Pulse Brain · Growing Health Evidence Index
Tier 3 — Observational / field trialPeer-reviewed

Replacing Traditional Plastics with Biodegradable Plastics: Impact on Carbon Emissions

Guanyi Chen, Jianyuan Li, Yunan Sun, Zhi Wang, Gary A. Leeke, Christian Moretti, Zhanjun Cheng, Yuan Wang, Ning Li, Lan Mu, Jinyu Li, Junyu Tao, Beibei Yan, Li’an Hou

Engineering · 2023

Read source ↗ All evidence

Summary

This lifecycle assessment compares the carbon footprint of biodegradable plastic products (bags, lunch boxes, cups) against conventional plastics across production, use, and four disposal pathways, using China as a case study. Biodegradable plastics showed 13.5–62% lower emissions than traditional plastics, with significant reductions at raw material acquisition and waste disposal stages. The analysis identifies composting and anaerobic digestion as preferable disposal methods but notes that cost remains a barrier to widespread adoption of biodegradable alternatives.

UK applicability

The findings are broadly relevant to United Kingdom policy on single-use plastic reduction and circular economy transitions, though UK waste infrastructure, energy mix, and material sourcing differ from China. Local lifecycle assessments reflecting UK conditions and waste management systems would be needed to validate applicability to UK regulatory and industrial contexts.

Key measures

Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (kg CO2eq) per 1000 plastic products across production, transport, use, and disposal stages; percentage reduction in emissions between product types and disposal scenarios

Outcomes reported

The study evaluated and compared lifecycle carbon emissions across four stages for traditional plastic products (TPPs) and biodegradable plastic products (BPPs), considering four waste disposal scenarios. Carbon emissions for 1000 TPPs ranged from 52.09–150.36 kg CO2eq, whilst similar BPPs ranged from 21.06–56.86 kg CO2eq, representing 13.53%–62.19% lower emissions.

Theme
Climate & resilience
Subject
Climate & greenhouse gas mitigation
Study type
Research
Study design
Comparative lifecycle assessment
Source type
Peer-reviewed study
Status
Published
Geography
China
System type
Food supply chain
DOI
10.1016/j.eng.2023.10.002
Catalogue ID
SNmov5jdzl-hfsw1u

Topic tags

Pulse AI · ask about this record

Dig deeper with Pulse AI.

Pulse AI has read the whole catalogue. Ask about this record, its theme, or how the findings apply to UK farming and policy — every answer cites the underlying studies.