IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i16p12470-d1218633.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Life Cycle Assessment of PLA Products: A Systematic Literature Review

Author

Listed:
  • Ana Fonseca

    (Associação CECOLAB—Collaborative Laboratory towards Circular Economy, Rua Nossa Senhora da Conceição, nº 2, Lagares da Beira, 3405-155 Oliveira do Hospital, Portugal)

  • Edgar Ramalho

    (Associação CECOLAB—Collaborative Laboratory towards Circular Economy, Rua Nossa Senhora da Conceição, nº 2, Lagares da Beira, 3405-155 Oliveira do Hospital, Portugal)

  • Ana Gouveia

    (Associação CECOLAB—Collaborative Laboratory towards Circular Economy, Rua Nossa Senhora da Conceição, nº 2, Lagares da Beira, 3405-155 Oliveira do Hospital, Portugal)

  • Filipa Figueiredo

    (Associação CECOLAB—Collaborative Laboratory towards Circular Economy, Rua Nossa Senhora da Conceição, nº 2, Lagares da Beira, 3405-155 Oliveira do Hospital, Portugal
    Associação BLC3—Campus de Tecnologia e Inovação, Centre Bio R&D Unit, Rua Nossa Senhora da Conceição, nº 2, 3405-155 Oliveira do Hospital, Portugal)

  • João Nunes

    (Associação BLC3—Campus de Tecnologia e Inovação, Centre Bio R&D Unit, Rua Nossa Senhora da Conceição, nº 2, 3405-155 Oliveira do Hospital, Portugal)

Abstract

The rising concerns about environmental harm and pollution create a setting for the search for better materials to produce more sustainable products. Plastic plays a crucial role in modern life and most of the commonly used are of fossil origin. Polylactic Acid (PLA) has been appointed as a more sustainable alternative, due to its origins in biodegradable raw materials. This paper aims to review scientific research, where Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is performed on this material, in order to further understand the environmental impacts and to assess whether it is a more viable option when compared to the most commonly used plastics. A systematic literature review of 81 LCA studies focused on the LCA of PLA products was conducted. An assessment of key aspects, including the system boundaries, raw materials origin, and quantitative analysis of five environmental impact categories was performed. In this comparative analysis, in addition to presenting the results for PLA products, they are also compared with other fossil-based plastics. This leads to the conclusion that PLA has higher environmental impacts on Marine Eutrophication, Freshwater Eutrophication, and Human Toxicity, which are mainly related to the agricultural phase of growing the raw materials for PLA production. For Climate Change, Polystyrene (PS) presents the higher Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, and for the Ozone Layer Depletion category, Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) presents the higher impact. PLA is a solution to replace fossil plastics. However, the use of alternative biomass sources without competition with the feed and food sector could be a key option for biobased materials production, with lower environmental and socioeconomic impacts. This will be a pathway to reduce environmental impacts in categories such as climate change, marine eutrophication, and freshwater eutrophication.

