IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i24p11293-d1550715.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

LCA and Emergy Approach to Evaluate the Environmental Performance of Plastic Bags from Fossil and Renewable Sources with the Function of Conditioning MSW

Author

Listed:
  • Matheus Tavares Lacerda

    (Production Engineering Post-Graduate Programme, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba 80060-000, Brazil)

  • Marcelo Vitor Fiatkoski

    (Production Engineering Post-Graduate Programme, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba 80060-000, Brazil)

  • Marcell Mariano Corrêa Maceno

    (Production Engineering Post-Graduate Programme, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba 80060-000, Brazil)

  • Feni Dalano Roosevelt Agostinho

    (Production Engineering Post-Graduate Programme, Paulista University, São Paulo 01504-000, Brazil)

  • Michele Rigon Spier

    (Food Engineering Post-Graduate Programme, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba 80060-000, Brazil)

  • Mariana Kleina

    (Production Engineering Post-Graduate Programme, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba 80060-000, Brazil)

  • Marcos Augusto Mendes Marques

    (Production Engineering Post-Graduate Programme, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba 80060-000, Brazil)

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the environmental performance of plastic bags made of three different polymers, considering two product functions: carrying goods and packing municipal solid waste. The three polymers studied were HDPE, LDPE, and thermoplastic starch (TPS). Life cycle assessment and emergy accounting were used to evaluate the environmental performance of each scenario in analysis. To develop this research, eight scenarios were created to represent the customs of use and consumption in the Brazilian population. The LCA results showed that, in general, the scenarios with HDPE plastic bags presented the best environmental performances, while those with TPS presented the worst. The processes that contributed most to these results, representing 70% or more of the environmental impact in each impact category, are related to the use of raw materials, electricity, and water for the manufacture of plastic bags and the treatment in landfills. In other words, the fact that TPS has a mass around six times greater than that of HDPE and two times greater than that of LDPE ends up leaving this type of polymer with the worst environmental performance. In the comparative analysis of scenarios for the same polymer, scenarios that involve the use and reuse of plastic bags present the lowest potential environmental impacts. In contrast, those related to the use and disposal in landfills present the highest possible environmental impacts. The results of emergy accounting showed that the HDPE scenarios had the lowest total emergy flow, ranging from 1.77 × 10 13 seJ to 2.40 × 10 13 seJ. In contrast, the LDPE scenarios had the highest total emergy flow, ranging from 1.15 × 10 14 to 1.21 × 10 14 seJ. Although LDPE had the highest total emergy flow values, these results are similar to those obtained by the fossil resource scarcity impact category, which focuses on resource consumption analysis. Thus, through a real approach to the use of plastic bags and solid waste management in the Brazilian context, this study brings essential insights to direct public policies related to the consumption of plastic bags.

