Comparative life cycle assessment of fossil and bio-based polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles
Comparative life cycle assessment of fossil and bio-based polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.094
复制
发表时间：
2016-11-20
影响因子：
11.1
通讯作者：
Smith, Timothy M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chen, Luyi;Pelton, Rylie E. O.;Smith, Timothy M.
生物燃料和生物塑料通常被认为是应对气候变化、化石枯竭和酸化等当前环境问题的可持续解决方案。然而，与化石产品相比，这两种产品都受到了批评，因为它们在经济上代价高昂，与食品等其他有益于社会的商品竞争，提供的环境效益有限。这项研究提供了100%生物基聚对苯二甲酸乙二醇酯(PET)瓶的环境生命周期分析(LCA)，与完全基于化石和部分基于生物的PET瓶进行了比较。通过归因生命周期评估(ALCA)和关键假设的敏感性分析，比较了12个PET瓶生产场景从摇篮到工厂门的影响(即原料提取、组件生产和产品制造)。结果表明，基于木质生物质的PET瓶子比基于化石的瓶子全球变暖潜力低21%，需要的化石燃料少22%，但在生态毒性和臭氧消耗影响等其他方面表现更差。结果对影响分配假设以及与异丁醇生产有关的参数输入假设很敏感。在大多数类别中，在考虑到避免影响信用的情况下，森林残渣原料总体上比用于生产生物PET瓶的玉米秸秆原料具有更好的环境性能。避免负担的可变性可能会改变化石和生物PET瓶子的相对环境排名。根据生物质原料的不同，由于化肥应用中的大量上游排放，以及打破顽固的木质纤维素键所需的大量化学和能源投入，提取和预处理过程可能比相应的化石精炼过程排放更密集。(C)2016爱思唯尔有限公司。保留所有权利。
Both biofuels and bioplastics are often regarded as sustainable solutions to current environmental problems such as climate change, fossil depletion and acidification. However, both have been criticized for being economically costly, competing with other societally beneficial goods such as food, and offering limited environmental benefits compared to their fossil counterparts. This study provides a comparative environmental Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) for 100% bio-based polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles, versus fully fossil-based and partially bio-based PET bottles. An attributional life cycle assessment (aLCA) and sensitivity analysis of key assumptions is carried out to compare cradle-to-factory-gate impacts (i.e. feedstock extraction, component production and product manufacturing) of twelve PET bottle production scenarios. Results indicate that woody-biomass based PET bottles have 21% less global warming potential and require 22% less fossil fuel than their fossil based counterparts, but perform worse in other categories such as ecotoxicity and ozone depletion impacts. Results are sensitive to impact allocation assumptions as well as parameter input assumptions related to isobutanol production. In most categories, with avoided impact credits considered, forest residue feedstocks result in overall better environmental performance than corn stover feedstocks for bio-PET bottle production. The variability in avoided burdens could alter the relative environmental rankings for fossil and bio-PET bottles. Depending on the biomass feedstock, extraction and pre-processing are likely more emission-intensive than the corresponding fossil refinery processes due to the significant upstream emissions embodied in the application of fertilizers, and the significant chemical and energy inputs required to break recalcitrant lignocellulosic bonds. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.