Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparative cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of bio-based and petrochemical PET bottles.
Vural Gursel, Iris; Moretti, Christian; Hamelin, Lorie; Jakobsen, Line Geest; Steingrimsdottir, Maria Magnea; Junginger, Martin; Høibye, Linda; Shen, Li.
Afiliação
  • Vural Gursel I; Wageningen Food and Biobased Research, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands. Electronic address: iris.vuralgursel@wur.nl.
  • Moretti C; Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
  • Hamelin L; Toulouse Biotechnology Institute (TBI), Federal University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
  • Jakobsen LG; COWI A/S, Department of Waste and Contaminated Sites. Lyngby, Denmark.
  • Steingrimsdottir MM; COWI A/S, Department of Waste and Contaminated Sites. Lyngby, Denmark.
  • Junginger M; Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
  • Høibye L; COWI A/S, Department of Environment, Health and Safety. Lyngby, Denmark.
  • Shen L; Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Sci Total Environ ; 793: 148642, 2021 Nov 01.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34328977
This article presents a life cycle assessment of bio-based polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles with a cradle to grave scope and provides a comparison with petrochemical PET bottles for 13 environmental impact categories. Besides the baseline bio-based PET bottles, which are produced from Brazilian sugarcane reflecting status-quo, two alternative hypothetical bio-based product systems were considered: European wheat straw and European crops market mix composed of maize, wheat and sugar beet. The land-use change (LUC) impacts were assessed based on a deterministic model. The end-of-life impact was assessed using the EASETECH model. Baseline bio-based PET bottles performed overall worse than conventional petrochemical PET bottles, offering only better performance (about 10%) in abiotic depletion (fossil fuels). Comparable performance is observed for climate change (2% difference without the LUC, and 7% with LUC impacts). Using European crops for ethanol production (alternative 1) instead of Brazilian sugarcane resulted in a worse environmental performance, due to lower yields attained compared to Brazilian sugarcane. When wheat straw was considered as biomass feedstock for ethanol production (alternative 2), similar environmental performance with petrochemical PET bottles was seen.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Polietilenotereftalatos / Combustíveis Fósseis Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Limite: Animals Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Polietilenotereftalatos / Combustíveis Fósseis Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Limite: Animals Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article