life cycle impact assessment of bioplastic containers and petroleum based containers
TRANSCRIPT
National Science FoundationIndustry & University Cooperative Research Center
Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Bioplastic Containers and Petroleum based Containers
Melissa Montalbo-Lomboy
3rd Annual Bioplastics Container Cropping Systems Conference
CB2
OUTLINE:
Introduction to LCA Part 1: Cradle-to-gate models
Goal, Scope of study, system boundaries, assumptions Life cycle inventory Impact Assessment Results
Part 2: Cradle-to-grave models (partial results) Goal, Scope of study, system boundaries, assumptions Life cycle inventory Impact Assessment Results
Summary
2
CB2
INTRODUCTION: LCA
3
Life Cycle Assessment – tool used to determine the environmental impact of a product, process or service.
ISO 14040:2006 – standard for LCA LCA compares environmental performance of
products in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, pollution generation, waste generation, energy consumption, water consumption and other resource consumption.
www.scienceinthebox.com
CB2
INTRODUCTION: Parts of an LCA
STEP 1: Define goals and scope of study Define assumptions Define system boundaries
STEP 2: Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)
Catalogs all the various material, energy and water inputs needed to produce the system
Inventories the emissions and waste generated in the process
4http://www.greenspec.co.uk/life-cycle-assessment-lca/
CB2
INTRODUCTION: Parts of an LCA
5
Step 3: Impact Assessment Assess the environmental impacts from the life cycle
inventory (LCI). Impact assessment method
- TRACI (Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts) by the EPA
- CML-IA and Eco-indicator 99(developed by Leiden University, Netherlands)
- ILCD (International reference Life Cyle Data system) developed by European Commission Joint Research Center
Impact categories
- global warming potential, eutrophication potential, acidification potential, human health particulates air, non-renewable energy usage
Step 4: Interpretation of Results Evaluates the reliability of the
LCA results Sensitivity Analysis Scenario Analysis
CB2
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
To develop a cradle-to-gate life cycle impact assessment of various bioplastic containers and compare it to commonly used petroleum based containers.
To study the various end-of-life scenarios of a cradle-to-grave life cycle impact assessment of petroleum based and bioplastic plant containers.
6
CB2
PART 1: CRADLE-TO-GATE MODELS
7
CB2
GOAL OF THE LCA STUDY
8
To determine the environmental impact of various bioplastic container used in horticulture applications.
The environmental performance is compared to that of a commercially used polypropylene container.
CB2
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
9
Cradle-to-gate study: PP containers: extraction of petroleum injection molding of plant containers Bioplastic containers: planting and harvesting injection molding of plant containers
Functional unit: 100 plant containers
Different weight based on the actual prototype Same weight based on the average weight of all the containers tested
Impact Categories: TRACI 2.1 impact characterization method Global warming potential, Eutrophication potential, Acidification potential, Fossil Fuel
Resources, Human Health Particulates Air
CB2
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
10
Gabi LCA Software:
• Commercial LCA software developed by ThinkStep in Germany
Databases:
• Gabi database• NREL (National Renewable Energy Lab) LCI database• Published Literatures• Communications with the Industry
CB2
LCA Model Assumptions
11
Formulations(per plant container)
Weight (g)(Different weight)
Weight (g)(Same weight)
1. Polypropylene (PP) 26.9 38
2. Polylactic Acid (PLA 100) 39 38
3. PLA-Soy Protein Adipic (PLA-SPA (60-40)) 41.2 38
4. PLA-Neroplast (PLA-Lignin (90-10)) 39.4 38
5. PLA-BioRes DDGS (PLA-BioRes (80-20)) 40.7 38
6. PLA-lignin-Polyamide (PLA-Lignin-PAM(85-10-5)) 39.4 38
7. PLA-SPA-BioRes (50-30-20) 41.9 38
8. Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA 100) 39.3 38
9. PHA-Distillers Dried Grains (PHA-DDGS (80-20)) 39.3 38
10. Paper Fiber 30.1 38
11. Paper Fiber coated with Polyurethane 32.8 38
CB2
SYSTEM BOUNDARIES – PP plant containers
12
Manufacture of Polypropylene
GranulateTransportation Injection Molding
Process and Cooling water
Electricity
Energy
Materials and Other Chemicals
Emissions
Energy Usage
CB2
SYSTEM BOUNDARIES – Bioplastic plant containers
13
Manufacture of Material 1
Transpor-tation
Injection Molding
Process and Cooling water
Electricity
Energy
Materials and Other Chemicals
Emissions
Energy Usage
Manufacture of Material 2
Transpor-tation
Extrusion/Compoun-
ding
CB2
ASSUMPTIONS
14
Transportation:
• All raw materials are assumed to be transported using a diesel driven truck with a 3.3 tons payload capacity and travelled a distance of 300 miles.
