The Assessment of the Overall Expenses and Carbon Footprint of Various Bio-plastics Waste Treatment Approaches

Amelia Simmons^*
*Correspondence: Amelia Simmons, Department of Environmental Science, University of Buenos Aires, CABA, Argentina, Email:

Introduction

The increasing environmental concerns surrounding traditional plastics have catalyzed the development and adoption of bio-plastics as a more sustainable alternative. Bio-plastics, derived from renewable biological sources such as corn starch, sugarcane, and other biomass, are designed to reduce the dependency on fossil fuels and to minimize environmental impact. However, the sustainability of bio-plastics is highly contingent on the methods used for their disposal and treatment. Assessing the overall expenses and carbon footprint of various bio-plastics waste treatment approaches is crucial in determining their true environmental benefits and economic feasibility.

This comprehensive article delves into the intricate details of bio-plastics, examining their life cycle from production to disposal. It compares different waste treatment approaches, including landfill, incineration, composting, and recycling, with a focus on their associated costs and carbon emissions. By analyzing these factors, this article aims to provide a holistic understanding of the sustainability of bio-plastics and to identify the most environmentally and economically viable waste treatment methods [1].

Description

Bio-plastics are a broad category of materials that can be biobased, biodegradable, or both. The primary types of bio-plastics include polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), and starch blends, each with distinct properties and applications. PLA is one of the most widely used bio-plastics, derived from fermented plant starch (usually corn). It is commonly used in packaging, disposable tableware, and biomedical applications. PLA is biodegradable under industrial composting conditions but not in natural environments. PHAs are produced by bacterial fermentation of sugars or lipids. They are fully biodegradable and can decompose in various environments, including soil and marine settings. PHAs are used in packaging, agricultural films, and medical devices [2].

The production of bio-plastics is often touted as more environmentally friendly compared to conventional plastics due to the use of renewable resources. However, it is essential to consider the entire life cycle, from raw material extraction to manufacturing. The cultivation of crops for bio-plastics can lead to land use changes, deforestation, and water consumption, potentially offsetting some environmental benefits. Additionally, the energy and chemical inputs required for processing can vary significantly based on the technology and feedstock used. Bio-plastics are generally more expensive to produce than traditional plastics due to higher raw material costs and less established manufacturing processes. However, economies of scale and technological advancements are gradually reducing these costs. The market for bio-plastics is expanding, driven by increasing consumer demand for sustainable products and supportive regulatory frameworks [3].

The end-of-life treatment of bio-plastics plays a critical role in determining their overall environmental impact. The primary waste treatment approaches include landfilling, incineration, composting, and recycling, each with distinct implications for expenses and carbon footprint. Landfilling is the most common waste disposal method for both conventional plastics and bio-plastics. However, the environmental implications of landfilling bio-plastics are complex. Bio-plastics in landfills may produce methane, a potent greenhouse gas, if they degrade anaerobically. While methane can be captured and used as an energy source, this process is not always efficient, leading to potential greenhouse gas emissions [4].

Incineration involves burning waste materials to generate energy, reducing the volume of waste that needs to be landfilled. Incineration of bio-plastics can release carbon dioxide and other pollutants. However, the carbon dioxide emitted is considered biogenic, derived from recent biological sources rather than fossil fuels. The energy generated can offset the use of fossil fuels, potentially reducing overall carbon emissions. Composting is a natural process that decomposes organic waste into nutrient-rich compost, suitable for soil amendment. Composting bio-plastics, especially those designed to biodegrade in composting conditions, can significantly reduce carbon emissions. The process produces carbon dioxide and water as primary byproducts, with minimal methane emissions if managed correctly [5].

Conclusion

Bio-plastics present a promising alternative to conventional plastics, potentially reducing reliance on fossil fuels and mitigating environmental impact. However, their sustainability largely depends on the chosen waste treatment methods. Landfilling, while cost-effective, poses significant environmental risks due to methane emissions. Incineration can offer energy recovery benefits but requires substantial investment. Composting is environmentally friendly for biodegradable bio-plastics but necessitates proper infrastructure. Recycling offers resource conservation but faces challenges due to the diversity of bio-plastics. A comprehensive assessment of the overall expenses and carbon footprint of these waste treatment approaches reveals the importance of tailored strategies that consider local conditions and the specific characteristics of bio-plastics. Policymakers, industry stakeholders, and consumers must collaborate to develop and implement effective waste management practices that enhance the sustainability of bio-plastics. By addressing these challenges, bio-plastics can contribute significantly to a more sustainable and circular economy, balancing economic feasibility with environmental stewardship.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Geyer, Roland, Jenna R. Jambeck and Kara Lavender Law. "Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made." Sci Adv 3 (2017): e1700782.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at 

2. Girotto, Francesca, Maria Cristina Lavagnolo, Alberto Pivato and Raffaello Cossu. "Acidogenic fermentation of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste and cheese whey for bio-plastic precursors recovery–Effects of process conditions during batch tests." Waste Manag 70 (2017): 71-80.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Bandini, Francesca, Eren Taskin, Filippo Vaccari and Mariangela Soldano, et al. "Anaerobic digestion and aerobic composting of rigid biopolymers in bio-waste treatment: Fate and effects on the final compost." Bioresour Technol 351 (2022): 126934.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Rigamonti, Lucia, Giulia Borghi, Giovanna Martignon and Mario Grosso. "Life cycle costing of energy recovery from solid recovered fuel produced in MBT plants in Italy." Waste Manag 99 (2019): 154-162.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Yang, Na, Hua Zhang, Miao Chen, Li-Ming Shao and Pin-Jing He. "Greenhouse gas emissions from MSW incineration in China: Impacts of waste characteristics and energy recovery." Waste Manag 32 (2012): 2552-2560.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at