Life Cycle Management in bioplastics production Francesco Degli - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1

Life Cycle Management in bioplastics production

Francesco Degli Innocenti1, Francesco Razza1, Maurizio Fieschi2, Catia Bastioli1

1 Novamont S.p.A. Italy 2 Studio Fieschi, Italy

2

Why bioplastics?

• Waste production is increasing at a fast rate
• Use of renewable resources is encouraged,

whenever possible (global warming)

• Bio-based and biodegradable polymers are

considered a promising solution

3

Biodegradable products already exist…

4

Traditional vs biodegradable & biobased products?

• Not necessarily. The advantage of one class
• r the other depends very much on the

framework

• When are biopolymers and bio-products of

benefit?

5

LCA is applied to compare products

• The question generally asked is:

are the biodegradable and biobased products better than the traditional ones from an environmental viewpoint?

6

An example

• Catering meals with disposable cutlery: is

biodegradability and compostability of cutlery an advantage?

7

Introduction

• We have carried out a preliminary study on

disposable cutlery used in fast food restaurants, canteens and town festivals.

• Disposable tableware is more and more

distributed for reasons of simplification

• As a consequence there is the generation of

huge amount of waste

8

Scope of the study

• The main scope was to evaluate the

environmental consequences of using different disposable cutlery in fast food restaurants, town festivals etc.

• Different cutlery allows different waste

treatment systems

9

Current scenario

10

Plastic foam Plastic cutlery Plastic or coated paper mug Food scraps

11

• the at source separate waste collection is a

very difficult option in fast food restaurants and town festivals

12

An heterogeneous waste is generated.

• Plastic waste: plastic cutlery, dishes, plastic
• r laminated paper cups, foam polystyrene

containers, etc.

+

• Food waste: kitchen and guests leftovers

expired food, etc.

13

The heterogeneous waste cannot be recycled

• the food waste is biodegradable and

compostable

• the plastic tableware is not biodegradable

and compostable

• the mixed heterogeneous waste is

eventually landfilled and/or incinerated.

14

Alternative scenario

15

• A very interesting alternative is to only use

tableware that is biodegradable and compostable (B&C), similarly to the food scraps.

16

B&C foam B&C cutlery B&C mug Food scraps

17

An homogeneous waste is generated

• B&C plastic waste
• Food waste

Both fractions are compostable and can be collected as a whole homogeneous fraction

18

The homogeneous waste can be recycled

• by means of organic recovery, i.e.

composting or anaerobic digestion followed by composting. Compost is a valuable soil improver.

19

The Study

20

Functional Unit

• serving 1000 meals, which generates 150 kg
• rganic waste (on average 0,150 kg/meal)

with the use of 1000 sets of disposable cutlery

21

mass (kg) Material fork +knife packaginga Organic waste Mater-Bi (YI) 15,70 1,4 150 Polycarbonate (PC) 13,68 1,2 150 General Purpose Polystyrene (GPPS) 11,78 1,2 150

a Mater-Bi cutlery packaging is made with a biodegradable Mater-Bi NF type film; in all the

• ther cases the packaging is made with polypropylene.

Functional Unit

22

CURRENT SCENARIO

• serving 1000 meals using traditional plastic

cutlery

• collecting the total waste in a single

heterogeneous stream

• disposing the waste by means of landfilling

and incineration with energy recovery

23

stream % LANDFILL

84

INCINERATION

16

MEAL PRODUCTION PC/GPPS granule production monouse cutlery production Electricity mix Italy+ import

T T

meal consumption Waste TREATMENT Electricity mix

• f different

european countries wrapping PP granule production PP film production raw material production

Electricity production Heat production

raw material production meal production meal distribution

T

crude oil NOT INCLUDED IN THE SYSTEM

PHASES NOT INCLUDED ENVIRONMENTAL CREDITS T TRANSPORT NOT INCLUDED

WASTE (traditional plastic cutlery +organic fraction)

24

ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO

• serving 1000 meals using compostable

disposable cutlery (Mater-Bi Y, a material containing a cellulose-based constituent and starch)

• collecting the total waste in a single

homogeneous stream

• composting

25

MEAL PRODUCTION Mater-Bi granule production monouse cutlery production

T T

meal consumption Electricity mix Italy + import wrapping Mater-Bi granule production film production raw material production raw material production meal production meal distribution

T

raw material 1 production NOT INCLUDED IN THE SYSTEM

PHASES NOT INCLUDED ENVIRONMENTAL CREDITS

COMPOSTING

Compost use

T TRANSPORT NOT INCLUDED

WASTE (compostable cutlery +organic fraction) raw material 2 production raw material n production

……

26

Results

27

Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) data referring to the treatment of 150 kg organic waste. Two different fates are compared:

• 1. Landfill after stabilisation and incineration

in an 84:16 ratio (corresponding to the current situation in Italy).