Suggested Citation

  • Ana Fonseca & Edgar Ramalho & Ana Gouveia & Filipa Figueiredo & João Nunes, 2023. "Life Cycle Assessment of PLA Products: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-19, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:16:p:12470-:d:1218633
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/16/12470/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/16/12470/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bulim Choi & Seungwoo Yoo & Su-il Park, 2018. "Carbon Footprint of Packaging Films Made from LDPE, PLA, and PLA/PBAT Blends in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-11, July.
    2. Beata Michaliszyn-Gabryś & Janusz Krupanek & Mariusz Kalisz & Jonathan Smith, 2022. "Challenges for Sustainability in Packaging of Fresh Vegetables in Organic Farming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-29, April.
    3. Sivappirakasam Kamalakkannan & Amila Abeynayaka & Asela K. Kulatunga & Rajeev Kumar Singh & Miwa Tatsuno & Premakumara Jagath Dickella Gamaralalage, 2022. "Life Cycle Assessment of Selected Single-Use Plastic Products towards Evidence-Based Policy Recommendations in Sri Lanka," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-25, October.
    4. Daniel Maga & Markus Hiebel & Venkat Aryan, 2019. "A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Meat Trays Made of Various Packaging Materials," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-18, September.
    5. Hottle, Troy A. & Bilec, Melissa M. & Landis, Amy E., 2017. "Biopolymer production and end of life comparisons using life cycle assessment," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 295-306.
    6. Shakira R. Hobbs & Tyler M. Harris & William J. Barr & Amy E. Landis, 2021. "Life Cycle Assessment of Bioplastics and Food Waste Disposal Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-14, June.
    7. Alberto Navajas & Leire Uriarte & Luis M. Gandía, 2017. "Application of Eco-Design and Life Cycle Assessment Standards for Environmental Impact Reduction of an Industrial Product," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-16, September.
    8. Kunnika Changwichan & Thapat Silalertruksa & Shabbir H. Gheewala, 2018. "Eco-Efficiency Assessment of Bioplastics Production Systems and End-of-Life Options," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-15, March.
    9. Mohr, Alison & Raman, Sujatha, 2013. "Lessons from first generation biofuels and implications for the sustainability appraisal of second generation biofuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 114-122.
    10. Steffen Kiemel & Chantal Rietdorf & Maximilian Schutzbach & Robert Miehe, 2022. "How to Simplify Life Cycle Assessment for Industrial Applications—A Comprehensive Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-26, November.
    11. Miguel Vigil & Maria Pedrosa-Laza & JV Alvarez Cabal & Francisco Ortega-Fernández, 2020. "Sustainability Analysis of Active Packaging for the Fresh Cut Vegetable Industry by Means of Attributional & Consequential Life Cycle Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-18, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hamed Sadaghian & Behrooz Dadmand & Majid Pourbaba & Soheil Jabbari & Jung Heum Yeon, 2023. "The Effect of Size on the Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed Polymers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-21, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sebastian Spierling & Venkateshwaran Venkatachalam & Marina Mudersbach & Nico Becker & Christoph Herrmann & Hans-Josef Endres, 2020. "End-of-Life Options for Bio-Based Plastics in a Circular Economy—Status Quo and Potential from a Life Cycle Assessment Perspective," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Halayit Abrha & Jonnathan Cabrera & Yexin Dai & Muhammad Irfan & Abrham Toma & Shipu Jiao & Xianhua Liu, 2022. "Bio-Based Plastics Production, Impact and End of Life: A Literature Review and Content Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, April.
    3. Luca Di Paolo & Simona Abbate & Eliseo Celani & Davide Di Battista & Giovanni Candeloro, 2022. "Carbon Footprint of Single-Use Plastic Items and Their Substitution," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-16, December.
    4. Simone Blanc & Stefano Massaglia & Filippo Brun & Cristiana Peano & Angela Mosso & Nicole Roberta Giuggioli, 2019. "Use of Bio-Based Plastics in the Fruit Supply Chain: An Integrated Approach to Assess Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-18, April.
    5. Deniz Turkcu & Nina Tura & Ville Ojanen, 2022. "A Conceptual Framework of the Sustainability Challenges Experienced during the Life Cycle of Biobased Packaging Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-17, August.
    6. Christina Tsouti & Christina Papadaskalopoulou & Angeliki Konsta & Panagiotis Andrikopoulos & Margarita Panagiotopoulou & Sofia Papadaki & Christos Boukouvalas & Magdalini Krokida & Katerina Valta, 2023. "Investigating the Environmental Benefits of Novel Films for the Packaging of Fresh Tomatoes Enriched with Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Compounds through Life Cycle Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-22, May.
    7. Tan, Quanyin & Yang, Liyao & Wei, Fan & Chen, Yuan & Li, Jinhui, 2023. "Comparative life cycle assessment of polyethylene agricultural mulching film and alternative options including different end-of-life routes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    8. Kargbo, Hannah & Harris, Jonathan Stuart & Phan, Anh N., 2021. "“Drop-in” fuel production from biomass: Critical review on techno-economic feasibility and sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    9. Monteleone, Massimo & Cammerino, Anna Rita Bernadette & Libutti, Angela, 2018. "Agricultural “greening” and cropland diversification trends: Potential contribution of agroenergy crops in Capitanata (South Italy)," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 591-600.
    10. Stefan Arens & Sunke Schlüters & Benedikt Hanke & Karsten von Maydell & Carsten Agert, 2020. "Sustainable Residential Energy Supply: A Literature Review-Based Morphological Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-28, January.
    11. Isabel García Gutiérrez & Daniel Elduque & Carmelo Pina & Rafael Tobajas & Carlos Javierre, 2020. "Influence of the Composition on the Environmental Impact of a Casting Magnesium Alloy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-20, December.
    12. Kumar, Manish & Bolan, Shiv & Padhye, Lokesh P. & Konarova, Muxina & Foong, Shin Ying & Lam, Su Shiung & Wagland, Stuart & Cao, Runzi & Li, Yang & Batalha, Nuno & Ahmed, Mohamed & Pandey, Ashok & Sidd, 2023. "Retrieving back plastic wastes for conversion to value added petrochemicals: opportunities, challenges and outlooks," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 345(C).
    13. Natalia Stefania Piotrowska & Stanisław Zbigniew Czachorowski & Mariusz Jerzy Stolarski, 2020. "Ground Beetles ( Carabidae ) in the Short-Rotation Coppice Willow and Poplar Plants—Synergistic Benefits System," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-23, December.
    14. Arcigni, Francesco & Friso, Riccardo & Collu, Maurizio & Venturini, Mauro, 2019. "Harmonized and systematic assessment of microalgae energy potential for biodiesel production," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 614-624.
    15. Ribeiro, Barbara E. & Quintanilla, Miguel A., 2015. "Transitions in biofuel technologies: An appraisal of the social impacts of cellulosic ethanol using the Delphi method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 53-68.
    16. Gamborg, Christian & Anker, Helle Tegner & Sandøe, Peter, 2014. "Ethical and legal challenges in bioenergy governance: Coping with value disagreement and regulatory complexity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 326-333.
    17. Baoqing Chen & Jixiao Cui & Wenyi Dong & Changrong Yan, 2023. "Effects of Biodegradable Plastic Film on Carbon Footprint of Crop Production," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-9, March.
    18. Markéta Šerešová & Vladimír Kočí, 2020. "Proposal of Package-to-Product Indicator for Carbon Footprint Assessment with Focus on the Czech Republic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-17, April.
    19. Tatbita Titin Suhariyanto & Dzuraidah Abd Wahab & Mohd Nizam Ab Rahman, 2018. "Product Design Evaluation Using Life Cycle Assessment and Design for Assembly: A Case Study of a Water Leakage Alarm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-26, August.
    20. Fedorova, Elena & Pongrácz, Eva, 2019. "Cumulative social effect assessment framework to evaluate the accumulation of social sustainability benefits of regional bioenergy value chains," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 1073-1088.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:16:p:12470-:d:1218633. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.