5 % gross

margin. This would constitute only a 1.8% premium over fossil-PE, which would constitute the

most promising scenario for the market competitiveness of this bio-based plastic.

1.20
$1.07
Maintenance
1.00
Labor
Other fixed cost
0.80
Cost (USD/kg)

Overhead
Depreciation
0.60
Transportation
Other chemicals
0.40
Energy
Ethanol
0.20
Total

0.00

Figure 5-3. Cost structure of bio-polyethylene.

 171

-15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15%

Ethanol price (± 17%)

0.94 USD/kg 1.20 USD/kg

Yield (± 5%)

1.02 USD/kg 1.13 USD/kg

CAPEX (± 25%)
1.06 USD/kg 1.08 USD/kg

Figure 5-4. Sensitivity analysis for the manufacturing cost of bio-polyethylene

(Ethanol price ±17%, Yield ±5%, Depreciation ±25%).

5.4.2 Effect of technology improvement and market/non-market effects on the future

manufacturing cost of bio-PE

The estimation of future manufacturing costs and prices for bio-PE was performed

considering the main factors affecting the price of bioplastics. Different authors have shown that

the main drivers are raw materials price, technological progress, production capacities, policies

to promote the use of bioplastics instead of fossil plastics, and the prices of oil (Wellenreuther et

al., 2022). Thus, this work focuses on analyzing raw material prices, primarily ethanol, since it

was demonstrated that this chemical strongly influences the cost of bio-PE, and technology

progress, represented by a decrease in energy and material intensity.

Specifically for ethanol, prices in Brazil for the last seven years were analyzed to

understand the variability for this chemical (United States Department of Agriculture, 2021). As

shown in Figure 5-5, it was determined that the volatility associated with ethanol is high, and

prices ranged between 1.2 and 2.7 R$ per liter from the end of 2014 and 2021. In addition,

current prices have been reported to be ca. 3.3 R$ per liter (FichRatings, 2022). Therefore, this
 172
high variability constitutes a challenge in forecasting ethanol prices in the next years. However,

it could be expected that they fluctuate based on historical prices. Therefore, three scenarios

considering the historic low, historic high, and current prices were assessed.

3.0
Ethanol price FOB (R$/L)

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
Aug-13 Dec-14 May-16 Sep-17 Feb-19 Jun-20 Oct-21

Figure 5-5. Historical ethanol prices in Sao Paulo state – Brazil (United States Department of
Agriculture, 2021).

In terms of technology progress, bio-polyethylene production from sugarcane can be

considered to have the highest possible Technology Readiness Level (TRL), which is equal to 9,

since it is currently produced in a full-scale plant and there are strategies for market expansion

(Abbati de Assis et al., 2022). In this type of process, the optimization potential is low, which

reduces the opportunity for improvements. However, processes with similar TRL could present

up to a 5% reduction in material and energy intensity (Wellenreuther et al., 2022). Thus, a 2%

material intensity and 5% energy intensity reduction were considered in this work.

Finally, the economic model built in the previous section was employed to estimate the

effect of technological improvement on the manufacturing cost of bio-polyethylene. As shown in

 173
Figure 5-6, it was determined that manufacturing costs could range from $0.8-1.7 per kg of bio-

PE depending on the price of ethanol. Thus, a reduction of ca. 23% or an increase of ca. 65%

could be seen compared to the current cost. Moreover, considering the gross profit expected by

manufacturers, prices between $0.9–2.1 per kg could be expected. Also, raw materials and

energy costs are lower than the current structure due to a higher material and energy efficiency.

However, ethanol drives the total cost structure for this bio-based plastic.

2.50
Cost or price of bio-PE
($ per kg of bio-PE)

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
Low price ethanol High price ethanol Current price

Ethanol cost Energy cost Other chemicals cost Transportation cost

Depreciation cost Overhead Other fixed cost Labor cost
Maintenance cost Price of bio-PE

Figure 5-6. Future manufacturing cost and price of bio-PE based on ethanol prices and
2% material and 5% energy reduction.

5.5 Conclusions

The conversion economics of bio-polyethylene was assessed. It was estimated that, for a

co-location scenario, a capital investment of ca. 47 MMUSD is needed, which includes the

equipment required for storage, ethanol dehydration, and bio-ethylene recovery and purification.

Also, the manufacturing cost of bio-based PE was estimated at 0.94-1.20 USD/kgBio-PE, mainly

influenced by the price of ethanol. For the average scenario, a minimum selling price of 1.10

USD/kgBio-PE to achieve an internal rate of return of 12% was projected. Assuming gross margins
 174
reported from the manufacturers, the price of bio-PE was estimated to range between 1.12-1.44

USD/kg, which represents a premium of 1.8-27% compared to prices of fossil-PE in Latin

America for 2020. The higher value agrees with some studies reporting a premium of up to 30%

of bio-PE over fossil-PE. However, the best economic scenario is related to the minimum

historical price of ethanol. In this case, prices of bio-PE and conventional-PE can be comparable,

which increases the market competitiveness of the bio-based alternative. Thus, ethanol profiles

as the main factor driving the conversion economics of bio-PE.

The influence of technology improvement and market effects on the manufacturing cost

of this bioplastic was assessed. Specifically, it was assumed that a 2% material reduction and 5%

energy requirement decrease could occur due to a higher technology efficiency. Additionally,

different scenarios for ethanol prices were evaluated. It was estimated that future manufacturing

costs and prices of bio-PE could range from $0.8-1.7 per kg and $0.9–2.1 per kg, respectively.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this work constitutes the first study understanding the

conversion economics of bio-PE. Therefore, it can help investors and future manufacturers

interested in producing this material and guide future research in this field.
 175
5.6 References

Abbati De Assis, C., Greca, L. G., Ago, M., Balakshin, M. Y., Jameel, H., Gonzalez, R., and

Rojas, O. J. (2018). “Techno-Economic Assessment, Scalability, and Applications of

Aerosol Lignin Micro- and Nanoparticles.” ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering,

6(9), 11853–11868.

Abbati de Assis, C., de Asiss, T., de Freitas, V. A., Suarez, A., Frazier, R., & Gonzalez, R.

(2022). A methodology for techno-economics and risk analysis assessment at the early-

stage of project investments in the bio-based industry. In Advances in Engineering

Research (Vol. 46, pp. 1–75). Nova Publisher.

Agboola, O., Sadiku, R., Mokrani, T., Amer, I., and Imoru, O. (2017). Polyolefins and the

environment. Polyolefin Fibres: Structure, Properties and Industrial Applications: Second

Edition.

Assis, C. A. De, Suarez, A., Prestemon, J. P., Stonebraker, J., Carrillo, C., Dasmohapatra, S.,

Jameel, H., and Gonzalez, R. (2021). “Risk analysis, practice, and considerations in

capital budgeting: Evidence from the field for the bio-based industry.” BioResources,

16(202 1), 19–45.

Attn: Grace. (2020). “Attn: Grace.” <[Link]

BCC Publishing. (2021). Biorefinery products: Global Markets.

Braskem. (2021a). “I’m green polyethylene.” About I’m green,

<[Link]

Braskem. (2021b). Braskem 1Q Earning Release.

Camara de Comercializacao de Energia Electrica (CCEE). (2021). “Electricity Prices in Brazil.”

<[Link]
 176
rl-

state=1buvsbz9zc_1&_afrLoop=189040018261741#!%40%40%3F_afrLoop%3D189040

018261741%26_adf.ctrl-state%3D1buvsbz9zc_5>.

Deloitte. (2020). Shifting sands: The rise of consumer sustainability.

Deloitte. (2021). Shifting sands: Are consumer still embracing sustainability?

European Bioplastics. (2020). Bioplastics market update 2020.

Ezgi Bezirhan Arikan, and Havva Duygu Ozsoy. (2015). “A review: Investigation of

bioplastics.” Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 9(2), 188–192.

FichRatings. (2022, March 1). Brazil’s Proposed Fuel Tax Reduction Neutral to Sugar & Ethanol

Ratings. [Link]

tax-reduction-neutral-to-sugar-ethanol-ratings-14-02-2022

Gao, S., Song, W., and Guo, M. (2020). “The Integral Role of Bioproducts in the Growing

Bioeconomy.” Industrial Biotechnology, 16(1), 13–25.