Process and cooling water:
• It is assumed that they were obtained from groundwater and treated using ion exchange process. • Extrusion – 40 kg per 1 kg compounded pellets; Injection molding – 1 kg per container
Electricity – extrusion and injection molding:
• It represents the average U.S. electricity supplied to final consumers. It includes electricity produced in energy carrier specific power plants or combined heat and power plants. • Extrusion – 2.33 MJ/kg compounded pellets; Injection molding – 4.89 MJ/kg pellets
CB2
SOURCES OF LCI
15
References:1. Electricity Gabi database2. Water and cooling water Gabi database3. Diesel for transportation Gabi database4. PLA – Ingeo Gabi database – Nature Works dataset5. PHA – Metabolix Kim and Dale (2005) 6. Soy Meal Dalgaard, et al. (2008)7. Soy Protein Isolate Dupont – LCA8. Lignin – Neroplast Communication with New Polymer Systems Inc.9. Paper Fiber Gabi database 10. Polyurethane coating Gabi database11. BioRes and DDGS NREL database12. Polyamide Gabi database
CB2
RESULTS:
16
100 plant containers Global Warming Potential(kg CO2 equiv.)
Fossil Fuels Resources(MJ)
Different Wt Same Wt Different Wt Same Wt
1. Polypropylene 9.173 12.749 31.617 44.317
2. PLA 100 10.053 9.804 20.312 19.802
3. PLA-SPA (60-40) 12.454 11.529 20.539 18.987
4. PLA-Lignin (90-10) 11.319 10.929 22.024 21.256
5. PLA-BioRes (80-20) 12.140 11.366 20.908 19.553
6. PLA-Lignin-PAM(85-10-5) 12.761 12.319 24.698 23.834
7. PLA-SPA-BioRes (50-30-20) 10.369 9.443 17.994 16.362
8. PHA 100 11.647 11.281 262.872 254.196
9. PHA-DDGS (80-20) 12.723 12.322 213.683 206.634
10. Paper Fiber 2.819 3.559 5.491 6.932
11. Paper Fiber coated with Polyurethane 3.667 4.248 7.972 9.236
lowest highest
CB2
RESULTS:
17
100 plant containers Acidification Potential(kg SO2 equiv.)
Eutrophication Potential(kg N-equiv.)
Human Health Particulate(kg PM2.5-equiv.)
Different Wt Same Wt Different Wt Same Wt Different Wt Same Wt
1. Polypropylene 0.0226 0.0314 0.0013 0.0017 0.0016 0.0022
2. PLA 100 0.0556 0.0542 0.0057 0.0056 0.0039 0.0038
3. PLA-SPA (60-40) 0.0819 0.0757 0.0045 0.0041 0.0035 0.0033
4. PLA-Lignin (90-10) 0.0633 0.0611 0.0060 0.0058 0.0045 0.0043
5. PLA-BioRes (80-20) 0.0679 0.0635 0.0069 0.0065 0.0048 0.0045
6. PLA-Lignin-PAM(85-10-5) 0.0733 0.0708 0.0093 0.0089 0.0053 0.0051
7. PLA-SPA-BioRes (50-30-20) 0.0766 0.0696 0.0052 0.0047 0.0036 0.0033
8. PHA 100 0.2206 0.2133 0.0070 0.0067 NA NA
9. PHA-DDGS (80-20) 0.1953 0.1889 0.0075 0.0073 NA NA
10. Paper Fiber 0.0055 0.0069 0.0021 0.0026 0.0002 0.0002
11. Paper Fiber coated with Polyurethane 0.0150 0.0174 0.0025 0.0029 0.0008 0.0010
lowest highest
No data for PHA prod’n
CB2
IMPACT CONTRIBUTIONS: GWP
18
100.0%
3.2% 1.9% 0.3% 25.9%
68.7%
0%20%40%60%80%
100%120%
Impa
ct C
ontr
ibut
ions
(%) PP - GWP
100.0%
8.3% 0.4%
-4.1%
47.4%
0.1%
47.9%
0.05%
-20%0%
20%40%60%80%
100%120%
Impa
ct C
ontr
ibut
ions
