Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 401

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 124 of the 124 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Environmental performance comparison of bioplastics and petrochemical plastics: A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) methodological decisions

Open access
Bishop, George, Styles, David, Lens, Piet N.L.·2021·Resources, Conservation and Recycling

Abstract

There is currently a shift from petrochemical to bio-based plastics (bioplastics). The application of comprehensive and appropriately designed LCA studies are imperative to provide clear evidence on the comparative sustainability of bioplastics. This review explores the growing collective of LCA studies that compare the environmental footprints of specific bioplastics against those of petrochemical plastics. 44 relevant studies published between 2011 and 2020 were reviewed to explore important methodological choices regarding impact category selection, inventory completeness (e.g. inclusion of additives), boundary definition (e.g. inclusion of land-use change impacts), representation of biogenic carbon, choice of end-of-life scenarios, type of LCA, and the application of uncertainty analysis. Good practice examples facilitated identification of common gaps and weaknesses in LCA studies applied to benchmark bioplastics against petrochemical plastics. Many studies did not provide a holistic picture of the environmental impacts of bioplastic products, thereby potentially supporting misleading conclusions. For comprehensive evaluation of bioplastic sustainability, we recommend that LCA practitioners: embrace more detailed and transparent reporting of LCI data within plastic LCA studies; adopt a comprehensive impact assessment methodology pertaining to all priority environmental challenges; incorporate multiple plastic use cycles within functional unit definition and system boundaries where plastics can be recycled; include additives in life cycle inventories unless there is clear evidence that they contribute <1% to all impact categories; apply biogenic carbon storage credits only to long-term carbon sinks; account for (indirect) land-use change arising from feedstock cultivation; prospectively consider realistic scenarios of deployment and end-of-life, preferably within a consequential LCA framework.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105451

Cites

124 of 124 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 124 references

Cited by

See all 401

Metadata

Authors
Bishop, G., Styles, D., & Lens, P. N. L.
Venue
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-05
Volume
168
Pages
105451
ISSN
0921-3449 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3128021321
Cited by
401
References
124
FWCI
20.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Environmental performance comparison of bioplastics and petrochemical plastics: A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) methodological decisions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105451
The paper
Bishop, G., Styles, D., & Lens, P. N. L. (2021). Environmental performance comparison of bioplastics and petrochemical plastics: A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) methodological decisions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105451

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.