Haro, P., Ollero, P., and Trippe, F. (2013). “Technoeconomic assessment of potential processes

for bio-ethylene production.” Fuel Processing Technology, Elsevier B.V., 114, 35–48.

Independent Commodity Intelligence Services (ICIS). (2020). Polyethylene.

Index Mundi. (2021). “Natural Gas Monthly Price.”

<[Link]

Matches. (2021). “Matche’s Process Equipment Cost Estimates.”

<[Link]

Mohsenzadeh, A., Zamani, A., and Taherzadeh, M. J. (2017). “Bioethylene Production from

Ethanol: A Review and Techno-economical Evaluation.” ChemBioEng Reviews, 4(2),

75–91.
 177
Peters, M., Timmerhaus, K., and West, R. (2003). Plant Design and economics for chemicals

engineers. McGraw-Hill.

SalaryExplorer. (2021). “Factory and manufacturing average salaries in Brazil 2021.”

<[Link]

[Link]?loc=30&loctype=1&job=33&jobtype=1>.

Siracusa, V., and Blanco, I. (2020). “Bio-polyethylene (Bio-PE), bio-polypropylene (Bio-PP)

and bio-poly(ethylene terephthalate) (Bio-PET): recent developments in bio-based

polymers analogous to petroleum-derived ones for packaging and engineering

applications.” Polymers, 12(8).

United States Department of Agriculture. (2021). Biofuels Annual - Brazil.

Wellenreuther, C., Wolf, A., & Zander, N. (2022). Cost competitiveness of sustainable bioplastic

feedstocks – A Monte Carlo analysis for polylactic acid. Cleaner Engineering and

Technology, 6. [Link]
 178
6 STOCHASTIC MULTI-ATTRIBUTE ANALYSIS AS A TOOL TO EVALUATE

THE INTEGRATED SUSTAINABILITY OF BIO-BASED AND OIL-BASED

PLASTICS

6.1 Abstract

The offering of bio-based products has grown as a response to the need for more sustainable

materials. Specifically, bioplastics have considerably expanded in the past years, and their

production is expected to increase three times by 2026. Thus, manufacturers are facing material

selection challenges due to inherent trade-offs between conventional and bio-based plastics. In

addition, studies evaluating these materials from an integrated sustainability standpoint lack

transparency and consistency. In this study, Stochastic Multi-Attribute Analysis was employed

with Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis tools to profile bio-polyethylene, polyethylene,

polypropylene, and polylactic acid in environmental, economic, and social sustainability

dimensions. This constitutes the first study of its type for this set of materials and one of the few

studies comparing fossil and bio-based plastics through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis tools. It

was determined that the evaluated bioplastics presented an overall higher environmental impact

in categories different than fossil resources depletion and global warming potential (for bio-PE)

compared to the fossil-based materials. Also, bioplastics exhibited an increased material cost and

a larger burden in social aspects related to accidents and respiratory effects. Consequently, the

analysis tool showed a preference for fossil-based plastics over these bioplastics, considering the

sustainability dimensions applied. These results open the window to perform material selections

by examining a robust series of indicators instead of looking only at one attribute as is common,

e.g., global warming potential. Thus, our society can benefit from multi-attribute analysis tools to
 179
select materials in a more informed manner based on integrated criteria aligned with the concept

of holistic sustainability.

6.2 Introduction

Due to growing sustainability trends, bio-based materials, specifically bioplastics, have

increased exponentially in the past years (European Bioplastics, 2019, 2020, 2021).

Consequently, sectors such as the packaging, textiles, and consumer goods industries face

challenges related to material selection within a myriad of options to satisfy sustainability

consumers’ demands and governmental policies (Dahle, 2020; Due & Broch, 2020; Harmon,

2020; Haynes, 2020). In the last several years, bioplastics have been profiled as an alternative to

provide a renewable feature to products, leading to their rapid industry adoption (Attn: Grace,

2021; Kimberly-Clark, 2021; Stevens & Tuncki, 2019; The Honest Company Inc., 2021).

However, manufacturers have to deal with uncertainty related to trade-offs between bioplastics

and conventional plastics to guarantee a sustainable selection. For instance, it has been reported

that some bioplastics can offer a lower carbon footprint than traditional plastics (European

Bioplastics, 2017) but present a higher market price (Siracusa & Blanco, 2020) and could face

challenges related to processability and performance in some cases (Rasal et al., 2010).

Consequently, deciding which material to use is challenging since the nature of the problem

introduces different dimensions that need to be assessed.

Sustainability has usually been defined using the concept of the Triple Bottom Line

conceived by Elkington in 1997 (Elkington, 1997). Under this notion, a solution can only be

considered sustainable when it is environmentally responsible, economically viable, and socially

equitable (Nieder-Heitmann et al., 2019). Although different approaches have been applied in

sustainable design, Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) has been widely recognized
 180
since it considers the three pillars of sustainability across the entire life cycle of products (de

Luca et al., 2017). In this methodology, environmental, economic, and social sustainability are

evaluated separately through environmental life cycle analysis (eLCA or LCA), life cycle costing

(LCC), and social life cycle analysis (sLCA), respectively (Nieder-Heitmann et al., 2019). Each

dimension evaluates the impact of a product and provides indicators associated with

environmental, economic, or social aspects, respectively. Currently, only eLCA is standardized

under the series of guidelines ISO 14040 that outlines principles and frameworks for its

application (International Organization for Standardization, 2006). At the same time, LCC and

sLCA are not associated with any standard (the International Organization for Standardization

(ISO) is developing a framework document for the sLCA methodology (International

Organization for Standardization, n.d.)). Moreover, no formal approach to integrating these three

sustainability aspects, by grouping eLCA, sLCA, and LCC results, has been established

(Campos-Guzmán et al., 2019). Therefore, when a series of options are evaluated, choosing the

most sustainable alternative can be difficult due to interpretation reasons, cognitive biases, or

trade-offs that complicate the selection process (Prado & Heijungs, 2018). As previously

outlined, this is the case for choosing between bioplastics and fossil plastics.

Different authors have proposed Multi-Criteria Decision-Analysis (MCDA) as a selection

approach when more than one criteria can drive the decision (de Luca et al., 2017). These

MCDA tools can be defined as mathematical methodologies that gather technical characteristics

of options (e.g., environment, social, economics) and, sometimes, opinions from experts or

stakeholders to help in the decision-making process by providing a score or a classification

(Doumpos & Zopounidis, 2002; Linkov & Moberg, 2011). These tools can be divided as

subjective methods if they introduce subjectivity in the selection process by involving the
 181
preferences of decision-makers or as objectives if they minimize this subjectivity (Zhao et al.,

2021). On the other hand, MCDA can also be methodologically classified as compensatory

methods if the good performance of more important indicators offsets and outweighs the poor

performance of less important ones (known as compensation) or outranking methods if they

establish outranking relationships among options (Baumann et al., 2019). For further comparison

between methods, one can refer to Doumpos and Zopounidis (2002) (Doumpos & Zopounidis,

2002), Baumann et al. (2019) (Baumann et al., 2019), Zhao et al. (2021) (Zhao et al., 2021), and

Cinelli et al. (2014) (Cinelli et al., 2014).

MCDA tools have been widely recognized for complementing LCSA methods at

different assessment levels. In this case, MCDA could help identify the criteria to define the goal

and scope of the study (study definition level); to make a decision based on specific inputs and

outputs of the product under evaluation (life cycle inventory level); or to understand the trade-

offs between specific indicators resulting from the LCSA process (life cycle inventory analysis

level) (Zanghelini et al., 2018). For the latter case, MCDA provides a ranking or score based on

weights for each impact category, facilitating the selection process (de Luca et al., 2017). Also,

LCSA methods have extensively been used within MCDA tools as part of a more integrated

decision-making criterion (Baumann et al., 2019; Campos-Guzmán et al., 2019; de Luca et al.,

2017; Zanghelini et al., 2018). In this case, environmental, social, economic, or other technical

indicators from LCSA are used within the framework of the MCDA tool, and a decision is made

based on the overall performance of options (Zanghelini et al., 2018).

