Though bioplastics are widely regarded as safer alternatives to conventional plastics, research has revealed that they can leach potentially toxic chemicals, hence posing a risk to both water and land-based life3<\/a>,4<\/a><\/sup>. For example, Reay et al.5<\/a><\/sup>showed that biodegradable mulch films have higher organic additives (76.1\u2009mg\/m2<\/sup>) than LDPE films (36.7\u2009mg\/m2<\/sup>). Most of this, 53\u2009mg\/m2<\/sup>, was made up of unidentified compounds, and therefore, more toxic effects were likely. Thus, biodegradable plastics were shown to have the ability to leach more additives into the soil than conventional LDPE films. Crema et al.6<\/a><\/sup> conducted a study on the toxicity of polylactic acid (PLA) and polybutylene Succinate (PBS)-based bioplastics to identify their impact on seed germination. It was found that although the PLA and PBS-based leachates had no significant effect on seed germination, they affected root and shoot elongation. In another investigation, Wen et al.7<\/a><\/sup> found that biodegradable microplastics (MPs) were cytotoxic to human liver and vascular endothelial cells, with PLA being the most cytotoxic and PGA being the least cytotoxic. The research also proved that biodegradable MPs were internalized by THP-1 macrophage cells, which subsequently can interfere with normal cellular functions and signaling pathways, thereby having long-term physiological effects. Such findings raise questions about the actual fate and impacts of bioplastics in the environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Beyond toxicity concerns, another critical issue arises when bioplastic waste accumulates in landfills or natural systems. It may take years to degrade fully; some bioplastics do not undergo complete degradation, resulting in the formation of MPs8<\/a><\/sup>. The introduction of MPs presents a significant environmental concern since the small fragments have already been found to cause harm to the environment and human well-being9<\/a><\/sup>. Another environmental risk with plastics is the potential formation of disinfection byproducts (DBPs) during their interaction with disinfectants used in water treatment processes10<\/a><\/sup>. Literature shows that certain bioplastics, most notably PLA, leach dissolved organic carbon (DOC) during ageing10<\/a><\/sup>. This DOC is reactive with chlorine and other oxidants used in water and wastewater treatment and can serve as a precursor pool for regulated DBPs in the aquatic environment. It is well known that DBPs can cause adverse health effects, but their formation risk from bioplastics is not well understood. The understanding of DBPs formation risks, along with their environmental and health impacts, is important for evaluating the overall impact of bioplastics on the environment. Collectively, these three emerging threads, chemical leaching, particle release, and oxidation by-products, suggest that bioplastics should be studied in detail for their downstream hazards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Given these emerging concerns, the purpose of this review is to consolidate current knowledge and critically evaluate the environmental implications of bioplastics from multiple perspectives. Although interest in bioplastics is surging, their integrative assessments remain scarce. Existing reviews typically treat biodegradation, leachate toxicity, or recycling in isolation, leaving two critical questions under-explored: How likely are bioplastics to form DBPs? And what is their contribution to a circular economy when the full life cycle is considered? As bioplastics production volumes soar and their applications span everything from food packaging to agricultural films, answering these questions has become necessary. To address this existing knowledge gap, this review is organized around three interconnected thematic pillars: (i) the degradation pathways of bioplastics and their potential to generate microplastics, (ii) the chemical leaching behavior and DBP formation potential, and (iii) the life cycle impacts and integration into the circular economy. To our knowledge, this is the first review to simultaneously and systematically synthesize evidence on micro- and nanoplastic formation, DBP formation potential, and life-cycle assessment (LCA) outcomes for major commercial bioplastics within a single integrative framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Each pillar is critically examined in a self-contained manner to offer a holistic assessment of the environmental performance of bioplastics. Alongside these pillars, we compile toxicological evidence on human- and eco-health effects and critically evaluate emerging regulatory and certification frameworks that shape market claims and end-of-life management. Furthermore, the review critiques current waste management and recycling infrastructures, which are often ill-equipped to manage bioplastics effectively. This review offers insights and recommendations for researchers, policymakers, and industry stakeholders seeking to advance the responsible and sustainable deployment of bioplastics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Understanding the environmental benefits of bioplastics requires clarity in classification, as terms like \u201cbio-based,\u201d \u201cdegradable,\u201d \u201cbiodegradable,\u201d and \u201ccompostable\u201d are frequently misunderstood. For example, bio-based is not the same as biodegradable: bio-PE is produced from renewable feedstocks, so it is bio-based, yet it behaves like conventional polyethylene and is not readily biodegradable. These distinctions are critical for accurately assessing bioplastics\u2019 impact and determining their role in sustainable waste management (Fig. 1<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n (Bio-PE: bio-based polyethylene PA 11: polyamide 11 Bio-PET: bio-based polyethylene terephthalate PEF: polyethylene furanoate PET: polyethylene terephthalate PE: polyethylene PVC: polyvinyl chloride PS: polystyrene PP: polypropylene PC: polycarbonate ABS: acrylonitrile butadiene styrene PU: polyurethane PBAT: polybutylene adipate terephthalate PCL: polycaprolactone PBS: polybutylene succinate PLA: polylactic acid PHA: polyhydroxyalkanoates).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Degradable plastics include all types of plastics, including fossil-based traditional ones, that can break down into smaller fragments and powders over time9<\/a>,11<\/a><\/sup>. This degradation, however, does not imply that the material returns to nature, as these fragments can persist as MPs. Additives, for instance, in oxo-degradable and photodegradable plastics, can accelerate degradation under heat and light exposure but will still leave non-biodegradable residues9<\/a>,12<\/a>,13<\/a>,14<\/a><\/sup>. Biodegradable plastics, meanwhile, can degrade into carbon dioxide, water, and biomass via microbial processes under specific conditions, typically in weeks to months15<\/a>,16<\/a>,17<\/a><\/sup>. However, not all bioplastics exhibit this behavior; some are designed for durability and are not easily degradable, potentially qualifying as non-biodegradable if they resist microbial degradation. Finally, compostable plastics, a subset of biodegradable plastics, are those that biodegrade in composting conditions, breaking down in synchrony with other organic matter and without toxic residue18<\/a>,19<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\nClassification: Degradable, Biodegradable, and Compostable<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
![\"Fig.](\"https:\/\/media.springernature.com\/lw685\/springer-static\/image\/art%3A10.1038%2Fs44296-026-00096-w\/MediaObjects\/44296_2026_96_Fig1_HTML.png\")
<\/a>