Abstract

There is growing urgency to both increase plastic recycling rates and reduce the impact of plastic waste on the environment. Mechanical recycling rates for plastics in the United States have only slightly increased from 6% to 9% between 2000 and 2015 and have plateaued near 9% despite continued efforts to increase the rate. Therefore, evaluation of additional options that can increase recycling rates must occur to establish a comprehensive approach to keeping used plastics in the economy. The advanced recycling (AR) technologies analyzed in this paper have the capability to address the unrecycled plastics, representing a viable future path that can improve the plastic recycling rate and reduce resource use and environmental impacts. A rigorous quantitative assessment has been done of a subset of recent life cycle assessments (LCAs) resulting in thirteen LCAs being selected using criteria based on processing capacity and technology readiness level. Comparisons across those LCAs resulted in a quantitative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction ranging from −267% to 566% with the implementation of AR technologies. Specifically, mixed plastic (MP) streams converted to polyolefins via pyrolysis produced 185% less carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) emissions compared to conversion to energy for heat and power production. Alternatively, MP processed via pyrolysis produced 267% more CO2eq emissions than landfilling. Importantly, 30 other comparative scenarios were presented by the chosen LCAs as sensitivity analyses, with GHG emissions similarly ranging from increases to reductions, with the preponderance of the data indicating reductions. The various impact categories assessed, in addition to GHG emissions, for the AR technologies ranged from favorable, with the pyrolysis of MP offering a 97% reduction in fossil depletion compared to waste to energy, to unfavorable with the pyrolysis of MP offering a 400% increase in fine particulate matter compared to 30% municipal solid waste incineration and 70% refuse-derived fuel.