Although different studies have separately assessed the environmental impact (Bishop et

al., 2021; Ita-Nagy et al., 2020; Spierling et al., 2018; Walker & Rothman, 2020), economic

aspect (Ratshoshi et al., 2021a; Spierling et al., 2018), and social features of bioplastics
 182
(Spierling et al., 2018; Zwicker et al., 2021), the literature shows that research grouping these

three pillars of sustainability for material selection considering bioplastics is limited (Comaniţă

et al., 2015). Therefore, we aim to understand how the industry can benefit from MCDA and

LCSA tools to mitigate the challenges associated with material selection based on the different

dimensions of sustainability. More specifically, our goal is to employ MCDA and LCSA

methodologies to compare a series of bioplastics and fossil plastics as a part of an integrated

sustainability approach. For this purpose, we reviewed the state-of-art knowledge in using these

tools in different areas and defined which MCDA methodology can profile as the best alternative

for our proposed case study and how to integrate LCSA within it. This review also aimed to

determine environmental, economic, social, and technical indicators that should constitute the

selection criteria. Then, we suggested how MCDA and LCSA tools can be implemented to

reduce the challenges associated with the decision-making of bio-based or fossil-based plastics.

Finally, using MCDA and LCSA, we aim to evaluate a series of bio-based and fossil-based

options based on integrated sustainability criteria. It is expected that this study will provide the

tools to help manufacturers profile biobased plastics compared to their fossil counterparts and

improve material selection for the production of more sustainable products.

6.3 Methodology

6.3.1 Description of multi-criteria decision analysis and life cycle sustainability

assessment tools used in the literature

Various authors have assessed methodological aspects related to the combination of

MCDA and LCSA for decision-making (see Table 6-1) (Baumann et al. 2019; Campos-Guzmán

et al. 2019; De Luca et al. 2017; Zanghelini et al. 2018). In general, Analytical Hierarchy
 183
Process (AHP) has been the most used MCDA tool, followed by other compensatory methods,

such as Multi-Attribute Value Theory (MATV), and outranking methods, such as Preference

Ranking Organization METhod for Enrichment of Evaluation (PROMETHEE) or Stochastic

Multi-Attribute Analysis (SMAA) (Baumann et al., 2019; Campos-Guzmán et al., 2019; de Luca

et al., 2017; Zanghelini et al., 2018). Different environmental indicators have been used in the

decision-making process. Global warming potential, acidification, and eutrophication are among

the most employed. Economic indicators include capital costs, operating costs, and profits.

Finally, social indicators are social acceptance, job creation, human health, and labor security

(mortality) (Baumann et al., 2019; Campos-Guzmán et al., 2019; de Luca et al., 2017; Zanghelini

et al., 2018).

Specifically, for material selection, studies including MCDA and LCSA are summarized

in Table 6-2. In this field, no specific method was profiled as the most employed. However,

these studies had in common the use of environmental, economic, and sometimes technical and

social indicators to drive decisions regarding the best material for a specific application. Global

warming potential, emissions to soil and water (such as acidification and eutrophication), and

energy have been commonly used in the environmental aspect (Echeverria et al., 2021; Milani et

al., 2011; Pagone et al., 2020; Stoycheva et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2021). Price of material,

production cost, and capital investment have been employed in the economic part (Comaniţă et

al., 2015; Echeverria et al., 2021; Milani et al., 2011; Pagone et al., 2020; Samani et al., 2015;

Stoycheva et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2021). Human health and safety are present in the social area

(Echeverria et al., 2021; Stoycheva et al., 2018). Finally, mechanical and thermal properties have

been chiefly used as technical indicators when considered (Milani et al., 2011; Pagone et al.,

2020; Samani et al., 2015).

 184
Although compensatory MCDA tools, such as AHP, MATV, and TOPSIS, seem to have

a wide acceptance to be used with LCSA methodologies, outranking tools like SMAA,

PROMETHEE, and ELECTRE seem slightly preferred for material selection. This could be

attributed to the nature of outranking methods, where total compensation does not occur, the

comparison between alternatives is based on differences of each attribute, and uncertainty can be

included in the assessment when SMAA is applied (Prado & Heijungs, 2018; Zanghelini et al.,

2018). These features are of utmost importance in selecting materials. In this case, the poor

performance of some properties should not be compensated with the good performance of others,

and uncertainty associated with different manufacturing processes for the same material should

be addressed. From the discussed outranking methods, PROMETHEE has been recognized as

more robust and easier to apply and understand than ELECTRE (Baumann et al., 2019; Prado &

Heijungs, 2018). Regarding incorporating uncertainty, different authors have complemented this

outranking method with stochastic approaches, receiving the name of Stochastic Multi-Attribute

Analysis (SMAA), which provides benefits in comparative LCSA studies (Prado & Heijungs,

2018). Therefore, SMAA can be described as a robust candidate for the material selection

proposed in this work.

 185

Table 6-1. Methodological findings from review articles on Multi-Criteria Decision Tool Analysis and Life Cycle Analysis.

Number Environmental Economic

Author (year) Industry MCDA tools* Social indicators
of studies indicators indicators

Global warming
Zanghelini et al. Job creation and labor
Global 109 WSA and AHP potential, acidification, Cost and profits
(2018) security
and eutrophication

De Luca et al. Agricultural

32 AHP and SMAA - - -
(2017) systems

Renewable Global warming Capital cost, Employment creation,

Campos-Guzman
energy 16 AHP and MATV potential, acidification, operating cost, and social acceptance, and
et al. (2019)
technologies and use of resources energy cost mortality in accidents

Global warming Social acceptance,

Energy
Baumann et al. AHP, TOPSIS, potential, water pollution, Capital cost and impact on human
storage 15
(2019) and PROMETHEE air pollution, and wildlife operating cost health, and job
systems
impact creation

*WSA: Weighing Sum Approach; AHP: Analytic Hierarchy Process; SMAA: Stochastic Multi-Attribute Analysis; MATV: Multi-Attribute Value Theory;
TOPSIS: Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution; PROMETHEE: Preference Raking Organization METHod for Enrichment of
Evaluations
 186
Table 6-2. Methodological findings from articles dealing with material selection and applying Multi-Criteria Decision Tool Analysis
and Life Cycle Analysis.

Author Materials Type of Environmental Economic Social Technical

Application MCDA tool*
(year) category MCDA indicators indicators indicators indicators

Global warming Human health

potential, –

acidification, Carcinogenic,

Echeverria Natural and eutrophication, human health

Production
et al. Wipes synthetic SMAA Outranking fossil fuel – Non -
cost
(2021) fibers depletion, ozone carcinogenic,

depletion, incident rates

respiratory and litter

effects, smog score

Harmonization Cost of

Comaniţă with EU project and

Social
et al. Packaging Bioplastics ELECTRE Outranking legislations, amount of -
benefits
(2015) degradation, and waste

energy recovered recovery

 187
Table 6-2. (continued).

Global warming
Employment,
potential, Required
Metals, community
Stoycheva resources usage, investment,
Automobile plastics, impact,
et al. MAVT Compensatory impacts on profitability, -
assembly and political
(2018) species, aquatic and cost to-
composites impact, and
emissions, and end-user
health/safety
land use

Production

energy, global

warming

potential, Thermal and

Milani et Gear Plastic
WSA Elementary recyclable Price - mechanical
al. (2011) material composites
fraction, properties

emissions to air,

and emissions to

water
 188
Table 6-2. (continued).

Energy

consumption, global
Mechanical
Pagone et Automotive Metal warming potential,
TOPSIS Compensatory Cost - and thermal
al. (2020) parts alloys water consumption,
properties
and energy

efficiency

Mechanical,

thermal,
Human health,
Samani et acoustic, and
Building Composites PROMETHEE Outranking ecosystems, and Cost -
al. (2015) fire
resources
insulation

properties

Corrosion
Zhao et al. Plastic and Grey-target Recyclability and Market
Pipes - - and scaling
(2021) steel decision making energy consumption price
resistance

*SMAA: Stochastic Multi-Attribute Analysis; ELECTRE: Elimination and Choice Expressing Reality; MATV: Multi-Attribute Value Theory; WSA: Weighing
Sum Approach; TOPSIS: Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution; PROMETHEE: Preference Raking Organization METHod for
Enrichment of Evaluations
 189
6.3.2 Stochastic Multi-Attribute Analysis (SMAA)

Stochastic Multi-Attribute Analysis (SMAA) refers to a stochastic outranking approach

based on the method PROMETHEE proposed by Brans and collaborators in 1982 (Brans, 2005;

Brans et al., 1986). It uses pairwise comparisons and defined preference criteria to determine the

number of scenarios where one alternative outranks others (Prado & Heijungs, 2018; Rogers et

al., 2009; van Schoubroeck et al., 2021). In addition, SMAA allows the inclusion of uncertainty

through Monte Carlo Simulation and the evaluation of weighting factors where one option may

be preferred through stochastic weighting. Thus, it provides a probabilistic acceptability ranking

of options and avoids subjectivity (Rogers et al., 2009).

