![\"Image](\"https:\/\/ars.els-cdn.com\/content\/image\/1-s2.0-S095965262300584X-ga1_lrg.jpg\")
<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The production volume of plastics has grown faster than any other bulk material since 1971 (IEA, 2018<\/a>) and is expected to double until 2050 compared to today’s levels (Stegmann et al., 2022<\/a>). The plastics sector was estimated to be responsible for 4.5% of the global GHG emissions in 2015 (Cabernard et al., 2021<\/a>). With a contribution of almost 45%, packaging poses the largest demand for plastic polymer resins (Geyer et al., 2017<\/a>). Among them, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) covers 22.5% of the global plastic packaging market, making it the second most used polymer resin in plastic packaging after low-density polyethylene (LDPE) (Geyer et al., 2017<\/a>). Moreover, PET is the most recycled polymer in Europe (EPBP, 2017a<\/a>; Eunomia, 2022<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Biomass use and recycling are among the few options to lower the plastic sector’s growing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) emissions and reduce dependence on virgin fossil feedstocks (IEA, 2018<\/a>; Meys et al., 2021<\/a>; Zheng and Suh, 2019<\/a>). Together, biomass use and recycling are an integral part of a circular bioeconomy; a concept increasingly brought forward within the European Union (Stegmann et al., 2020<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n A potential renewable alternative to PET is 100% bio-based polyethylene furanoate (PEF). PEF is formed by polymerising sugar-based furandicarboxylic acid (FDCA) with bio-based mono-ethylene glycol (MEG). PEF was developed by the Dutch company Avantium and the world’s first commercial FDCA facility is expected to be completed by 2024 (Avantium, 2022a<\/a>). PEF has superior gas barrier properties compared to PET, especially for O2<\/sub> (\u223c10x) and CO2<\/sub> (\u223c15x), thus requiring less material to achieve the same shelf life as conventional PET (Burgess et al., 2014a<\/a>, Burgess et al., 2014b<\/a>, Burgess et al., 2014c<\/a> a-c; de Jong et al., 2022<\/a>). Moreover, PEF has a higher modulus than PET, which allows for producing containers of equivalent mechanical strength with less material (de Jong et al., 2022<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n This makes PEF particularly suited for food packaging applications that require a long shelf life while keeping the packaging lightweight. PEF can be used as monolayer bottles for soft drinks, beer, and juices, replacing glass bottles, aluminium cans, and multilayer bottles. The applicability of PEF is especially attractive in small packaging applications as these have a relatively high material footprint per unit of packaged product volume. Hence, one of Avantium’s initial focus areas for the use of PEF are small bottles for carbonated or oxygen-sensitive products. PEF can be recycled using the same technologies as for recycling PET (de Jong et al., 2022<\/a>). While not being biodegradable under industrial composting conditions as described in the European standard EN 13432, initial tests showed that PEF degrades substantially faster than PET: Under industrial conditions, 90% of PEF biodegraded within 240 and 385 days, in weathered and unweathered state respectively (de Jong et al., 2022<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n A recent Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) conducted by the nova-Institut showed a GHG emission reduction potential for a clear, 250 mL monolayer PEF bottle of 33% when compared to an equivalent PET bottle over their life cycle (Puente and Stratmann, 2022<\/a>). An assessment by Eerhart et al. (2012)<\/a> estimated cradle-to-grave GHG emissions savings in the range of 45\u201355% when comparing PEF and PET polymers, but disregarding any application. Regarding the end-of-life (EoL), Eerhart et al. (2012)<\/a> only assessed incineration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Also for other bio-based plastics, the EoL phase has so far received limited or no attention in scientific literature. Only for polylactid acid (PLA) there are eleven LCA studies also addressing end-of-life options, followed by two studies on thermoplastic starch (TPS) and a few individual ones for other plastic types (Spierling et al., 2020<\/a>). While Puente and Stratmann (2022)<\/a> included a simplified end-of-life scenario for PEF bottles based on incineration and open-loop mechanical recycling, the study did not analyse alternative scenarios or the impact over multiple recycling trips. The effect of multiple recycling trips on GHG emissions has so far not been assessed for bio-based plastics from a LCA perspective and only twice for PET (Komly et al., 2012<\/a>; Shen et al., 2011<\/a>). Analysing multiple recycling trips would allow for calculating the overall GHG emissions of the polymers over their entire life cycle, including the emissions occurring after the first EoL phase. Multiple recycling trips would contribute to circular economy goals by increasing the product’s utility (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015<\/a>; Konietzko et al., 2020<\/a>). The Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015)<\/a> defines a product’s utility as a combination of the length of a product’s use phase and the intensity of its use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Next to mechanical recycling (MR), chemical recycling (CR) is increasingly considered an alternative solution for treating plastic waste (Simon and Martin, 2019<\/a>). MR refers to recovering plastic waste via mechanical processes, like shredding, washing and re-granulating, while CR breaks down the polymer structures of plastics. For PET, depolymerisation via glycolysis is seen as one of the most promising CR options (Raheem et al., 2019<\/a>) and has already been implemented in industrial pilots in the Netherlands and Italy (Simon and Martin, 2019<\/a>). Also for PEF, CR via