Recommendations for life-cycle assessment of recyclable plastics in a circular economy
Thomas Walther
Innovator passionate about sustainable packaging, in 2024 co-leading 4evergreen's innovation workstream, responsible for strategy and innovation at Baumer hhs.
The article "Recommendations for life-cycle assessment of recyclable plastics in a circular economy" (authors; Sarah L. Nordahl a and Corinne D. Scown) provides a detailed analysis of the weaknesses and challenges in life cycle assessment (LCA) of plastic recycling systems and makes recommendations to improve these analyses. Here are the main findings and recommendations summarized:
Key Findings:
1. Inconsistencies in LCA methodologies: There are significant inconsistencies in the methodologies applied and in the research findings on the life cycle assessment of plastics recycling. Of particular concern is that different studies use different functional units (e.g. managed waste vs. produced recycled plastic quantities), leading to fundamentally different conclusions.
2. Limited focus on greenhouse gases (GHG): The current focus of most LCAs on greenhouse gases and global warming potential (GWP) is too narrow. Other relevant environmental impacts, such as the net balance of fossil carbon, waste prevention and the prevention of plastic waste in the environment, are often neglected.
3. Plastic pollution issues: Plastic waste, in particular microplastics and per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS), pose a significant environmental threat. However, these aspects are not sufficiently considered in most LCA studies.
4. Functional unit and system boundary challenges: There are no consistent standards for defining functional units and system boundaries in LCA studies for plastic recycling, which leads to varying and often difficult-to-compare results.
5. Importance of counterfactual scenarios: The choice of appropriate counterfactual scenarios (e.g. what would have happened to the waste in the absence of the recycling process under consideration) is crucial for the accuracy of the LCA results.
Recommendations:
1. Extension of environmental metrics: It is recommended to extend LCA analyses beyond greenhouse gases and to include metrics such as net fossil carbon balance, net diversion of waste from landfills and amount of plastic waste avoided in the environment.
2. Strict definition of the functional unit and system boundaries: Clear and consistent definitions of the functional unit and system boundaries should be used in LCA studies to improve the comparability and meaningfulness of the results.
领英推荐
3. Considering the entire value chain: Assumptions about the pre- and post-processing of plastic waste should be realistic and cover the entire value chain to achieve more accurate and practically relevant results.
4. Using robust scenario and sensitivity analyses: To address the uncertainties and variability in the data and assumptions, comprehensive scenario and sensitivity analyses should be carried out.
5. Transparency and documentation: The assumptions, data sources and allocation methods should be clearly documented and made transparent to ensure the reproducibility and interpretability of the LCA results.
The article emphasizes the need for a methodological change in LCA of plastic recycling to better quantify the actual environmental benefits and support decision-making towards a more sustainable circular economy.
Citation: Nordahl, Sarah & Scown, Corinne. (2024). Recommendations for life-cycle assessment of recyclable plastics in a circular economy. Chemical Science. 15. 10.1039/D4SC01340A.
Den lesenswerten Artikel finden Sie hier: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2024/sc/d4sc01340a
#plastic #recycling #LCA #packaging #packagingindustry #environment
Managing Director at Wirtgen Australia Pty Ltd
7 个月I think this applies to LCAs generally, ie beyond just plastic recycling. If the identified areas aren't addressed we're all likely to be deceived regardless of 'what camp' you're from. Thanks for posting!