Since defining the mathematical foundations of this method is outside of the scope of this

study, one can refer to Prado and Heijungs (2018) (Prado & Heijungs, 2018) or Van

Schoubroeck et al. (2021) (van Schoubroeck et al., 2021) to understand how it was conceived.

However, as Van Schoubroeck et al. (2021) (van Schoubroeck et al., 2021) outlined, the method

estimates the difference between pairs of indicators associated with the alternatives and

compares it to preference thresholds. Then, a score is obtained with established weights for each

indicator, and the best option is found. Since uncertainty is included, and Monte Carlo

Simulation is employed, different scenarios are assessed for each indicator, and a pairwise

comparison is performed. Also, the method can include a stochastic weighting approach

(Tervonen & Lahdelma, 2007) that evaluates various weighting schemes, which is beneficial to

avoiding subjectivity and allows for assessing weighting spaces where alternatives are preferred

(Rogers et al., 2009). Thus, a distribution of weighted scores is obtained based on each scenario

evaluated.
 190
Different authors have used SMAA in conjunction with LCSA for decision-making in

diverse areas such as material selection for disposable wipes (Echeverria et al., 2021),

manufacturing technologies for biochemical production (van Schoubroeck et al., 2021),

detergents (Prado-Lopez et al., 2014), fuels (Rogers et al., 2009), and feedstocks (Rajagopalan et

al., 2017; Reeb et al., 2016). These studies used SMAA based on environmental indicators or

integrating other sustainability dimensions and technical features. In the latter case, SMAA was

first applied at each sustainability dimension level and then implemented to integrate all the

dimensions (van Schoubroeck et al., 2021). However, in all cases, the authors benefited from the

partially compensatory character of the method, weighting flexibility and its ability to handle

uncertainty to establish a probabilistic ranking for preferred options.

6.3.3 Use of SMAA to evaluate bioplastics and fossil plastics based on integrated

sustainability criteria

Description of the materials under study

This study evaluated polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), bio-PE, and polylactic acid

(PLA), i.e., two fossil-based and two bio-based plastics. These plastics were selected due to their

importance in the plastic industry. Specifically, PE and PP constitute ca. 45 % of the total oil-

based plastic production worldwide (Geyer et al., 2017), while bio-PE and PLA represent ca.

28% of the production of bioplastics (European Bioplastics, 2021). It is important to note that,

although bio-PE and PLA are bio-based materials that could offer differences in performance

compared to PE and PP, it has been established that they can replace to some extent the fossil-

based plastics studied herein. For instance, bio-PE could potentially replace PE in ca. 60-70% of

the applications (based on similar properties), while PLA could replace 10% of PE and PP
 191
(Spierling et al., 2018). In addition, products containing these materials can be found in the same

application, such as nonwoven products, where these four materials are currently used for

absorbent hygiene goods (Nonwovens Industry, 2013, 2019, 2020; Russell, 2006).

Environmental indicators

The study considered the three pillars of sustainability, i.e., environment, economic, and

social aspects. Environmental indicators for this study were obtained from Life-Cycle

Assessment (LCA) based on the ISO 14040 series of guidelines (International Organization for

Standardization, 2006). The functional unit of the study was one kg of plastic. Therefore, the

system boundaries were cradle-to-gate, which includes the stages from raw materials extraction

to the production of the material at the gate of the factory, ready to be converted (Figure 6-1).

The life cycle inventory collection was obtained from secondary sources, such as literature and

databases. Specifically, processes for raw materials were retrieved from the Ecoinvent database

(Wernet et al., 2016), which contains processes for PLA, PE, and PP (Plastics Europe and

Ecoinvent database v3, 2015; The Ecoinvent database v3, 2020b, 2020a). For bio-PE, a life cycle

inventory for Brazil developed by the authors in Chapter 4 was used. Since the goal was to

compare the options, an attributional analysis was performed. This means that only direct land-

use change was considered for bio-PE (pasture to sugarcane (Picoli et al., 2021)) and PLA

(native vegetation to corn (Wright & Wimberly, 2013)). The justification of this decision is

based on the fact that the consequential approach already has implicit an internal comparison to

fossil plastics due to credits taken for the displacement of fossil materials. Thus, comparing

consequential results for bioplastics to attributional values for fossil plastics would constitute a

methodological issue. Also, a carbon-neutral approach was taken following the ISO standards for

bio-based plastics (International Organization for Standardization, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c). The
 192
software openLCA was employed to perform the assessment, and TRACI was applied as the

characterization method to provide the environmental indicators used in this work. It is important

to mention that this method contains most of the environmental attributes used in the literature

(Baumann et al., 2019; Campos-Guzmán et al., 2019; Comaniţă et al., 2015; de Luca et al., 2017;

Echeverria et al., 2021; Milani et al., 2011; Pagone et al., 2020; Samani et al., 2015; Stoycheva et

al., 2018; Zanghelini et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2021).

Raw materials
production

Plastic production

Raw materials
preparation

Monomer Bio-based or
Pelletizing fossil-based
production
plastic

Purification Polymerization

Figure 6-1. Stages involved in the production of plastics.

Finally, a Monte Carlo simulation was executed using the software openLCA to

incorporate uncertainty in the LCA. For the processes retrieved from Ecoinvent, uncertainty

values provided by the above database were used. On the other hand, the Pedigree Matrix tool

proposed by Weidema and Wesnaes (1996) (Weidema & Wesnæs, 1996) was applied for bio-PE.

For this purpose, the tool integrated into openLCA was employed. It uses qualitative data to
 193
score inputs and outputs in reliability, completeness, temporal correlation, and technological

correlation, which allows obtaining an uncertainty factor that can be used in the Monte Carlo

Simulation (Rajagopalan et al., 2017). Although the Pedigree Matrix has been the objective of

criticism due to its low reliability and incorporation of subjectivity (Frischknecht et al., 2007), it

has been recognized as a useful tool to assess the uncertainty of the data (Igos et al., 2019), and it

has been used along with SMAA by different authors (Echeverria et al., 2021; Prado-Lopez et

al., 2014; Prado et al., 2021; Rajagopalan et al., 2017).

Economic indicators

The economic indicator included in this study was the resin commodity selling prices.

This is based on findings from the literature, where raw material cost was one of the most used

economic indicators (Baumann et al., 2019; Campos-Guzmán et al., 2019; Comaniţă et al., 2015;

de Luca et al., 2017; Echeverria et al., 2021; Milani et al., 2011; Pagone et al., 2020; Samani et

al., 2015; Stoycheva et al., 2018; Zanghelini et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2021). Average values

obtained from the Independent Commodity Intelligence service (ICIS) (Independent Commodity

Intelligence Services, 2020a, 2020b) for PE and PP, and techno-economic assessments in the

literature for PLA were used (Ioannidou et al., 2022; Kwan et al., 2018; Ratshoshi et al., 2021b;

Silalertruksa & Gheewala, 2020). Specifically for bio-PE, values estimated by the authors in

Chapter 5 were used, which agree with reported prices from the literature in comparison to fossil

PE (Siracusa & Blanco, 2020). Finally, a 25% uncertainty is assumed for these indicators, as

Echeverria (2021) (Echeverria et al., 2021) outlined for limited data.

 194
Social indicators

Social indicators are not always considered in material selection criteria (Baumann et al.,

2019; Campos-Guzmán et al., 2019; Comaniţă et al., 2015; de Luca et al., 2017; Echeverria et

al., 2021; Milani et al., 2011; Pagone et al., 2020; Samani et al., 2015; Stoycheva et al., 2018;

Zanghelini et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2021). However, when assessed, human health indicators are

taken into account. TRACI provides two indicators associated with human toxicity, i.e., human

health carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic, and one related to human respiratory effects. These

three indicators were used in this study as a part of the analysis in the social dimension and were

retrieved from the LCA performed to estimate the value of environmental indicators. The

uncertainty of these indicators was obtained from the Monte Carlo Simulation performed in the

environmental dimension. In addition, two other indicators related to fatal and non-fatal injuries

were used based on data provided by the International Labour Organization (International

Labour Organization, 2022b, 2022a). Injuries associated with the different stages of producing

the studied plastics were considered. Bio-PE included the stages of producing sugarcane

(agriculture), ethanol (manufacturing), and plastic from dehydrated ethanol (manufacturing) in

Brazil. PP and PE included the stages for extraction of natural gas (mining and quarrying),

production of refined petroleum products (manufacturing), and plastic in the United States. PLA

included the stages to produce corn (agriculture) and plastic (manufacturing) in the United

States. For these indicators, a 25% uncertainty was assumed.