glycolysis has already been demonstrated to be feasible (Gabirondo et al., 2021<\/a>). Avantium is investigating technologies to chemically recycle PEF, amongst them glycolysis (de Jong et al., 2022<\/a>; Sipos and Olson, 2013<\/a>). There are initial LCAs for the glycolysis of PET (Lindgreen and Bergsma, 2018<\/a>; Shen et al., 2010<\/a>), but these do not assess multiple recycling trips even though such an analysis could highlight the advantages of CR technologies in terms of higher recycling yields and better quality of recyclates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A lack of understanding of the impact of EoL options could hamper the transition to a circular (bio)economy in plastics value chains and lead to incomplete (life cycle) assessments of the overall climate benefit of bio-based compared to fossil plastics. While a bio-based plastic might have a lower global warming potential (GWP) than a fossil competitor in production, this advantage might be (partly) counterbalanced by worse performance in the EoL. Technical barriers or contaminations caused by bio-based plastics could hamper their integration into existing recycling systems (Alaerts et al., 2018<\/a>). Simultaneously, a separate collection and treatment of bio-based plastics is economically challenging due to their current small market shares (Carus and Dammer, 2018<\/a>). These issues could prevent the recycling of bio-based plastics or allow fewer or lower quality recycling trips compared to their fossil competitors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We want to address these challenges and identify the cradle-to-grave climate impact of different waste management cases in the Netherlands for a small (250 mL) plastic bottle made from bio-based PEF compared to fossil-based PET, including the effects of multiple recycling trips. By complementing this with an analysis of the material utility, we want to identify and discuss potential trade-offs between circular economy and climate change mitigation goals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With this work we provide the first comprehensive end-of-life assessment for bio-based PEF and, to our knowledge, the first LCA that considers multiple recycling trips for bio-based plastics. Moreover, we propose complementary indicators for LCAs that allow for analysing trade-offs and synergies between material utility or circularity and conventional LCA impact categories such as GWP.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We focus on the Netherlands as this is one of the potential initial target markets of Avantium’s PEF bottles, after signing bottle offtake agreements with Refresco, a bottling company located in the Netherlands, and Resilux, a Belgian preform and bottle producer (Avantium, 2021<\/a>). Furthermore, waste management data is well available for this country. The Netherlands recently introduced a deposit system for the more than 900 million small plastic bottles sold every year (Rijksoverheid, 2020<\/a>), which we compare to the previous collection systems. This study is complementary to an LCA conducted by Puente and Stratmann (2022)<\/a>, which provides a detailed assessment of PEF bottles compared to PET bottles, including only one simplified EoL scenario. This study adds a more thorough analysis of the EoL by analyzing the impact of different Dutch waste management cases over multiple recycling trips.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We assessed the GWP of PEF and PET systems, following the LCA methodology laid out in the ISO standards 14040 and 14044 (ISO, 2006b<\/a>, 2006a<\/a>), using the LCA software SimaPro (version 9.1.0.11) and the Ecoinvent database version 3.7 for background data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We aim to quantify the potential global warming impacts of 250 mL fossil-based PET and bio-based PEF bottles including four different waste management cases for the Netherlands (see also Fig. 1<\/a>), being:A.<\/p>\n\n\n\n the waste management system for small plastic bottles in the Netherlands until 2021, based on post-separation, source-separation, MR and incineration with energy recovery (ER).B.<\/p>\n\n\n\n a waste collection predominantly based on a deposit system combined with MR and ER.C.<\/p>\n\n\n\n a waste collection predominantly based on a deposit system combined with CR and ER.D.<\/p>\n\n\n\n a non-circular scenario, assuming the complete incineration of the bottles with energy recovery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The functional unit of this study is a<\/em> 250 mL monolayer plastic bottle designed for single-use, providing minimum shelf life of at least 12 weeks for carbonated soft drinks<\/em>. The monolayer PET bottle fulfilling this function should weigh 24 g, and the monolayer PEF bottle weighs 13 g, according to calculations of Avantium, and substantiated by literature review, and feedback of industry experts (Puente and Stratmann, 2021<\/a>, 2022<\/a>). The weights were calculated based on the gas permeability values and material strength of the polymers, assuming no barrier-enhancing additives were used, and that ideal stretch ratios were gained during bottle blowing. The sensitivity of the results to the bottle weights was assessed in Appendix B<\/a>. Due to superior barrier properties, the shelf life of the PEF bottle extends to more than 20 weeks (Puente and Stratmann, 2021<\/a>, 2022<\/a>). This functional unit is in line with the LCA of Puente and Stratmann (2022)<\/a>and represents one of the potential initial target markets of Avantium’s PEF bottles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The LCA has a scope from cradle-to-grave with a strong focus on EoL, following the goal of the study. The waste treatment cases are in the foreground analysis. The impacts of bottle production (cradle-to-gate), assessed in an LCA of nova-institute (Puente and Stratmann, 2021<\/a>, 2022<\/a>), were taken as the background system in our analysis. Due to our focus on the material flows of PEF and PET, we exclude the bottle’s caps, neck rings, and labels since we assume they can be identical in PET and PEF bottles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We cover the production of PET bottles from petrochemical feedstock and PEF bottles from bio-based feedstocks from cradle-to-gate, using results of existing assessments (Puente and Stratmann, 2022<\/a>, 2021<\/a>; CPME, 2017<\/a>). Fig. 2<\/a>, Fig. 3<\/a>provide an overview of the bottle production. Potential emissions from the use phase are excluded because the impacts are considered negligible and comparable between PET and PEF bottles. However, the shelf-life difference between both bottles is addressed when discussing the material utility of both bottle types for multiple recycling trips.