IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/recore/v55y2010i1p34-52.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Open-loop recycling: A LCA case study of PET bottle-to-fibre recycling

Author

Listed:
  • Shen, Li
  • Worrell, Ernst
  • Patel, Martin K.

Abstract

This study assesses the environmental impact of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottle-to-fibre recycling using the methodology of life-cycle assessment (LCA). Four recycling cases, including mechanical recycling, semi-mechanical recycling, back-to-oligomer recycling and back-to-monomer recycling were analysed. Three allocation methods are applied for open-loop recycling, i.e. the “cut-off” approach, the “waste valuation” approach and the “system expansion” approach. Nine environmental impact indicators were analysed, i.e. non-renewable energy use (NREU), global warming potential (GWP), abiotic depletion, acidification, eutrophication, human toxicity, fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity and photochemical oxidant formation. The LCA results are compared with virgin PET fibre and other commodity fibre products, i.e. cotton, viscose, PP (polypropylene) and PLA (polylactic acid). The LCA results show that recycled PET fibres offer important environmental benefits over virgin PET fibre. Depending on the allocation methods applied for open-loop-recycling, NREU savings of 40–85% and GWP savings of 25–75% can be achieved. Recycled PET fibres produced by mechanical recycling cause lower environmental impacts than virgin PET in at least eight out of a total of nine categories. Recycled fibres produced from chemical recycling allow to reduce impacts in six to seven out of a total of nine categories compared to virgin PET fibres. Note that while mechanical recycling has a better environmental profile than chemical recycling, chemically recycled fibres can be applied in a wider range of applications than mechanically recycled fibres.

Suggested Citation

  • Shen, Li & Worrell, Ernst & Patel, Martin K., 2010. "Open-loop recycling: A LCA case study of PET bottle-to-fibre recycling," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 34-52.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:55:y:2010:i:1:p:34-52
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.06.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344910001618
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.06.014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lagioia, Giovanni & Calabrò, Grazia & Amicarelli, Vera, 2012. "Empirical study of the environmental management of Italy's drinking water supply," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 119-130.
    2. Joanna Kulczycka & Anna Lewandowska & Katarzyna Joachimiak-Lechman & Przemysław Kurczewski, 2024. "The Circularity of Materials from the Perspective of a Product Life Cycle: A Life Cycle Assessment Case Study of Secondary Fence Boards—Part 1 (Baseline Scenario)," Resources, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-15, April.
    3. Yuantao Peng & Jie Yang & Chenqiang Deng & Jin Deng & Li Shen & Yao Fu, 2023. "Acetolysis of waste polyethylene terephthalate for upcycling and life-cycle assessment study," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Toniolo, Sara & Mazzi, Anna & Pieretto, Chiara & Scipioni, Antonio, 2017. "Allocation strategies in comparative life cycle assessment for recycling: Considerations from case studies," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 117(PB), pages 249-261.
    5. Chih-Ming Chen & Huey-Ling Chang, 2022. "Environmental Impact Assessment of an Ignition Pencil Coil by a Combination of Carbon Footprint and Environmental Priority Strategies Methodology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-14, April.
    6. Toniolo, Sara & Mazzi, Anna & Niero, Monia & Zuliani, Filippo & Scipioni, Antonio, 2013. "Comparative LCA to evaluate how much recycling is environmentally favourable for food packaging," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 61-68.
    7. Allacker, K. & Mathieux, F. & Manfredi, S. & Pelletier, N. & De Camillis, C. & Ardente, F. & Pant, R., 2014. "Allocation solutions for secondary material production and end of life recovery: Proposals for product policy initiatives," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 1-12.
    8. Toniolo, Sara & Mazzi, Anna & Garato, Valentina Giulia & Aguiari, Filippo & Scipioni, Antonio, 2014. "Assessing the “design paradox” with life cycle assessment: A case study of a municipal solid waste incineration plant," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 109-116.
    9. Komly, Claude-Emma & Azzaro-Pantel, Catherine & Hubert, Antoine & Pibouleau, Luc & Archambault, Valérie, 2012. "Multiobjective waste management optimization strategy coupling life cycle assessment and genetic algorithms: Application to PET bottles," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 66-81.
    10. Marie Kampmann Eriksen & Anders Damgaard & Alessio Boldrin & Thomas Fruergaard Astrup, 2019. "Quality Assessment and Circularity Potential of Recovery Systems for Household Plastic Waste," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 23(1), pages 156-168, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:55:y:2010:i:1:p:34-52. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kai Meng (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/resources-conservation-and-recycling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.