(%) PHA-DDGS (80-20) - GWP
100.0%
13.6%8.3% 0.3%
42.1%
-12.3%
0.05%
47.9%
-20%0%
20%40%60%80%
100%120%
Impa
ct C
ontr
ibut
ions
(%) PLA-Lignin-PAM(85-10-5) - GWP
PHA Wet milling (1 kg CO2 / kg PHA) Fermentation (3.2 kg CO2 / kg PHA)
PLA Lactic acid prod’n(1.6 kg CO2 / kg PLA) Lactide prod’n(0.54 kg CO2 / kg PLA)
CB2
IMPACT CONTRIBUTION: Fossil Fuel Resources
19
Process Water
1%
Diesel1%
Electricity6%
PP92%
PP - FFR
PAM14%
Process water
5%
PLA61%
Lignin2% Diesel
0.34%
Electricity18%
PLA-Lignin-PAM(85-10-5) - FFR
Process water0.55%
DDGS0.22%
PHA97.10%
Diesel0.05%
Electricity2.08%
Thermal Energy
0.0004%
PHA-DDGS (80-20) - FFR
PHA Fermentation – over
60% contribution High electricity
consumption
PLA Lactic acid prod’n(19.4 MJ / kg PLA) Lactide prod’n(9.5 MJ / kg PLA)
CB2
RANKING: Same Weight Containers
20
Global Warming Potential • 1. PLA-SPA-
BioRes (50-30-20)
• 2. PLA 100• 3. PLA-Lignin
(90-10)
Fossil Fuel Resources• 1. PLA-SPA-
BioRes (50-30-20)
• 2. PLA-SPA (60-40)
• 3. PLA-BioRes (80-20)
Acidification Potential• 1. PLA 100• 2. PLA-
Lignin (90-10)
• 3. PLA-BioRes (80-20)
Eutrophication Potential• 1. PLA-SPA
(60-40)• 2. PLA-
SPA-BioRes (50-30-20)
• 3. PLA 100
Human Health Particulate• 1. PLA-
SPA-BioRes (50-30-20)
• 2. PLA-SPA (60-40)
• 3. PLA 100
CB2
SUMMARY: Cradle-to-gate (Part 1)
The difference in weight of containers provided an advantage to PP in all category except for fossil fuel resources.
PP had lower impact compared to bioplastic formulation in Acidification Potential, Eutrophication Potential and Human Health Particulates.
Best bioplastic formulations – PLA-SPA-BioRes (50-30-20)
21
CB2
PART 2: CRADLE-TO-GRAVE MODELS(Partial Results)
22
CB2
GOAL OF THE LCA STUDY
23
To determine the environmental impact of various end of life scenarios on bioplastic plant containers.
The environmental performance is compared to that of a commercially used polypropylene container.
CB2
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
24
Cradle-to-grave study: PP containers: extraction of petroleum end-of-life of plant containers Bioplastic containers: planting and harvesting end-of-life of plant containers
Functional unit: 100 plant containers
Same weight based on the average weight of all the containers tested
Impact Categories: TRACI 2.1 impact characterization method Global warming potential, Eutrophication potential, Acidification potential, Fossil Fuel
Resources, Human Health Particulates Air
CB2
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
25
Gabi LCA Software: •Commercial LCA software developed by ThinkStep in Germany
Databases:•Gabi database•NREL (National Renewable Energy Lab) LCI database•Published Literatures•Communications with the Industry
CB2
ASSUMPTIONS
26
Transportation:
• All raw materials are assumed to be transported using a diesel driven truck with a 3.3 tons payload capacity and travelled a distance of 300 miles.