Suggested Citation

  • Matheus Tavares Lacerda & Marcelo Vitor Fiatkoski & Marcell Mariano Corrêa Maceno & Feni Dalano Roosevelt Agostinho & Michele Rigon Spier & Mariana Kleina & Marcos Augusto Mendes Marques, 2024. "LCA and Emergy Approach to Evaluate the Environmental Performance of Plastic Bags from Fossil and Renewable Sources with the Function of Conditioning MSW," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-21, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:24:p:11293-:d:1550715
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/24/11293/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/24/11293/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giuliana Vinci & Roberto Ruggieri & Andrea Billi & Carmine Pagnozzi & Maria Vittoria Di Loreto & Marco Ruggeri, 2021. "Sustainable Management of Organic Waste and Recycling for Bioplastics: A LCA Approach for the Italian Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, June.
    2. Brown, Mark T. & Ulgiati, Sergio, 2016. "Assessing the global environmental sources driving the geobiosphere: A revised emergy baseline," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 339(C), pages 126-132.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Spyridoula Gerassimidou & Olwenn V. Martin & Gilenny Yamily Feliz Diaz & Chaoying Wan & Dimitrios Komilis & Eleni Iacovidou, 2022. "Systematic Evidence Mapping to Assess the Sustainability of Bioplastics Derived from Food Waste: Do We Know Enough?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-27, December.
    2. Tera, Ibrahim & Zhang, Shengan & Liu, Guilian, 2024. "A conceptual hydrogen, heat and power polygeneration system based on biomass gasification, SOFC and waste heat recovery units: Energy, exergy, economic and emergy (4E) assessment," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 295(C).
    3. Maione, A. & Massarotti, N. & Santagata, R. & Ulgiati, S. & Vanoli, L., 2023. "Integrated environmental accounting of a geothermal grid," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    4. Ren, Siyue & Feng, Xiao & Wang, Yufei, 2021. "Emergy evaluation of the integrated gasification combined cycle power generation systems with a carbon capture system," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    5. Lu, Yanhua & Yan, Lijuan & Li, Jie & Liang, Yunliang & Yang, Chuanjie & Li, Guang & Wu, Jiangqi & Xu, Hua, 2024. "Spatiotemporal evolution of county level ecological security based on an emergy ecological footprint model: The case of Dingxi, China," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 490(C).
    6. Chen, Qiuwen & Ma, Xiaohan & Hu, Jiayu & Zhang, Xiaohong, 2023. "Comparison of comprehensive performance of kiwifruit production in China, Iran, and Italy based on emergy and carbon emissions," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 483(C).
    7. Chen, Yu & Liu, Gengyuan & Yan, Ningyu & Yang, Qing & Gao, He & Su, Liya & Santagata, Remo, 2023. "Comprehensive evaluation of urban greenspace ecological values marketability through the spatial relationship between housing price and ecosystem services," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 484(C).
    8. Agostinho, F. & Oliveira, M.W. & Pulselli, F.M. & Almeida, C.M.V.B. & Giannetti, B.F., 2019. "Emergy accounting as a support for a strategic planning towards a regional sustainable milk production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    9. Hairuo Wang & Yexin Liu & Junxue Zhang & He Zhang & Li Huang & Dan Xu & Chunxia Zhang, 2022. "Sustainability Investigation in the Building Cement Production System Based on the LCA-Emergy Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-22, December.
    10. Vitória Toffolo Luiz & Rafael Araújo Nacimento & Vanessa Theodoro Rezende & Taynara Freitas Avelar de Almeida & Juliana Vieira Paz & Biagio Fernando Giannetti & Augusto Hauber Gameiro, 2023. "Sustainability Assessment of Intensification Levels of Brazilian Smallholder Integrated Dairy-Crop Production Systems: An Emergy and Economic-Based Decision Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-20, March.
    11. Alessandro Cardarelli & Marco Barbanera, 2023. "Substitution of Fossil Coal with Hydrochar from Agricultural Waste in the Electric Arc Furnace Steel Industry: A Comprehensive Life Cycle Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-19, July.
    12. Xiang, Qing & Pan, Hengyu & Ma, Xiaohan & Yang, Mingdong & Lyu, Yanfeng & Zhang, Xiaohong & Shui, Wei & Liao, Wenjie & Xiao, Yinlong & Wu, Jun & Zhang, Yanzong & Xu, Min, 2024. "Impacts of energy-saving and emission-reduction on sustainability of cement production," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    13. De Vilbiss, C. & Brown, M.T. & Siegel, E. & Arden, S., 2016. "Computing the geobiosphere emergy baseline: A novel approach," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 339(C), pages 133-139.
    14. Nathalie Dumax & Anne Rozan & Bénédicte Rulleau, 2020. "“Adapted” Habitat Evaluation Procedure and Choice Experiment: Substitutes or Complements?," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(02), pages 1-30, April.
    15. Cristiano, S. & Ulgiati, S. & Gonella, F., 2021. "Systemic sustainability and resilience assessment of health systems, addressing global societal priorities: Learnings from a top nonprofit hospital in a bioclimatic building in Africa," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    16. Pan, Hengyu & Geng, Yong & Jiang, Ping & Dong, Huijuan & Sun, Lu & Wu, Rui, 2018. "An emergy based sustainability evaluation on a combined landfill and LFG power generation system," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 310-322.
    17. Evariste Rutebuka & Lixiao Zhang & Ernest Frimpong Asamoah & Mingyue Pang & Emmanuel Rukundo, 2018. "Resource Dynamism of the Rwandan Economy: An Emergy Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, May.
    18. Mattei, F. & Buonocore, E. & Franzese, P.P. & Scardi, M., 2021. "Global assessment of marine phytoplankton primary production: Integrating machine learning and environmental accounting models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 451(C).
    19. Junxue Zhang & Lin Ma, 2021. "Urban ecological security dynamic analysis based on an innovative emergy ecological footprint method," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(11), pages 16163-16191, November.
    20. Du, Hailong & Yang, Liu & Wang, Wenzhong & Lu, Lunhui & Li, Zhe, 2022. "Emergy theory to quantify the sustainability of large cascade hydropower projects in the upper Yangtze," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 468(C).

    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:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:24:p:11293-:d:1550715. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.