SMAA as a decision analysis tool for material selection

This study used stochastic Multi-Attribute Analysis (SMAA) as an MCDA tool. As

previously outlined, it is a stochastic method that performs pairwise comparisons between

alternatives, allows incorporation of uncertainty, includes stochastic weighting to provide a

 195
distribution of weighted scores, and is considered appropriate for material selection (Echeverria

et al., 2021; Prado & Heijungs, 2018; Rogers et al., 2009; van Schoubroeck et al., 2021).

Figure 6-2 depicts how SMAA was applied for the case study, which follows the

guidelines and the methodology described and the tool developed by Prado and Heijungs (2018)

(Prado & Heijungs, 2018). First, the environmental, economic, and social analyses, including

uncertainty, were performed separately. Then SMAA was applied with stochastic weighting to

provide a weighted score distribution for each sustainability dimension. Finally, these results

were used as indicators within a comprehensive SMAA tool, providing an integrated

probabilistic acceptability ranking for the different alternatives, which ultimately helped in the

decision-making of the most sustainable material.

 196

Environmental analysis Economic analysis Social analysis

 Carcinongenics  Fatal injuries
 Acidification  Ozone depletion
 Resin price  Non-carcinogenics  Non-fatal injuries
 Ecotoxicity  Ozone formation
 Eutrophication  Resource depletion  Respiratory effects
 Global warming

Environmental uncertainty analysis Economic uncertainty analysis Social uncertainty analysis

Uncertainty distribution Uncertainty distribution Uncertainty distribution

for each environmental for each economic for each social
indicator indicator indicator

Environmental SMAA Economic SMAA Social SMAA

Distribution of Distribution of Distribution of

weighted weighted weighted
environmental scores economic scores social scores

Stochastic
Sustainability SMAA
weighting

Integrated distribution of weighted

scores and probabilistic
acceptability ranking

Figure 6-2. Overall process to apply SMAA in the case study (Adapted from Van Schoubroeck et al. (2021)).
 197

6.4 Results and discussion

The sustainability indicators, including uncertainty, used to build the SMAA tool are

depicted in Table 6-3 to Table 6-5. In terms of the environmental indicators, it was observed that

a trade-off between the alternatives exists and that none of the options present an overall lower

environmental impact. It was noticed that bioplastics had a higher burden in terms of

acidification, eutrophication, ozone depletion, and ozone formation compared to fossil plastics,

which could be related to upstream agricultural practices and the use of fertilizers. On the other

hand, bioplastics presented a lower impact on fossil resource depletion, which could be

associated with their bio-based nature and lower dependence on oil-based resources.

Specifically, bio-PE performed better in global warming potential and ecotoxicity compared to

the other alternatives. Finally, PLA presented the highest impact in five out of seven categories.

In this regard, it is important to note that information from the database Ecoinvent was used to

generate the results and represent generic processes to produce these materials. For more specific

analysis, where the production differs from the generic process, the data should be adapted to

perform the assessment.

 198

Table 6-3. Results for environmental indicators.

Bio-PE PE PP PLA
Environmental indicator Avg. Std. Dev. Avg. Std. Dev. Avg. Std. Dev. Avg. Std. Dev.
Acidification (kgSO2eq) 3.38E-02 8.10E-03 7.07E-03 7.13E-04 5.73E-03 4.29E-04 2.11E-02 2.25E-03
Ecotoxicity (CTUe) 6.47E+00 8.57E+00 1.53E+01 2.05E+01 6.80E+00 1.35E+01 3.55E+01 4.35E+01
Eutrophication (kgNeq) 1.30E-02 1.72E-03 5.58E-03 3.10E-03 3.27E-03 1.76E-03 2.25E-02 6.30E-03
Global warming (kgCO2eq) 1.34E+00 1.75E-01 2.08E+00 1.11E-01 1.91E+00 8.41E-02 4.03E+00 2.84E-01
Ozone depletion (kgCFC-11eq) 2.54E-07 7.10E-08 8.00E-08 2.51E-08 4.61E-08 1.70E-08 3.45E-07 8.67E-08
Ozone formation (kgO3eq) 1.39E-01 1.68E-02 8.45E-02 6.14E-03 7.00E-02 1.10E-02 1.79E-01 1.68E-02
Fossil resources depletion (MJ surplus) 2.51E+00 2.15E-01 9.48E+00 5.18E-01 9.70E+00 5.09E-01 4.12E+00 2.91E-01

Table 6-4. Results for economic indicators.

Bio-PE PE PP PLA
Indicator Avg. Std. Dev. Avg. Std. Dev. Avg. Std. Dev. Avg. Std. Dev.
Resin price (USD) 1.28E+00 9.24E-02 1.04E+00 1.50E-01 1.09E+00 1.56E-01 4.58E+00 8.49E-01
 199
Table 6-5. Results for social indicators.

Bio-PE PE PP PLA
Indicator Avg. Std. Dev. Avg. Std. Dev. Avg. Std. Dev. Avg. Std. Dev.
Carcinogenics (CTUh) 1.02E-07 1.64E-07 3.13E-07 1.05E-06 1.53E-07 3.13E-07 6.96E-07 1.68E-06
Non-carcinogenics (CTUh) 6.02E-07 4.97E-06 1.27E-06 5.30E-06 4.72E-07 4.08E-06 3.47E-06 2.41E-05
Fatal injuries (#/100,000 workers) 2.90E+01 4.19E+00 2.00E+01 2.89E+00 2.00E+01 2.89E+00 2.70E+01 3.90E+00
Non-fatal injuries (#/100,000 workers) 6.92E+03 9.99E+02 3.10E+03 4.47E+02 3.10E+03 4.47E+02 2.90E+03 4.19E+02
Respiratory effects (kgPM2.5) 2.44E-03 3.88E-04 1.53E-03 1.46E-04 1.11E-03 5.03E-05 4.83E-03 4.51E-04
 200
In addition, from an economic point of view, it is clear that bioplastics have a higher

price, which hinders their economic performance. Moreover, the social indicators also show

trade-offs between the alternatives. Bio-PE presented the lowest impact for carcinogenic,

whereas PP performed slightly better for non-carcinogenic and respiratory effects. In terms of

injuries, bio-PE had the highest burdens, which can be associated with a higher number of

accidents during agricultural stages in Brazil.

Stochastic Multi-Attribute Analysis (SMAA) was employed to evaluate the plastics using

integrated sustainability criteria. Specifically, the results shown in Table 6-3 to Table 6-5 were

used to perform the SMAA method at the environmental, economic, and social levels separately,

which provided environmental, economic, and social weighted score distributions for each

material. In this type of distribution, higher scores imply better performance associated with

lower impacts. Then, these distributions were transformed into probabilistic acceptability

rankings by counting the number of times one alternative is preferred over the others, which

helps determine the probability of an option to rank in first or other places. Since four different

materials are evaluated in this case study, rakings from 1st (most preferred option) to 4th (less

preferred alternative) were obtained.

Figure 6-3.a depicts the environmental ranking considering all environmental indicators.

From this chart, it is clear that PP is the material with the highest probability of ranking first (ca.

75%), while PE is more likely to rank second (ca. 57%), bio-PE to be ranked in the third place

(ca. 56%), and PLA to score in the fourth position (ca. 91%). Therefore, considering only the

environmental dimension, PP could be chosen as the preferable option, followed by PE, Bio-PE,

and PLA. It is important to mention that these results considered more than 2,000 scenarios

(Monte Carlo Simulation), including uncertainty analysis, and already incorporate the
 201
environmental trade-offs previously outlined. Thus, as bioplastics presented an overall higher

impact, their environmental performance is not positive relative to the fossil-based plastics.

