Management practices for compostable plastic packaging waste: Impacts, challenges and recommendations

Jorge Cristóbal; Paola Federica Albizzati; Michele Giavini; Dario Caro; Simone Manfredi; Davide Tonini

doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2023.08.010

Management practices for compostable plastic packaging waste: Impacts, challenges and recommendations

Waste Manag. 2023 Oct 1:170:166-176. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2023.08.010. Epub 2023 Aug 14.

Authors

Jorge Cristóbal¹, Paola Federica Albizzati², Michele Giavini³, Dario Caro⁴, Simone Manfredi², Davide Tonini⁴

Affiliations

¹ Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Directorate D - Sustainable Resources, Unit D3 - Land Resources and Supply Chain Assessment, Via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, VA, Italy. Electronic address: jorge.cristobal-garcia@ec.europa.eu.
² Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Directorate D - Sustainable Resources, Unit D3 - Land Resources and Supply Chain Assessment, Via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, VA, Italy.
³ ARS Ambiente Srl, Via Carlo Noe 45, 21013 Gallarate, VA, Italy.
⁴ Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Directorate B - Growth and Innovation, Unit B5 - Circular Economy and Sustainable Industry, Calle Inca Garcilaso, 41092 Seville, Spain.

PMID: 37586221
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2023.08.010

Abstract

The EU Green Deal aims at solving the challenges related to plastic production, (mis-)use, and pollution. While the bioplastic industry is identified as one of the possible avenues to tackle the problem, bioplastic waste collection and management practices are still far from full-development and harmonisation. To inform policy makers on the best practices and their feasibility, this study quantifies environmental and economic impacts of compostable plastic packaging (CPP) waste management schemes by means of Life Cycle Assessment and Costing. Results show that, with respect to climate change and financial costs, the scheme leading to the highest benefits is collecting CPP with conventional plastic waste followed by mechanical sorting and recycling (saving ca. 306 kg CO₂eq. t^-1 at a net income of 3.7 EUR t^-1). The second best option is collecting CPP with bio-waste followed by biological treatment (saving ca. 69 kg CO₂eq. t^-1 at a cost of 197 EUR t^-1). Collecting CPP with conventional plastics followed by sorting and biological treatment is to be avoided. The trend on the other impact categories generally follows climate change. Ideally, closed loop is therefore preferred, but conditioned by (i) having high share of CPP in municipal waste (else sorting is economically unfeasible), (ii) good citizen's behaviour at source-segregation, and (iii) an established market for secondary material. Currently, overall benefits are limited by the low amounts, suggesting that the management choice could ultimately be based on rather simple technical and economic feasibility criteria while regulatory and management efforts should be focused on other waste streams with greater implications on environment.

Keywords: Bio-waste; Collection; Compostable plastic; LCA; LCC; Recycling; Treatment.