• 2. Composting

28

LCIA results of different organic waste treatment

• ptions (food leftovers produced by serving 1000 meals)

Impact category Unit Composting with compost credits* Landfill** (84%) and incineration***(16%) Acidifying compounds molH+/g,max eq.

• 1,97

1,28 Eutrophicating comp. g O2/g,max eq.

• 831

2790 Greenhouse gases kg CO2 eq.

• 26,5

11,1 Ozone depleting gases kg CFC-11 eq.

• 9E-07

4,8E-07 Photochemical ozone kg C2H4 eq

• 0,00018

0,000191 Solid waste kg

• 9,26

Resources en non ren MJ

• 912

60,8

*: Carbon sequestration, savings of N,P and K (as fertilizers), increasing water holding capacity; ** Biogas capturing = 55%; *** Energy recovery (net yield=16% of the calorific value of the feedstock material);

29

“Cradle to grave” LCIA results of two scenarios

• B&C cutlery is composted together with

the organic waste.

• The cutlery made with traditional plastics is

disposed of with the organic waste according to the Italian scenario (landfill 84%, incineration with energy recovery 16%).

30

PC=polycarbonate; GPPS=general Purpose Polystyrene

Cutlery type Waste treatment

Impact category

Unit Mater-Bi composting PC Landfill & incineration GPPS Landfill & incineration

Acidifying compounds

molH+/g,max eq.

5,85 16,38 11,25 Eutrophicating compounds

g O2/g,max eq.

789 4945 4207 Greenhouse gases

kg CO2 eq.

22,1 110,3 64,2 Ozone depleting gases

kg CFC-11 eq

0,00000765 0,0000025 0,0000021 Photochemical

• zone

creation

kg C2H4 eq.

0,0057 0,0275 0,0022 Solid waste

Kg

0,25 24,5 21,3 Resources_en_non ren_MJ

MJ

128 2081 1491

Total impact

31

Non renewable energy (MJ) produced by serving 1000 meals either with B&C or with traditional plastic cutlery

• 1500
• 1000
• 500

500 1000 1500 2000 2500

biodegradable and compostable cutlery PC cutlery GPPS cutlery MJ

cutlery

• rganic fraction

total

32

Greenhouse gases produced by serving 1000 meals either with B&C or with traditional plastic cutlery.

• 40
• 20

20 40 60 80 100 120

biodegradable and compostable cutlery PC cutlery GPPS cutlery kg CO2 eq.

cutlery

• rganic fraction

total

33 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% A c i d i f y i n g c

• m

p

• u

n d s E u t r

• p

h i c a t i n g c

• m

p

• u

n d s G r e e n h

• u

s e g a s e s O z

• n

e d e p l e t i n g g a s e s P h

• t
• c

h e m i c a l

• z
• n

e c r e a t i

• n

S

• l

i d w a s t e R e s

• u

r c e s _ e n _ n

• n

r e n _ M J Waste management scenario: landfill 84% incineration 16% Waste management scenario: landfill 50% incineration 50%

Sensitivity analysis to verify the effect of a higher incidence of incineration with energy recovery. (scenario: 50% landfill and 50% incineration)

34

Conclusions

35

Composting is the favourite treatment of

• rganic waste.
• Organic waste is rather wet ( “humid fraction”).

The high water content reduces the net calorific

• value. Landfilling of organic fraction is conducive
• f biogas formation
• On the other hand, composting is a real form of

recycling of the organic fraction with the creation

• f a product whose use is particularly beneficial

for the environment .

36

The study shows that:

• The B&C cutlery has a good environmental

profile

37

The environmental performance of the B&C cutlery can be further on improved

• n condition that:
• 1. the mass per item (fork, knife, and spoon)

is decreased, thanks to an improved design;

• 2. the renewable fraction is increased
• 3. the environmental impact of the cellulose

processing phase is decreased thanks to improved green chemistry technologies.

38

The substantial environmental effect:

• the use of compostable cutlery makes it

possible to collect the mixed waste as a whole, homogeneous fraction, which can be recycled through composting or anaerobic digestion followed by aerobic stabilisation.

39

• Two fractions which otherwise cannot be

recycled can be effectively recycled and this is the substantial environmental advantage the substantial environmental advantage which the present study has quantified.

40

Comparison between products

The risk is to put under the microscope the single product, forgetting the interactions with the system and how the product would fit in an improved future scenario.

41

Many thanks for your attention!