Figure 6-3.b presents the economic ranking for the evaluated alternatives. It is noticeable

that PE is ranked first (ca. 61%), followed by PP in the second position (ca 44%), bio-PE in third

place (ca 83%), and PLA as the fourth preferred option (100%). This performance was expected

due to a higher resin price associated with bioplastics. Thus, considering only the economic

aspect, PE could be chosen as the preferable option, followed by PP, Bio-PE, and PLA.

Furthermore, Figure 6-3.c presents the ranking in the social dimension. In this regard, it

was observed that PP had the highest likelihood to rank in the first position (ca. 61%), followed

by PE in second place (ca. 54%). It is interesting to note that Bio-PE presents the highest

probability of ranking third and fourth at the same time (ca. 41% and 54%, respectively), which

could be perceived as a contradiction. However, this result is related to the nature of the

methodology used to generate the ranking. PLA ranked first and second more times than Bio-PE.

Therefore, there are more scenarios where Bio-PE ranked third and fourth. Since the number of

times an alternative ranks in a specific position is counted to generate the ranking, the higher

number of third and fourth places for Bio-PE gives it a higher probability of ranking in these

positions. Nevertheless, the likelihood of PLA ranking third (ca. 36%) is relatively similar to the

one of Bio-PE (ca. 41%). Thus, since PLA presented an overall better social performance (higher

number of first and second positions), it has associated better chances of being preferred over

Bio-PE, considering only social indicators. Thus, PLA is given third place, while Bio-PE is

ranked fourth.
 202

Figure 6-3. (a) Environmental, (b) economic, (c) social, and (d) integrated probabilistic ranking
of for evaluated materials.
 203
Finally, a comprehensive SMAA tool was applied to integrate the environmental,

economic, and social results. Each probabilistic ranking was used to input this integrated tool

(van Schoubroeck et al., 2021), and the corresponding score distribution under stochastic

weighting was obtained (Figure 6-4). Figure 6-3.d depicts the integrated sustainability ranking. It

was observed that PP was the preferred material with ca. 69% of probabilities to rank first,

followed by PE (ca. 60% to rank second), bio-PE (ca. 76% to rank third), and PLA (ca. 86% to

rank fourth). These results represent the outcome of considering the performance of different

indicators in each sustainability dimension. Therefore, bio-based plastics seem to be negatively

affected due to an overall higher impact on indicators often overlooked in the literature, such as

human health and environmental indicators different from global warming potential.

Figure 6-4. Weighted score distribution for integrated sustainability criteria.

Finally, it is important to clarify that the proposed tool provides results based on a series

of indicators selected for the case study and these outcomes could vary based on other chosen

indicators. For instance, if only global warming potential is chosen within the environmental

category (business as usual), bio-PE could present a better environmental score that would
 204
translate into a more favorable overall ranking, as shown in Figure 6-5. Under this scenario, Bio-

PE could present ca. 19% probabilities to rank first versus ca. 1% if all TRACI environmental

indicators are considered in the environmental dimension. Although the difference is not enough

for the selected case study to make Bio-PE the preferable material, selected indicators could have

a remarkable influence in the integrated results for other studied cases. Thus, this tool is highly

driven by which environmental, economic, and social indicators are selected, and as such, this is

an introduction of subjectivity to these methods. However, SMAA can be profiled as a possible

tool that manufacturers could use to help decision-making when more than one raw material

option is available. Therefore, this study provides an overall sustainability selection tool to

understand the trade-offs between selected bioplastics and fossil plastics from a cradle-to-grave

perspective.

Figure 6-5. Overall integrated probabilistic ranking for evaluated materials considering only
Global Warming Potential in the environmental dimension.
 205
6.5 Conclusions

In this study, the integrated sustainability of four materials, i.e., bio-polyethylene (bio-

PE), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PE), and polylactic acid (PLA), was evaluated through

Stochastic Multi-Attribute Analysis (SMAA). A review of multi-criteria decision analysis

methodologies showed that this tool had been previously used in a series of applications, such as

material selection for wipes, and it is deemed suitable for the proposed case study since it

reduces subjectivity and incorporates data uncertainty. Environmental, economic, and social

indicators were evaluated as part of this integrated analysis. It was determined that the evaluated

materials presented trade-offs in the sustainability dimensions mentioned above. In general,

bioplastics presented a higher impact in most environmental categories, such as acidification and

eutrophication, which can be associated with agricultural practices. Also, bio-based plastics

showed a higher resin price and a larger burden on most social indicators related to human health

and injuries. Thus, the integrated ranking generated results favored the selection of fossil plastics

over bioplastics. Although our society is currently facing challenges related to climate change,

these results demonstrate the need to perform future material selection considering a series of

indicators instead of looking only at one attribute, which is more aligned to the concept of

sustainability. Thus, indicators usually overlooked in the literature can help obtain a more robust

analysis. Finally, this study confirmed the suitability of SMAA for the evaluation of bioplastics

and fossil plastics, which could lead to its implementation to help manufacturers in decision-

making when more than one material is available and the alternatives present trade-offs. Thus,

material selection can be performed in a more informed manner considering integrated

sustainability criteria.
 206
6.6 References

Attn: Grace. (2021, April 4). Attn: Grace. [Link]

Baumann, M., Weil, M., Peters, J. F., Chibeles-Martins, N., & Moniz, A. B. (2019). A review of

multi-criteria decision making approaches for evaluating energy storage systems for grid

applications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 107(February), 516–534.

[Link]

Bishop, G., Styles, D., & Lens, P. N. L. (2021). Environmental performance comparison of

bioplastics and petrochemical plastics: A review of life cycle assessment (LCA)

methodological decisions. Resources, Conservation AndEnvironmental Performance

Comparison of Bioplastics and Petrochemical Plastics: A Review of Life Cycle

Assessment (LCA) Methodological Decisions Recycling, 168, 105451.

[Link]

Brans, J.-P. (2005). PROMETHEE methods. In Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (Vol. 78, pp.

163–195). [Link]

Brans, J.-P., Vincke, P., & Mareschal, B. (1986). How to select and how to rank projects : The

PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research, 24(14), 228–238.

Campos-Guzmán, V., García-Cáscales, M. S., Espinosa, N., & Urbina, A. (2019). Life Cycle

Analysis with Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A review of approaches for the

sustainability evaluation of renewable energy technologies. Renewable and Sustainable

Energy Reviews, 104(January), 343–366. [Link]

Cinelli, M., Coles, S. R., & Kirwan, K. (2014). Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria

decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment. Ecological Indicators,

46, 138–148. [Link]

 207
Comaniţă, E. D., Ghinea, C., Hlihor, R. M., Simion, I. M., Smaranda, C., Favier, L., Roşca, M.,

Gostin, I., & Gavrilescu, M. (2015). Challenges and oportunities in green plastics: An

assessment using the electre decision-aid method. Environmental Engineering and

Management Journal, 14(3), 689–702. [Link]

Dahle, J. (2020). Sustainability: narrowing a wide scope. Conference Proceedings RISE 2020.

de Luca, A. I., Iofrida, N., Leskinen, P., Stillitano, T., Falcone, G., Strano, A., & Gulisano, G.

(2017). Life cycle tools combined with multi-criteria and participatory methods for

agricultural sustainability: Insights from a systematic and critical review. Science of the

Total Environment, 595, 352–370. [Link]

Doumpos, M., & Zopounidis, C. (2002). Multicriteria decision aid classification methods.

Springer Science & Business Media.

Due, M., & Broch, T. (2020). Sustainability from the perspective of a nonwoven supplier to

disposable personal care products. Conference Proceedings RISE 2020.

Echeverria, D., Venditti, R., & Jameel, H. (2021). Process-Based Modeling Framework for the

Life-Cycle Environmental, Economic and Social Sustainability Dimensions of Cellulose-

Based Materials (Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC,

United States). Retrieved from [Link]

Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks-The triple bottom line of 21st century business.

Captstone Publishing Ltd, Oxford. [Link]

content/uploads/2017/01/[Link]

European Bioplastics. (2017). Do bioplastics have a lower carbon footprint than fossil based

plastics? How is this measured? [Link]

 208
bioplastic-have-a-lower-carbon-footprint-than-fossil-based-plastics-how-is-this-

measured/

European Bioplastics. (2019). Bioplastics market update 2019. [Link]

[Link]/market/

European Bioplastics. (2020). Bioplastics market update 2020.