Process and cooling water:
• It is assumed that they were obtained from groundwater and treated using ion exchange process. • Extrusion – 40 kg per 1 kg compounded pellets; Injection molding – 1 kg per container
Electricity – extrusion and injection molding:
• It represents the average U.S. electricity supplied to final consumers. It includes electricity produced in energy carrier specific power plants or combined heat and power plants. • Extrusion – 2.33 MJ/kg compounded pellets; Injection molding – 4.89 MJ/kg pellets
CB2
LCA Model Assumptions
27
Formulations(per plant container)
Weight (g)(Same weight)
1. Polypropylene 38
2. PLA 100 38
3. PLA-SPA (50-50) 38
4. PHA-DDGS (80-20) 38
5. PLA-lignin(80-20) 38
6. PLA-DDGS (80-20) 38
7. PHA-lignin (80-20) 38
8. Paper Fiber Uncoated 38
9. Recycled PLA 38
CB2
END-OF-LIFE OPTIONS
28Hsein and Tan (2010) Environmental impacts of conventional plastic and biobased carrier bags Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 15:338-345.
Kratsch, et al. (2015) Performance and biodegradation in soil of novel horticulture containers made from bioplastics and biocomposites HortTechnology 25(1): 119-131.
Landfill: •Represents U.S. specific landfilling of plastic waste
Incineration:•Represents U.S. industry average technology for incineration of municipal solid waste•Generates electricity and steam from the thermal energy in the combustion of the waste•Use the electricity in injection molding
Composting:
•Composting degradation data from Dr. Schrader’s experiment•Emissions data from Hsein and Tan (2010)
Remain in Soil:
•Soil degradation data from Kratsch, et al. (2015)•The rest of the undegraded plastic will remain in soil
CB2
SOURCES OF LCI
29
References:1. Electricity Gabi database2. Water and cooling water Gabi database3. Diesel for transportation Gabi database4. PLA – Ingeo Gabi database – Nature Works dataset5. PHA – Metabolix Kim and Dale (2005) 6. Soy Meal Dalgaard, et al. (2008)7. Soy Protein Isolate Dupont – LCA8. DDGS NREL database9. Landfilling Gabi database 10. Incineration Gabi database11. Composting Schrader, et al.; Hsein and Tan12. Soil Degradation Kratsch, et al.
CB2
SYSTEM BOUNDARIES – PP plant containers
30
Manufacture of
Polypropylene Granulate
Transpor-tation
Injection Molding
Process and Cooling water
Electricity
Energy
Materials and Other Chemicals
Emis-sions
Energy Usage
Use of Plant
Container
Water and Fertilizer
Soil Degra-dation
Remain in Soil
Landfill
Incinera-tion
Compos-ting
CB2
SYSTEM BOUNDARIES – Bioplastic plant containers
31
Manufacture of Material 1
Injection Molding
Process and Cooling water
Electricity
Energy
Materials and Other Chemicals
Emissions
Energy Usage
Manufacture of Material 2
Extru-sion/Com-poun-ding
Use of Plant
Container
Water and Fertilizer
Soil Degra-dation
Remain in Soil
Landfill
Incinera-tion
Compos-ting
CB2
RESULTS: Global Warming Potential
32
100 plant containers Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 equiv.)Landfill Incineration Composting Remain in Soil
1. Polypropylene 13.1198 15.7507 12.9505 12.9505
2. PLA 100 10.1742 12.8050 10.3725 10.0049
3. PLA-SPA (50-50) 12.9812 14.4226 13.6752 12.8884
4. PHA-DDGS (80-20) 13.5779 14.9985 14.2618 13.4864
Best end-of-life
•Remain in soil•Carbon remains in soil and does not contribute to greenhouse gas
End-of-life options
•Close difference between each other - 0.72%-21.6%
Plant Containers
•PLA 100 has the least GWP impact
CB2
RESULTS: Fossil Fuel Resources
33
100 plant containers Fossil Fuel Resources (MJ)Landfill Incineration Composting Remain in Soil
1. Polypropylene 44.9251 43.9046 44.5856 44.5856
2. PLA 100 20.4098 19.3893 20.0703 20.0703
3. PLA-SPA (50-50) 19.0912 18.5320 18.9052 18.9052
4. PHA-DDGS (80-20) 207.0860 206.5349 206.9027 206.9027
