How does plastic compare with alternative materials in the packaging sector? A systematic review of LCA studies.

Giovanni Dolci, Stefano Puricelli, Giuseppe Cecere, Camilla Tua, Floriana Fava, Lucia Rigamonti, Mario Grosso
Author Information
  1. Giovanni Dolci: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy. ORCID
  2. Stefano Puricelli: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy. ORCID
  3. Giuseppe Cecere: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy.
  4. Camilla Tua: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy.
  5. Floriana Fava: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy.
  6. Lucia Rigamonti: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy.
  7. Mario Grosso: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy.

Abstract

In the recent years, packaging made of conventional plastics has been increasingly replaced by materials believed to be more sustainable. However, perceived sustainability must align with scientific assessments, such as life cycle assessments (LCAs). This review analysed 53 peer-reviewed studies published in the time range 2019-2023, aiming at understanding the state of the art in LCA about the environmental impacts of packaging by focusing on the comparison between plastics and alternative materials. The literature showed that consumer perceptions often differ from LCA findings and revealed that, frequently, conventional plastics are not the least environmentally friendly choice. Bioplastics typically show benefits only in the climate change and the fossil resource depletion impact categories. The heavy weight of glass turns out to affect its environmental performances with respect to the light plastics, with reuse being an essential strategy to lower the burdens. The comparison between plastics and metals is more balanced, leaning more towards plastics for food packaging. Similarly, paper resulted often preferable than plastics. Finally, for the other materials (i.e. wood and textiles), the picture is variable. To be competitive with plastics, the alternative materials require improvements like the optimisation of their production processes, their reuse and enhanced end-of-life options. At the same time, recycled polymers could boost the eco-performance of virgin plastics.

Keywords

References

  1. Biomass Convers Biorefin. 2022 Sep 2;:1-16 [PMID: 36090305]
  2. J Hazard Mater. 2018 Feb 15;344:179-199 [PMID: 29035713]
  3. Sci Total Environ. 2022 Dec 10;851(Pt 2):158328 [PMID: 36037892]
  4. Sci Total Environ. 2020 Jul 20;727:138681 [PMID: 32334228]
  5. Polymers (Basel). 2022 May 16;14(10): [PMID: 35631920]
  6. Sci Total Environ. 2014 Nov 15;499:373-83 [PMID: 25209251]
  7. J Ind Ecol. 2012 Apr;16(Suppl 1):S12-S21 [PMID: 26069437]
  8. Sci Total Environ. 2020 Jun 10;720:137576 [PMID: 32146397]
  9. Sci Total Environ. 2023 Feb 20;860:160422 [PMID: 36427716]
  10. Environ Sci Technol. 2018 Sep 18;52(18):10441-10452 [PMID: 30156110]
  11. J Environ Manage. 2022 Mar 1;305:114331 [PMID: 34954688]
  12. Waste Manag Res. 2021 Oct;39(10):1317-1327 [PMID: 34583557]
  13. Sci Total Environ. 2021 Nov 1;793:148642 [PMID: 34328977]
  14. Int J Consum Stud. 2022 Mar;46(2):434-448 [PMID: 34230811]
  15. Waste Manag Res. 2021 Jul;39(7):956-965 [PMID: 33250042]
  16. J Environ Manage. 2021 Jun 1;287:112238 [PMID: 33714044]
  17. Heliyon. 2021 Sep 03;7(9):e07918 [PMID: 34522811]
  18. Risk Anal. 2023 Aug;43(8):1682-1693 [PMID: 36307375]
  19. Sci Total Environ. 2019 Oct 1;685:621-630 [PMID: 31195323]
  20. Sci Total Environ. 2019 Dec 20;697:134139 [PMID: 32380615]
  21. Waste Manag Res. 2022 Jun;40(6):607-608 [PMID: 35400260]
  22. Environ Res. 2021 May;196:110974 [PMID: 33705768]
  23. Carbohydr Polym. 2021 Feb 15;254:117248 [PMID: 33357845]
  24. Waste Manag Res. 2023 Aug;41(8):1281-1282 [PMID: 37318145]
  25. Foods. 2021 Jun 01;10(6): [PMID: 34205868]
  26. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2023 May;30(22):61904-61912 [PMID: 36934180]
  27. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2022 Mar;29(13):18617-18628 [PMID: 34697713]
  28. J Ind Ecol. 2020;24(5):986-1003 [PMID: 33746505]

MeSH Term

Plastics
Product Packaging
Recycling
Food Packaging
Environment

Chemicals

Plastics

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0plasticspackagingmaterialsreviewLCAalternativeconventionalassessmentscyclestudiestimeenvironmentalcomparisonoftenglassreusemetalspapersystematicrecentyearsmadeincreasinglyreplacedbelievedsustainableHoweverperceivedsustainabilitymustalignscientificlifeLCAsanalysed53peer-reviewedpublishedrange2019-2023aimingunderstandingstateartimpactsfocusingliteratureshowedconsumerperceptionsdifferfindingsrevealedfrequentlyleastenvironmentallyfriendlychoiceBioplasticstypicallyshowbenefitsclimatechangefossilresourcedepletionimpactcategoriesheavyweightturnsaffectperformancesrespectlightessentialstrategylowerburdensbalancedleaningtowardsfoodSimilarlyresultedpreferableFinallyiewoodtextilespicturevariablecompetitiverequireimprovementslikeoptimisationproductionprocessesenhancedend-of-lifeoptionsrecycledpolymersboosteco-performancevirginplasticcomparesector?Lifeassessmentbioplastics

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.