European Bioplastics. (2021). Bioplastics market update 2021. [Link]

[Link]/news/publications/%0AEuropean

Frischknecht, R., Jungbluth, N., Althaus, H., Doka, G., Dones, R., Heck, T., Hellweg, S.,

Hischier, R., Nemecek, T., Rebitzer, G., Spielmann, M., & Wernet, G. (2007). Overview

and Methdology. In Ecoinvent report No 1 (Issue 1).

[Link]

Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., & Law, K. L. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever

made. [Link]

Harmon, P. (2020). Plastics and a socially responsible future. Conference Proceedings RISE

2020.

Haynes, B. (2020). The future of sustainable plastic alternatives and the impact of the SUPD on

innovation. Conference Proceedings RISE 2020.

Igos, E., Benetto, E., Meyer, R., Baustert, P., & Othoniel, B. (2019). How to treat uncertainties in

life cycle assessment studies? International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24(4),

794–807. [Link]

Independent Commodity Intelligence Services. (2020a). US chemical profile: Polyethylene.

Independent Commodity Intelligence Services. (2020b). US chemical profile: Polypropylene.

[Link]
 209
International Labour Organization. (2022a). Fatal occupational injuries per 100,000 workers by

economic activity.

International Labour Organization. (2022b). Non-fatal occupational injuries per 100,000

workers by economic activity.

International Organization for Standardization. (n.d.). ISO/AWI 14075: Principles and

framework for social life cycle assessment.

International Organization for Standardization. (2006). ISO 14040:2006 Environmental

management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework (p. 20).

International Organization for Standardization. (2020a). ISO 22526-1 Plastics — Carbon and

environmental footprint of biobased plastics — Part 1: General principles.

International Organization for Standardization. (2020b). ISO 22526-2 Plastics — Carbon and

environmental footprint of biobased plastics — Part 2: Material carbon footprint,

amount (mass) of CO2 removed from the air and incorporated into polymer molecule.

International Organization for Standardization. (2020c). ISO 22526-3 Plastics — Carbon and

environmental footprint of biobased plastics — Part 3: Process carbon footprint,

requirements and guidelines for quantification.

Ioannidou, S. M., Ladakis, D., Moutousidi, E., Dheskali, E., Kookos, I. K., Câmara-Salim, I.,

Moreira, M. T., & Koutinas, A. (2022). Techno-economic risk assessment, life cycle

analysis and life cycle costing for poly(butylene succinate) and poly(lactic acid)

production using renewable resources. Science of the Total Environment, 806.

[Link]

Ita-Nagy, D., Vázquez-Rowe, I., Kahhat, R., Chinga-Carrasco, G., & Quispe, I. (2020).

Reviewing environmental life cycle impacts of biobased polymers: current trends and
 210
methodological challenges. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 25(11),

2169–2189. [Link]

Kimberly-Clark. (2021). Huggies® special deliveryTM diapers. [Link]

us/diapers/specialdelivery

Kwan, T. H., Hu, Y., & Lin, C. S. K. (2018). Techno-economic analysis of a food waste

valorisation process for lactic acid, lactide and poly(lactic acid) production. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 181, 72–87. [Link]

Linkov, I., & Moberg, E. (2011). Multi-criteria decision analysis: environmental application and

case studies. CRC Press LLC.

Milani, A. S., Eskicioglu, C., Robles, K., Bujun, K., & Hosseini-Nasab, H. (2011). Multiple

criteria decision making with life cycle assessment for material selection of composites.

Express Polymer Letters, 5(12), 1062–1074.

[Link]

Nieder-Heitmann, M., Haigh, K. F., & Görgens, J. F. (2019). Life cycle assessment and multi-

criteria analysis of sugarcane biorefinery scenarios: Finding a sustainable solution for the

South African sugar industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 239.

[Link]

Nonwovens Industry. (2013). Fitesa offers biobased spunbond for personal care markets.

[Link]

offers-biobased-spunbond-for-personal-care-markets/

Nonwovens Industry. (2019). Fitesa Wins IDEA Achievement Award. [Link]

[Link]/contents/view_breaking-news/2019-03-29/fitesa-wins-idea-achievement-

award/
 211
Nonwovens Industry. (2020). Natural hygiene: A niche no more. [Link]

[Link]/issues/2020-06/view_features/natural-hygiene-a-niche-no-

more/?widget=listSection

Pagone, E., Salonitis, K., & Jolly, M. (2020). Automatically weighted high-resolution mapping

of multi-criteria decision analysis for sustainable manufacturing systems. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 257, 120272. [Link]

Picoli, M. C. A., Louvain, U. de, Machado, P. G., & London, I. C. (2021). Land use change : the

barrier for sugarcane sustainability. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 1–13.

[Link]

Plastics Europe and Ecoinvent database v3. (2015). Polypropylene production, granulate.

Prado-Lopez, V., Seager, T. P., Chester, M., Laurin, L., Bernardo, M., & Tylock, S. (2014).

Stochastic multi-attribute analysis (SMAA) as an interpretation method for comparative

life-cycle assessment (LCA). International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(2), 405–

416. [Link]

Prado, V., Daystar, J., Wallace, M., Pires, S., & Laurin, L. (2021). Evaluating alternative

environmental decision support matrices for future Higg MSI scenarios. International

Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 26(7), 1357–1373. [Link]

01928-8

Prado, V., & Heijungs, R. (2018). Implementation of stochastic multi attribute analysis (SMAA)

in comparative environmental assessments. Environmental Modelling and Software,

109(August), 223–231. [Link]

 212
Rajagopalan, N., Venditti, R., Kelley, S., & Daystar, J. (2017). Multi-attribute uncertainity

analysis of the life cycle of lignocellulosic feedstock for biofuel production. Biofuels,

Bioproducts and Biorefining, 11, 269–280. [Link]

Rasal, R. M., Janorkar, A. v., & Hirt, D. E. (2010). Poly(lactic acid) modifications. Progress in

Polymer Science, 35(3), 338–356. [Link]

Ratshoshi, B. K., Farzad, S., & Görgens, J. F. (2021a). Techno-economic assessment of

polylactic acid and polybutylene succinate production in an integrated sugarcane

biorefinery. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 15(6), 1871–1887.

[Link]

Ratshoshi, B. K., Farzad, S., & Görgens, J. F. (2021b). Techno-economic assessment of

polylactic acid and polybutylene succinate production in an integrated sugarcane

biorefinery. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 15(6), 1871–1887.

[Link]

Reeb, C. W., Venditti, R., Gonzalez, R., & Kelley, S. (2016). Environmental LCA and financial

analysis to evaluate the feasibility of bio-based sugar feedstock biomass supply globally:

Part 2. Application of multi-criteria decision-making analysis as a method for biomass

feedstock comparisons. BioResources, 11(3), 6062–6084.

[Link]

Rogers, K., Seager, T., & Linkov, I. (2009). Multicriteria Decision Analysis and Life Cycle

Assessment. 305–314. [Link]

Russell, S. J. (2006). Handbook of nonwovens. CRC Press LLC.

 213
Samani, P., Mendes, A., Leal, V., Miranda Guedes, J., & Correia, N. (2015). A sustainability

assessment of advanced materials for novel housing solutions. Building and Environment,

92, 182–191. [Link]

Silalertruksa, T., & Gheewala, S. H. (2020). Competitive use of sugarcane for food, fuel, and

biochemical through the environmental and economic factors. International Journal of

Life Cycle Assessment, 25(7), 1343–1355. [Link]

Siracusa, V., & Blanco, I. (2020). Bio-polyethylene (Bio-PE), bio-polypropylene (Bio-PP) and

bio-poly(ethylene terephthalate) (Bio-PET): recent developments in bio-based polymers

analogous to petroleum-derived ones for packaging and engineering applications.

Polymers, 12(8). [Link]

Spierling, S., Knüpffer, E., Behnsen, H., Mudersbach, M., Krieg, H., Springer, S., Albrecht, S.,

Herrmann, C., & Endres, H. J. (2018). Bio-based plastics - A review of environmental,

social and economic impact assessments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 185, 476–491.

[Link]

Stevens, G., & Tuncki, C. (2019). Sustainability report 5th edition.

Stoycheva, S., Marchese, D., Paul, C., Padoan, S., Juhmani, A. salam, & Linkov, I. (2018).

Multi-criteria decision analysis framework for sustainable manufacturing in automotive

industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 257–272.

[Link]

Suarez, A., Ford, E., Venditti, R., Kelley, S., Saloni, D., & Gonzalez, R. (2022). Is bio-based

polyethylene a more environmentally sustainable option than oil-based polyethylene? .