Best end-of-life
•Incineration•Electricity recovery that was supplied to injection molding
End-of-life options
•Close difference between each other - 0.1%-3%
Plant Containers
•PLA-SPA (50-50) has the lowest FFR impact
CB2
IMPACT CONTRIBUTIONS: Global Warming Potential
34
Process water2.58%
Tap water0.84%
Truck1.56%
Diesel0.26%
Electricity12.68%
Incineration26.03%
Nitrogen0.37%
Phosphorus0.00%
PP55.64%
Potassium0.03%
PP-INCINERATION
Process water3.14%
Tap water1.03%
Truck1.89%
Diesel0.32%
Electricity25.46%
Nitrogen0.45%
Phosphorus0.01%
PP 67.67%
Potassium0.04%PP - COMPOSTING Process water
3.14%
Tap water1.03%
Truck1.89%
Diesel0.32%
Electricity25.46%
Nitrogen0.45%
Phosphorus0.01%
PP67.67%
Potassium0.04%
PP - SOIL
Process water3.10%
Tap water1.01%
Truck1.87%
Diesel0.31%
Electricity25.13%
Landfill1.29%
Nitrogen0.45%
Phosphorus0.01%
PP 66.80%
Potassium0.04%
PP-LANDFILL
CB2
IMPACT CONTRIBUTIONS: Global Warming Potential
35
Process water3.99%
Tap water1.31%
Truck0.04%
PLA59.96%
Diesel0.01%
Electricity32.40%
Landfill1.66%
Nitrogen0.58%
Phosphorus0.01%
Potassium0.05%
PLA - LANDFILL
Process water3.17%
Tap water1.04%
Truck0.03%
PLA47.64%
Diesel0.005%
Electricity15.60%
Incineration32.01% Nitrogen
0.46%
Phosphorus0.01%
Potassium0.04%
PLA-INCINERATION
Composting3.54%
Process water3.92%
Tap water1.28%
Truck0.03%
PLA58.81%
Diesel0.01%
Electricity31.78%
Nitrogen0.57%
Phosphorus0.01%
Potassium0.05%
PLA-COMPOSTING
Process water4.06%
Tap water1.33%Truck
0.04%PLA
60.97%
Diesel0.01%
Electricity32.95%
Nitrogen0.59%
Phosphorus0.01%
Potassium0.05%
PLA-SOIL
CB2
SUMMARY: Cradle-to-grave (Part 2)
Based on the current models, the best end-of-life options are Remain in Soil – no GWP emissions for undegraded plastic Incineration – with electricity and steam generation
Based on the current models, the best end-of-life options are PLA 100 and PLA-SPA (50-50) – has the least impact for GWP
and FFR, respectively
36
National Science FoundationIndustry & University Cooperative Research Center
Thank you.QUESTIONS?
CB2
IMPACT CATEGORIES
38
Acidification Potential
• increasing concentration of hydrogen ion within a local environment. They can cause damage to building materials, paints, lakes and rivers.
Eutrophication Potential
• enrichment of an aquatic ecosystem with nutrients that accelerate biological productivity. It has negative impact to freshwater lakes and streams.
Global Warming Potential
• calculation of the potency of greenhouse gases relative to CO2, which an contribute to global warming.
Human Health Particulate
• small particulate matter in ambient air which have the ability to cause negative human health including respiratory illness and death.
Fossil Fuel Resources
• quantifies the depletion of fossil fuel resources.
CB2
RESULTS: Acidification and Eutrophication Potential
39
100 plant containers Acidification Potential (kg SO2- equiv.)
Landfill Incineration Composting Remain in Soil
1. Polypropylene 0.0349 0.0304 0.0322 0.0322
2. PLA 100 0.0578 0.0533 0.0551 0.0551
3. PLA-SPA (50-50) 0.0828 0.0803 0.0814 0.0813
4. PHA-DDGS (80-20) 0.1912 0.1888 0.1899 0.1898
100 plant containers Eutrophication Potential (kg N- equiv.)Landfill Incineration Composting Remain in Soil
1. Polypropylene 0.0032 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022
2. PLA 100 0.0070 0.0060 0.0060 0.0060
3. PLA-SPA (50-50) 0.0045 0.0039 0.0040 0.0040
4. PHA-DDGS (80-20) 0.0083 0.0077 0.0077 0.0077
CB2
RESULTS: Human Health Particulates
40
100 plant containers Human Health Particulate (kg PM-2.5 – equiv.)
Landfill Incineration Composting Remain in Soil
1. Polypropylene 0.0034 0.0027 0.0028 0.0028
2. PLA 100 0.0049 0.0042 0.0044 0.0044
3. PLA-SPA (50-50) 0.0040 0.0036 0.0037 0.0037
4. PHA-DDGS (80-20) 0.0031 0.0027 0.0028 0.0028