The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Life cycle assessment of bio-based and fossil-based plastic: A review
Open accessAbstract
Abstract This review assesses the state-of-the-art in comparative Life Cycle Assessment of fossil-based and bio-based polymers. Published assessments are critically reviewed and compared to the European Union Product Environmental Footprint (EU PEF) standards. No published articles were found to fully meet the standards, but the critical review method was used to classify the articles by their level of compliance. 25 articles partially met the PEF standards, giving 39 fossil-based and 50 bio-based polymer case results. Ultimately, it was possible to compare seven bio-based polymers and seven fossil-based polymers across seven impact categories (energy use, ecotoxicity, acidification, eutrophication, climate change, particulate matter formation and ozone depletion). Significant variation was found between polymer types and between fossil-based and bio-based polymers, meaning it was not possible to conclusively declare any polymer type as having the least environmental impact in any category. Significant variation was also seen between different studies of the same polymer, for both fossil-based and bio-based polymers. In some cases this variation was of the order of 400%. Results suggest that a large part of this variation is related to the Life Cycle Assessment methodologies applied, particularly in the end-of-life treatment, the use of credits for absorbed Carbon Dioxide, and the allocation of multifunctional process impacts. The feedstock source and processing method assumed for bio-based polymers were also major sources of variation. The challenges of Life Cycle Assessment, particularly in a complex, geographically diverse and young industry like bio-based polymers, are recognised. It is proposed that the PEF standards should be adopted more widely in order to homogenise the methods used and allow meaningful comparison between LCA studies on fossil-based and bio-based polymers, and between studies of the same polymers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle Assessment for a Cradle-to-Cradle Cycle: Biogas-to-Bioplastic (and Back)
Rostkowski, K. H., Criddle, C. S., & Lepech, M. D. (2012) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es204541w · Cited by 137
Cited by
Bioplastics for a circular economy
Rosenboom, J.-G., Langer, R., & Traverso, G. (2022) · Nature Reviews Materials · doi:10.1038/s41578-021-00407-8 · Cited by 2,116
Moshood, T. D., Nawanir, G., Mahmud, F., Mohamad, F., Ahmad, M. H., & AbdulGhani, A. (2022) · Current Research in Green and Sustainable Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.crgsc.2022.100273 · Cited by 784
Qin, M., Chen, C., Song, B., Shen, M., Cao, W., Yang, H., Zeng, G., & Gong, J. (2021) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127816 · Cited by 455
Bioplastic production in terms of life cycle assessment: A state-of-the-art review
Ali, S. S., Abdelkarim, E. A., Elsamahy, T., Al-Tohamy, R., Li, F., Kornaros, M., Zuorro, A., Zhu, D., & Sun, J. (2023) · Environmental Science and Ecotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.ese.2023.100254 · Cited by 361
A Review of Bioplastics and Their Adoption in the Circular Economy
Di Bartolo, A., Infurna, G., & Dintcheva, N. T. (2021) · Polymers · doi:10.3390/polym13081229 · Cited by 331
Metadata
- Authors
- Walker, S., & Rothman, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Cleaner Production
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-07
- Volume
- 261
- Pages
- 121158
- ISSN
- 0959-6526 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3013328719
- Cited by
- 480
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 18.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Life cycle assessment of bio-based and fossil-based plastic: A review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121158
- The paper
- Walker, S., & Rothman, R. (2020). Life cycle assessment of bio-based and fossil-based plastic: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121158
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.