Manuscript under Peer-Review.

 214
Tervonen, T., & Lahdelma, R. (2007). Implementing stochastic multicriteria acceptability

analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 178(2), 500–513.

[Link]

The Ecoinvent database v3. (2020a). Polyethylene production, high density, granulate.

The Ecoinvent database v3. (2020b). Polylactide production, granulate.

The Honest Company Inc. (2021). Clean conscious diaper. [Link]

conscious-diaper

van Schoubroeck, S., Thomassen, G., van Passel, S., Malina, R., Springael, J., Lizin, S., Venditti,

R. A., Yao, Y., & van Dael, M. (2021). An integrated techno-sustainability assessment

(TSA) framework for emerging technologies. Green Chemistry, 23(4), 1700–1715.

[Link]

Walker, S., & Rothman, R. (2020). Life cycle assessment of bio-based and fossil-based plastic:

A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 261, 121158.

[Link]

Weidema, B. P., & Wesnæs, M. S. (1996). Data quality management for life cycle inventories-an

example of using data quality indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 4(3–4), 167–

174. [Link]

Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E., & Weidema, B. (2016).

Ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. International Journal

of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(9), 1218–1230.

Wright, C. K., & Wimberly, M. C. (2013). Recent land use change in the Western Corn Belt

threatens grasslands and wetlands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of

 215
the United States of America, 110(10), 4134–4139.

[Link]

Zanghelini, G. M., Cherubini, E., & Soares, S. R. (2018). How Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

(MCDA) is aiding Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in results interpretation. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 172, 609–622. [Link]

Zhao, R., Li, M., Ma, S., Yang, T., & Jing, L. (2021). Material selection for landfill leachate

piping by using a grey target decision-making approach. Environmental Science and

Pollution Research, 28(1), 494–502. [Link]

Zwicker, M. v., Brick, C., Gruter, G. J. M., & van Harreveld, F. (2021). (Not) doing the right

things for the wrong reasons: An investigation of consumer attitudes, perceptions, and

willingness to pay for bio-based plastics. Sustainability, 13(12).

[Link]
 216
7 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

Nonwoven manufacturers and other important industry players are facing challenges

related to material selection due to an increased offering of bio-based plastics and a lack of

studies profiling these materials from an integrated point of view. Thus, the role of some

bioplastics is still to be determined based on understanding their environmental sustainability,

conversion economics, and performance, which could ultimately lead to a more extensive

adoption. In this research, bio-polyethylene (bio-PE) was studied and compared to fossil PE in

terms of environmental sustainability, conversion economics, and performance for nonwovens

applications. Thus, the role of this bioplastic in the industry was evaluated, and the uncertainty

around it was dissipated.

Outcomes from the different tasks developed in this work allow concluding that

bioplastics are complex systems with inherent challenges. In terms of sustainability, their

targeted use in specific families of products could help reduce the carbon footprint of goods

based on the likeliness of end-of-life strategies and their sustainability features. This strategy

could help decarbonize our society, and its implementation will likely occur in the near future. In

addition, bioplastics, in specific bio-PE, can provide carbon footprint advantages compared to

fossil counterparts. However, the bio-based feature does not necessarily ensure a better

performance in this category. Land-use change (LUC) can be pointed out as the main challenge

to promoting the use of bio-based plastics since, as demonstrated, its contribution can make bio-

based materials perform worse than oil-based plastics. Thus, direct and indirect land-use change

should be considered in any environmental assessment for bio-based products. Additionally,

these systems need to be analyzed from an attributional and consequential point of view to

include the unintended consequences of producing and adopting them. Results herein obtained
 217
demonstrate that the increase in production of bioplastics needs to go together with responsible

sourcing to guarantee that, for instance, deforestation does not occur at any stage of the process.

Furthermore, policies limiting specific LUC scenarios could also help mitigate this negative

effect.

In terms of performance, bio-PE can provide very similar properties to oil-based PE,

which can help its adoption. However, specifically for nonwovens, the offering of this material is

currently limited, and resins designed for other applications need to be used. Thus, a future

higher offering of bioplastics could help find resins specifically conceived and more suitable for

nonwovens.

Regarding the conversion economics, the manufacturing cost of ethanol-based polymers

can present high volatility, mainly driven by the price of ethanol. This could pose a problem for

manufacturers whose profits could be affected. Strong supply chains for ethanol or robust

economic systems based on this chemical are required to decrease this negative impact and

ensure that ethanol-based polymers, such as bio-PE, are economically competitive with fossil

plastics.

Finally, Stochastic Multi-Attribute Analysis (SMAA) was profiled as a tool that could

guide nonwoven manufacturers in the selection of materials when important trade-offs exist. The

proposed case study showed that when different indicators that are sometimes overlooked are

considered, certain fossil plastics could be preferred over specific bio-based plastics. Although

these bio-based materials could provide reductions in global warming potential or dependence on

fossil resources, they have an inherent higher impact in categories such as acidification and

eutrophication, as well as a higher price and impact on human health. Thus, the implementation

of SMAA tools could lead to material selection based on more integrated sustainability criteria.
 218
This work aimed to build a robust assessment of the environmental sustainability,

performance, and conversion economics of bio-PE and illustrate the use of multi-criteria decision

tools for material selection using an integrated approach. However, limitations and suggestions

for future research are presented below.

7.1 Implementation of Smart Use of Materials (SUM) to other bioplastics and

applications

The strategy for a Smart Use of Materials (SUM) developed in the first study of this work

showed the potential to help decarbonize our society based on the targeted use of bioplastics for

specific applications. The study was performed using polylactic acid (PLA) and bio-polyethylene

terephthalate (bio-PET) as examples for the textile and packaging industries.

It is suggested to implement this strategy for other materials and applications. Examples

of products adopting bioplastics are consumer goods, agriculture, coatings and adhesives,

building and construction, and electronics. Additionally, other bioplastics include

polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), bio-polyamides (Bio-PAs), bio-polypropylene (bio-PP), bio-

polytrimethylene terephthalate (bio-PTT), starch blends, polybutylene adipate terephthalate

(PBAT), and polybutylene succinate (PBS). Thus, a global projection of the impact of SUM

could be quantified.

7.2 Study of the performance of bio-polyethylene at an industrial scale

Nonwovens manufactured from bio-polyethylene exhibited similar properties to fabrics

fabricated using fossil-based polyethylene. Nevertheless, this study was performed at lab scale,

with the inherent limitations of small processes.

 219
It is suggested to assess the processability of bio-polyethylene at an industrial scale and

evaluate the properties of produced nonwovens compared to oil-based PE. Thus, the

implementation of this material in actual manufacturing lines can be de-risked.

7.3 Assessment of the environmental sustainability and conversion economics of bio-

polyethylene made from other raw materials

Bio-polyethylene (bio-PE) made from sugarcane exhibited carbon footprint advantages

over fossil polyethylene under specific scenarios. Nevertheless, land-use change (LUC) was

profiled as the main factor affecting the environmental sustainability of bio-PE, which could

cause this material presents a higher environmental impact than the oil-based counterpart.

Additionally, it was estimated that a premium of up to ca. 27% compared to conventional PE

could be required to achieve expected margins by current manufacturers, which can affect its

adoption due to a higher price.

It is suggested to evaluate the environmental and economic potential of alternative raw

materials to produce bio-polyethylene. This includes, but is not limited to, the use of materials

free of land use, such as paper waste or food residues. Additionally, the assessment could be

extended to other agricultural crops or residues in locations where strict regulations to avoid

deforestation, or native vegetation losses are in place. Thus, the development of more sustainable

ethanol-based plastics could be achieved.

7.4 Study of the effect of studied indicators on the results of Stochastic Multi-Attribute

Analysis

Stochastic Multi-Attribute Analysis showed the potential to help manufacturers with

material selection when the available options present trade-offs. It allowed the profiling of
 220
selected bio-based and oil-based plastics based on integrated sustainability criteria. Nevertheless,

results obtained from this methodology highly depend on the number and type of indicators

chosen to perform the assessment.

It is suggested to evaluate how the inclusion of other indicators can affect and improve

the analysis. These indicators could comprise information from environmental, social, and

corporate governance obtained from corporate sustainability reports or databases such as

Bloomberg Professional Services. Thus, a more robust assessment can be obtained.