Abstract
In the context of a circular bio-based economy, more public attention has been paid to the environmental sustainability of biodegradable bio-based plastics, particularly plastics produced using emerging biotechnologies, e.g. poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) or PHBV. However, this has not been thoroughly investigated in the literature. Therefore, this study aimed to address three aspects regarding the environmental impact of PHBV-based plastic: (i) the potential environmental benefits of scaling up pellet production from pilot to industrial scale and the environmental hotspots at each scale, (ii) the most favourable end-of-life (EOL) scenario for PHBV, and (iii) the environmental performance of PHBV compared to benchmark materials considering both the pellet production and EOL stages. Life cycle assessment (LCA) was implemented using Cumulative Exergy Extraction from the Natural Environment (CEENE) and Environmental Footprint (EF) methods. The results show that, firstly, when upscaling the PHBV pellet production from pilot to industrial scale, a significant environmental benefit can be achieved by reducing electricity and nutrient usage, together with the implementation of better practices such as recycling effluent for diluting feedstock. Moreover, from the circularity perspective, mechanical recycling might be the most favourable EOL scenario for short-life PHBV-based products, using the carbon neutrality approach, as the material remains recycled and hence environmental credits are achieved by substituting recyclates for virgin raw materials. Lastly, PHBV can be environmentally beneficial equal to or even to some extent greater than common bio- and fossil-based plastics produced with well-established technologies. Besides methodological choices, feedstock source and technology specifications (e.g. pure or mixed microbial cultures) were also identified as significant factors contributing to the variations in LCA of (bio)plastics; therefore, transparency in reporting these factors, along with consistency in implementing the methodologies, is crucial for conducting a meaningful comparative LCA.