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We cover the EoL of the plastic bottles, consisting of collection, sorting, and waste treatment, including the transportation within and between the EoL stages. We distinguish between four waste management cases (see Fig. 1<\/a>) for PEF and PET bottles. These cases differ in collection & sorting methods (post-consumer separation from municipal solid waste (MSW), source separation, and deposit system), recycling technologies (MR and CR), and the corresponding differences in the amount and quality of the recycled material. We assume that all bottles are eventually collected and ignore the impacts of littering plastic bottles. In the Netherlands, post-consumer plastic packaging waste collection differs by municipality. An assessment by Brouwer et al. (2019)<\/a> estimates that in 2017 38% of Dutch post-consumer plastic packaging waste was collected separately at the source, and 62% ended up in MSW. 19% of the MSW fraction is sent to material recovery facilities for sorting, with the rest being sent to incineration plants (M. Brouwer et al., 2019<\/a>). We assume the same collection rates for the small PET and PEF bottles. The mass flows of all processes are displayed in Fig. 1<\/a> and described in Section 2.2.3<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Overall, baseline case A has a high share of incineration with energy recovery (67%) and a mechanical recycling rate of 33%. The term recycling rate is used differently in literature, often referring to the plastics sent to recycling. We define the recycling rate as the net weight of recycled material divided by the net weight of collected material. Our recycling rate is thus the product of the sorting efficiency and the efficiency of the recycling process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In July 2021, the Netherlands introduced a deposit system for plastic bottles smaller than 0.5 L (Rijksoverheid, 2020<\/a>). We assume that 85% of the small PET and PEF bottles will be collected via a deposit system in waste management cases B and C, based on a prognosis for the Netherlands (Schalkwijk and Mulder, 2011<\/a>) and a study of the relationship between the collection rate and the deposit amount (Hogg et al., 2015<\/a>). The remaining 15% are assumed to be collected in the same ratio as in case A. Case B continues with the MR of the plastic bottles, now achieving a higher recycling rate and higher plastic quality compared to Case A due to the introduced deposit system. In contrast, Case C uses CR for the plastic bottles collected via the deposit system. The remaining bottles in the CR case are mechanically recycled or incinerated in the same ratio as in case A. Case D assumes that all plastic bottles are collected along with the mixed municipal solid waste and then directly sent to ER. The mass and energy balances for the waste management cases in Fig. 1<\/a> are described in the inventory, chapter 2.2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n You may read the full article unter https:\/\/www.sciencedirect.com\/science\/article\/pii\/S095965262300584X<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Abstract Biomass use and recycling are among the few options to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the growing plastics sector. The bio-based plastic polyethylene furanoate (PEF) is a promising alternative to polyethylene terephthalate (PET), in particular for small bottle applications. For the first time, we assessed the life cycle global warming potential (GWP) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":59,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","nova_meta_subtitle":"Recent results show that deposit-based recycling systems significantly reduce the cumulative cradle-to-grave net GHG emissions for both bottle types","footnotes":""},"categories":[17143],"tags":[17202,10416,7105,13465,14007,11966,10453],"supplier":[4,16507,1312],"class_list":["post-123338","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-recycling","tag-chemicalrecycling","tag-circulareconomy","tag-packaging","tag-pef","tag-pet","tag-plastics","tag-recycling","supplier-nova-institut-gmbh","supplier-sweco-nl","supplier-utrecht-university-nl"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123338","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/59"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=123338"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123338\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123338"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123338"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123338"},{"taxonomy":"supplier","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supplier?post=123338"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}1. Introduction<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
2. Materials & methods<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
2.1. LCA goal & scope definition<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
2.1.1. Goal<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/a>2.1.2. Functional unit<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
2.1.3. Product systems<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n