Themes:

The role of corn feedstock in carbon emissions from PLA production.

The ability of future technology to reduce water use in biopolymers production.
The difference between waste and emissions.
Water consumption in bio and conventional polymer production:

200L/kg (Biopak), 200L of water used per kg of PLA produced.

Critical Analysis:
Water consumption for PLA is high compared to the other non-renewable alternatives that
are used for common plastics such as low-density polyethylene (42 L/kg) and polypropylene
(19.7L/kg). However the consumption is lower than polystyrene (706L/kg), with an altered
version of PLA recently available as an alternative to polystyrene in foam packaging
(Natureworks LLC, 2015).
Much of the water consumption used in PLA production is involved in the production of corn
as the feedstock. However, as technology improvements occur cellulosic raw materials,
agricultural wastes and non-food plants (Natureworks) could form the feedstock for PLA
production, which would see significant reduction in the water consumption used in this
production.
Emissions in bio and conventional polymer production:

(Biopak, 2014)

Critical Analysis:
The emissions from PLA can be seen to be significantly lower than its alternative nonrenewable competitors. The PLA has lower production energy usage compared to the other
plastics, subsequently giving it a lower CO2 emission. However, the largest contribution to
the significantly lower emissions (25% of total emissions of PET) of PLA is its renewable
feedstock of corn, produced from photosynthesis and CO2 consumption. Natureworks have
taken into account the corn production and the CO2 consumption from corn that occurs
during its production in their allocation of total CO2 releases in PLA production, subsequently
giving it lower emissions than the conventional polymers.
Energy Usage in bio and conventional polymer production:

(Natureworks,
2014)

PHA production another major biopolymer has a larger energy usage than PLA, much closer
to conventional plastics energy usages.
PHA produced from corn plants has a 92MJ/kg energy usage while production from bacterial
fermentation is 81 MJ/kg. Currently this higher energy consumption along with greater
overall costs compared to conventional plastics limits its competitiveness.
(Handbook of Biodegradable Polymers)

Critical Analysis:
PLAs production can be seen to require significantly lower amount of non-rewewable energy
in its production. This improves PLA as an alternative to conventional plastics. Production of
PLA produces fewer greenhouse gases through having a significantly lower energy
consumption. With a difference of 30 MJ/kg between PLA and its petrochemical alternative in
common plastics PET, this difference in energy usage becomes extremely significant when
considering the annual production of PLA from Natureworks of 1 billion pounds (Plastic
news, 2014). Along with this PLA places less impact on the non-renewable sector by
consuming less non-renewable resources.
Production of PHA can be seen to use significantly larger amount (200%) of energy per kg of
plastic output compared to PLA. The reason for this lies in the fact that, whereas the
production of PLA is driven from photosynthesis, the bacterial production polymerisation
method, in PHA production, requires a carbon source from crops. (Altman & Hasegawa
2012, p. 485) This indirect production has also limited the success of PHA relative to PLA
with global material production, in total tonnes produced, of PLA 5.43 times that of PHAs
global production (Corbion, 2013), however recent investigations into bacteria capable of
utilising waste products as a carbon source appear promising. This could lead to reduction in
energy usage as a result of reduced waste disposal and would limit the cost factor inhibiting
the use of PHA. Further, newer bioplastics such as PHA require more energy for production
as a result of less research and development into industrial production of these polymers.

Waste associated with the polymers production:

Production of PLA 1 tonne of solid waste produced per 400 tonnes of PLA produced
(Biopak, 2015).
Emissions from (conventional) plastic production processes include sulfur oxides,
nitrous oxides, methanol, ethylene oxide, and volatile organic compounds (Ecology
centre, 2013)
PLA manufacture uses organic tin and 1-octanol during lactic acid polymerization
(Sciencedirect.com, 2015)
The synthesis of PLA polymers eliminates organic solvents and other hazardous
materials (EPA, 2002).
Waste produced in the manufacture of conventional plastics include:

trichloroethane

acetone

methylene chloride

methyl ethyl ketone

styrene

toluene

benzene

1,1,1 trichloroethane

Critical Analysis:
Waste is a limited issue in the production of PLA as a result of efficient practises that
completely recycles product and byproduct streams (EPA, 2002) reducing the amount of
solid waste produced. Further, the limited amount of plastic produced in PLA production is
dealt with appropriately through incineration (Biopak, 2014) stopping poisons being released
into the environment.
The difference between waste and emissions is evident in the issues associated with the
conventional plastics. The wastes of trichloroethane, acetone, etc are solids and act as
poisons in the environment causing damage to biological systems and the immediate
environment. This subsequently requires them to be appropriately disposed in landfills or be
incinerated to restrict these issues. The effects of emissions varies to that of waste in that
their impact is not restricted to the area of disposal or release as the undesired gases are
released into the atmosphere. Sulfur oxides, nitrous oxides etc are released from
conventional plastic production and cause issues as pollutants in the atmosphere leading to
undesired outcomes like acid rain and global warming.
Information regarding the composition of solid waste produced from the production of PLA
was not provided on Natureworks LLC or biopak. These producers emphasise on the
positives aspects of the production of PLA with limited information provided on any negative
aspects as seen in the omission of the solid waste composition on biopaks website and the
complete omission of any information regarding solid waste on the Natureworks LLC
website. However, the US Environmental Protection Agency, a credible source, have
provided assessment on PLA and included information of PLA production. This information
included that PLA production does not use hazardous materials, indicating that the solid
waste from PLA production is harmless, giving PLA greater credibility as a good alternative
to conventional plastics.

References:
(NatureWorks LLC, 2015),
http://www.natureworksllc.com/Product-and-Applications/3D-Printing
Altman, A & Hasegawa, PM 2012, Plant Biotechnology and Agriculture: Prospects for the
21st Century, 1st edn, Elsevier Inc., United States of America.
BioPak 2015, Materials & production, BioPak, viewed 5 August 2015,
http://www.biopak.com.au/materials-production

Corbion 2013, PLA Bioplastics: a significant contributor to global sustainability, Corbion,

Diemens, Netherlands, viewed 7 August 2015,
http://www.corbion.com/media/75646/corbionpurac_bioplastics_brochure.pdf
Ecology Center n.d., PTF: Environmental Impacts, Ecology Center, Berkley, viewed 8 August
2015, http://ecologycenter.org/plastics/ptf/report3/

Ebnesajjad, S 2013, Handbook of Biopolymers and Biodegradable Plastics: Properties,

Processing and Applications, Elsevier Inc., United States of America.
Bastioli, C.B, 2005. Handbook of Biodegradable Polymers. 1st ed. US: Rapra Technology.
NatureWorks LLC 2014, Making Ingeo: Eco-Profile, NatureWorks LLC, viewed 7 August
2015, http://www.natureworksllc.com/The-Ingeo-Journey/Eco-Profile-and-LCA/Eco-Profile
(Plastic News, 2014)
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20140306/NEWS/140309947/with-1-billion-pounds-ofpla-sold-natureworks-sees-rapid-growth-to-2-billion
(Ecology Centre 2013)
http://ecologycenter.org/plastics/ptf/report3/
(EPA, 2002)
http://www2.epa.gov/greenchemistry/2002-greener-reaction-conditions-award