This document summarizes the results of a life cycle assessment (LCA) comparing bioplastic containers to petroleum-based containers. The LCA analyzed the environmental impacts from cradle-to-gate and partial cradle-to-grave. For the cradle-to-gate analysis, bioplastics made from PLA, PHA, and various biocomposite formulations were compared to polypropylene containers. The LCA found that the bioplastics generally had higher global warming and fossil fuel impacts than polypropylene, though some formulations like PLA-SPA-BioRes performed better. A partial cradle-to-grave analysis considered various end-of-life scenarios for the containers.

1. National Science Foundation
Industry & 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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
4
http://www.greenspec.co.uk/life-cycle-assessment-lca/

5. 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

6. 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

7. CB2
PART 1: CRADLE-TO-GATE MODELS
7

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. CB2
SYSTEM BOUNDARIES – PP plant containers
12
Manufacture of
Polypropylene
Granulate
Transportation Injection Molding
Process and
Cooling water
Electricity
Energy
Materials
and Other
Chemicals
Emissions
Energy
Usage

13. 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

14. CB2
ASSUMPTIONS
14
• 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.
Transportation:
• 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
Process and cooling water:
• 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
Electricity – extrusion and injection molding:

15. CB2
SOURCES OF LCI
15
References:
1. Electricity Gabi database
2. Water and cooling water Gabi database
3. Diesel for transportation Gabi database
4. PLA – Ingeo Gabi database – Nature Works dataset
5. PHA – Metabolix Kim and Dale (2005)
6. Soy Meal Dalgaard, et al. (2008)
7. Soy Protein Isolate Dupont – LCA
8. Lignin – Neroplast Communication with New Polymer Systems Inc.
9. Paper Fiber Gabi database
10. Polyurethane coating Gabi database
11. BioRes and DDGS NREL database
12. Polyamide Gabi database

16. 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

17. 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

18. CB2
IMPACT CONTRIBUTIONS: GWP
18
100.0%
3.2% 1.9% 0.3% 25.9%
68.7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
ImpactContributions(%)
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%
ImpactContributions(%)
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%
ImpactContributions(%)
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)

19. CB2
IMPACT CONTRIBUTION: Fossil Fuel Resources
19
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)

20. 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

21. 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

22. CB2
PART 2: CRADLE-TO-GRAVE MODELS
(Partial Results)
22

23. 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.

24. 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

25. 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

26. CB2
ASSUMPTIONS
26
• 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.
Transportation:
• 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
Process and cooling water:
• 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
Electricity – extrusion and injection molding:

27. 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

28. CB2
END-OF-LIFE OPTIONS
28
Hsein 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

29. CB2
SOURCES OF LCI
29
References:
1. Electricity Gabi database
2. Water and cooling water Gabi database
3. Diesel for transportation Gabi database
4. PLA – Ingeo Gabi database – Nature Works dataset
5. PHA – Metabolix Kim and Dale (2005)
6. Soy Meal Dalgaard, et al. (2008)
7. Soy Protein Isolate Dupont – LCA
8. DDGS NREL database
9. Landfilling Gabi database
10. Incineration Gabi database
11. Composting Schrader, et al.; Hsein and Tan
12. Soil Degradation Kratsch, et al.

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. CB2
IMPACT CONTRIBUTIONS: Global Warming Potential
34
Process water
2.58%
Tap water
0.84%
Truck
1.56%
Diesel
0.26%
Electricity
12.68%
Incineration
26.03%
Nitrogen
0.37%
Phosphorus
0.00%
PP
55.64%
Potassium
0.03%
PP-INCINERATION
Process water
3.14%
Tap water
1.03%
Truck
1.89%
Diesel
0.32%
Electricity
25.46%
Nitrogen
0.45%
Phosphorus
0.01%
PP
67.67%
Potassium
0.04%
PP - COMPOSTING
Process water
3.14%
Tap water
1.03%
Truck
1.89%
Diesel
0.32%
Electricity
25.46%
Nitrogen
0.45%
Phosphorus
0.01%
PP
67.67%
Potassium
0.04%
PP - SOIL
Process water
3.10%
Tap water
1.01%
Truck
1.87%
Diesel
0.31%
Electricity
25.13%
Landfill
1.29%
Nitrogen
0.45%
Phosphorus
0.01%
PP
66.80%
Potassium
0.04%
PP-LANDFILL

35. CB2
IMPACT CONTRIBUTIONS: Global Warming Potential
35
Process water
3.99%
Tap water
1.31%
Truck
0.04%
PLA
59.96%
Diesel
0.01%
Electricity
32.40%
Landfill
1.66%
Nitrogen
0.58%
Phosphorus
0.01%
Potassium
0.05%
PLA - LANDFILL
Process water
3.17%
Tap water
1.04%
Truck
0.03%
PLA
47.64%
Diesel
0.005%
Electricity
15.60%
Incineration
32.01%
Nitrogen
0.46%
Phosphorus
0.01%
Potassium
0.04%
PLA-INCINERATION
Composting
3.54%
Process water
3.92%
Tap water
1.28%
Truck
0.03%
PLA
58.81%
Diesel
0.01%
Electricity
31.78%
Nitrogen
0.57%
Phosphorus
0.01%
Potassium
0.05%
PLA-COMPOSTING
Process water
4.06%
Tap water
1.33%Truck
0.04%
PLA
60.97%
Diesel
0.01%
Electricity
32.95%
Nitrogen
0.59%
Phosphorus
0.01%
Potassium
0.05%
PLA-SOIL

36. 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

37. National Science Foundation
Industry & University Cooperative Research Center
Thank you.
QUESTIONS?

38. 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.

39. 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

40. 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