References

1.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
, “
Sustainable Materials Management: Non-Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Hierarchy
,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-materials-management-non-hazardous-materials-and-waste-management-hierarchy
2.
Kick
,
M.
,
Kadner
,
S.
,
Greiff
,
K.
,
Jarchow
,
S.
,
Stuchtey
,
M. R.
,
Weber
,
T.
, and
Kobus
,
J.
,
2021
, “
Making Circular Economy Count—What You Can't Measure, You Can’t Manage
,” S.I.E. Sustainability, https://www.systemiq.earth/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/CE-Metrics-Report-1404.pdf
3.
Schulte
,
A.
,
Maga
,
D.
, and
Thonemann
,
N.
,
2021
, “
Combining Life Cycle Assessment and Circularity Assessment to Analyze Environmental Impacts of the Medical Remanufacturing of Electrophysiology Catheters
,”
Sustainability
,
13
(
2
), p.
898
.
4.
Linder
,
M.
,
Sarasini
,
S.
, and
van Loon
,
P.
,
2017
, “
A Metric for Quantifying Product-Level Circularity
,”
J. Ind. Ecol.
,
21
(
3
), pp.
545
558
.
5.
Material Circularity Indicator (Mci)
,” The Ellen MacArthur Foundation and Granta Design, https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/material-circularity-indicator
6.
Kurokawa
,
H.
,
Ohshima
,
M.-a.
,
Sugiyama
,
K.
, and
Miura
,
H.
,
2003
, “
Methanolysis of Polyethylene Terephthalate (Pet) in the Presence of Aluminium Tiisopropoxide Catalyst to Form Dimethyl Terephthalate and Ethylene Glycol
,”
Polym. Degrad. Stab.
,
79
(
3
), pp.
529
533
.
7.
Biermann
,
L.
,
Brepohl
,
E.
,
Eichert
,
C.
,
Paschetag
,
M.
,
Watts
,
M.
, and
Scholl
,
S.
,
2021
, “
Development of a Continuous Pet Depolymerization Process as a Basis for a Back-to-Monomer Recycling Method
,”
Green Process. Synth.
,
10
(
1
), pp.
361
373
.
8.
Scheepens
,
A. E.
,
Vogtländer
,
J. G.
, and
Brezet
,
J. C.
,
2016
, “
Two Life Cycle Assessment (Lca) Based Methods to Analyse and Design Complex (Regional) Circular Economy Systems. Case: Making Water Tourism More Sustainable
,”
J. Cleaner Prod.
,
114
, pp.
257
268
.
9.
Di Maio
,
F.
, and
Rem
,
P. C.
,
2015
, “
A Robust Indicator for Promoting Circular Economy Through Recycling
,”
J. Environ. Prot.
,
6
(
10
), pp.
1095
1104
.
10.
Dräger
,
P.
,
Letmathe
,
P.
,
Reinhart
,
L.
, and
Robineck
,
F.
,
2022
, “
Measuring Circularity: Evaluation of the Circularity of Construction Products Using the Ökobaudat Database
,”
Environ. Sci. Eur.
,
34
(
1
), p.
13
.
11.
Russ
,
M.
,
Gonzalez
,
M.
, and
Horlacher
,
M.
,
2020
, “
Evaluation of Pyrolysis With LCA—3 Case Studies
,” Sphera Solutions GmbH.
12.
Quantis
,
2020
, “
Life Cycle Assessment of Plastic Energy Technology for the Chemical Recycling of Mixed Plastic Waste
,” Plastic Energy, https://plasticenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Plastic-Energy-LCA-Executive-Summary.pdf
13.
Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC)
,
2021
, “
Certified Circular Polymers Via Advanced Recycling of Mixed Plastic Waste
.”
14.
Chaudhari
,
U. S.
,
Lin
,
Y.
,
Thompson
,
V. S.
,
Handler
,
R. M.
,
Pearce
,
J. M.
,
Caneba
,
G.
,
Muhuri
,
P.
,
Watkins
,
D.
, and
Shonnard
,
D. R.
,
2021
, “
Systems Analysis Approach to Polyethylene Terephthalate and Olefin Plastics Supply Chains in the Circular Economy: A Review of Data Sets and Models
,”
ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng.
,
9
(
22
), pp.
7403
7421
.
15.
Schwarz
,
A. E.
,
Ligthart
,
T. N.
,
Godoi Bizarro
,
D.
,
De Wild
,
P.
,
Vreugdenhil
,
B.
, and
van Harmelen
,
T.
,
2021
, “
Plastic Recycling in a Circular Economy; Determining Environmental Performance Through an LCA Matrix Model Approach
,”
Waste Manage.
,
121
, pp.
331
342
.
16.
Coleman
,
B.
,
Waymire
,
R.
,
Brown
,
N. C.
, and
Pierce
,
J.
,
2020
, “
LCA Carbon Footprint Summary Report for Eastman Carbon Renewal Technology
,” Eastman Chemical Company, https://www.eastman.com/Company/Circular-Economy/Resources/Documents/CRT-Technical-LCA-report.pdf
17.
Granados
,
P.
,
Russ
,
M.
,
Jason Pierce
,
C.
,
Waymire
,
R.
, and
Brown
,
N.
,
2022
, “
LCA Summary Report for Eastman Methanolysis Technology (North America)
,” https://www.eastman.com/Company/Circular-Economy/Resources/Documents/CRT-Technical-LCA-report.pdf
20.
Sustainable Solutions Corporation
,
2020
, “
Hefty Energybag Program Life Cycle Assessment
,” https://www.hefty.com/sites/default/files/2021-01/Hefty-EnergyBag-Program-Life-Cycle-Assessment-Aug-2020.pdf
21.
Environmental Clarity
,
2021
, “
Environmental Assessment of Full Brightmark Products
,” https://www.brightmark.com/newsroom/lca
22.
Viveros
,
A.
,
Imren
,
C.
, and
Loske
,
F.
,
2022
, “
Life Cycle Assessment of Chemical Recycling for Food Grade Film
,” Sphera, Grade Film. T. C. G. Forum, https://www.theconsumergoodsforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Life-Cycle-Assessment-of-Chemical-Recycling-for-Food-Grade-Film.pdf
23.
Luu
,
P.
, “
Transitioning to a Circular System for Plastics
,” Environmental Clarity, C.f t.C.E.a.C.L. Partners, https://www.closedlooppartners.com/appendix-molecular-recycling-technologies
24.
Hann
,
S.
, and
Connock
,
T.
,
2020
, “
Chemical Recycling: State of Play
,” Eunomia, C. Trust, https://chemtrust.org/wpcontent/uploads/Chemical-Recycling-Eunomia.pdf
25.
ARPA-E
,
2020
, “
DEFOA-0001953
,”
Washington, DC
.
26.
Eastman Chemical Company
,
2022
, “
Eastman to Invest in France and Circularity
,” https://www.eastman.com/Company/Circular-Economy/Solutions/Pages/Our-investment-in-France.aspx
27.
Turner
,
A.
, and
Filella
,
M.
,
2021
, “
Hazardous Metal Additives in Plastics and Their Environmental Impacts
,”
Environ. Int.
,
156
, p.
106622
.
28.
Fazio
,
S.
,
Castellani
,
V.
,
Sala
,
S.
,
Schau
,
E. M.
,
Secchi
,
M.
, and
Zampori
,
L.
,
2018
, “
Supporting Information to the Characterisation Factors of Recommended Ef Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods
,” Ispra: European Commission.
You do not currently have access to this content.