Publication:
Comparative assessment of global warming impact and eco-efficiency of PS (polystyrene), PET (polyethylene terephthalate) and PLA (polylactic acid) boxes

dc.contributor.authorLeejarkpai T.
dc.contributor.authorMungcharoen T.
dc.contributor.authorSuwanmanee U.
dc.date.accessioned2021-04-05T03:23:42Z
dc.date.available2021-04-05T03:23:42Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.date.issuedBE2559
dc.description.abstractThe life cycle assessment is an important tool to assess the environmental impacts of petroleum- and bio-based plastics. This study assessed the global warming potential and eco-efficiency of single used boxes, namely polystyrene, polyethylene terephthalate and polylactic acid, from cradle to grave. The effects of carbon uptake from photosynthesis and land-use change during corn plantation on global warming potential of polylactic acid boxes were considered. The global warming impact of the studied materials under various waste management scenarios was studied and compared. It was found that polystyrene in landfill created the lowest global warming impact (51.4 kg CO2 equivalent). Next, polylactic acid with photosynthesis in compost exhibited the second greatest environmental benefits (152.2 kg CO2 equivalent). Whereas, polylactic acid with land-use change in landfill revealed the highest global warming impact (773.5 kg CO2 equivalent). The global warming impact of polylactic acid with photosynthesis was lower by 20-51% than that of polylactic acid with land-use change in all waste management scenarios. Polystyrene in landfill was the most favorable eco-efficiency because of its lowest total cost with relatively low global warming impact. In conclusion for bio-based boxes, polylactic acid with photosynthesis in compost showed the highest eco-efficiency. The eco-efficiency of polylactic acid boxes can be significantly improved by minimizing the resin prices and disposal in the suitable waste management by composting. © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Cleaner Production. Vol 125, (2016), p.95-107
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.029
dc.identifier.issn9596526
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-84979724831
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14740/5323
dc.rights.holderScopus
dc.subject.otherCarbon
dc.subject.otherCarbon dioxide
dc.subject.otherComposting
dc.subject.otherEfficiency
dc.subject.otherEnvironmental impact
dc.subject.otherForestry
dc.subject.otherGlobal warming
dc.subject.otherLand fill
dc.subject.otherLand use
dc.subject.otherLife cycle
dc.subject.otherPhotosynthesis
dc.subject.otherPlastic bottles
dc.subject.otherPolyesters
dc.subject.otherPolyethylene terephthalates
dc.subject.otherPolystyrenes
dc.subject.otherWaste disposal
dc.subject.otherComparative assessment
dc.subject.otherEco-efficiency
dc.subject.otherEnvironmental benefits
dc.subject.otherGlobal warming impact
dc.subject.otherGlobal warming potential
dc.subject.otherLand-use change
dc.subject.otherLife Cycle Assessment (LCA)
dc.subject.otherSingle used boxes
dc.subject.otherWaste management
dc.titleComparative assessment of global warming impact and eco-efficiency of PS (polystyrene), PET (polyethylene terephthalate) and PLA (polylactic acid) boxes
dc.typeArticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
swu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84979724831&doi=10.1016%2fj.jclepro.2016.03.029&partnerID=40&md5=84a3df4543402de5b5da276c4ba5ac24

Files