IOP Conference Series: Earth and

Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Techno-Economic Analysis of FDCA
Is bio-labeled material always environmentally Production through Electrocatalytic
Processes
friendly? Investigation of 5 types of shopping bags Maria Chiara Massaro and Alessandro
Hugo Antonio Monteverde

in Indonesia by impact assessment - Evaluation of Current, Future, and Beyond

Li-Ion Batteries for the Electrification of
Light Commercial Vehicles: Challenges
To cite this article: A Z Abidin et al 2023 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1268 012039 and Opportunities
Shashank Sripad and
Venkatasubramanian Viswanathan

- A Critical Review of Li/Air Batteries

Jake Christensen, Paul Albertus, Roel S.
View the article online for updates and enhancements. Sanchez-Carrera et al.

This content was downloaded from IP address 103.178.218.4 on 05/07/2024 at 07:44

INCRID 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1268 (2023) 012039 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1268/1/012039

Is bio-labeled material always environmentally friendly?

Investigation of 5 types of shopping bags in Indonesia by
impact assessment

A Z Abidin1*, S Steven2,3, D A Trirahayu4, E V Yemensia1,2, E S A Soekotjo1,2, N

A Sasongko2, M Nathania1
1
Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Industrial Technology, Institut
Teknologi Bandung, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
2
Research Center For Sustainable Production System and Life Cycle Assessment,
National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), KST BJ Habibie, Building 720
Puspiptek Area, South Tangerang, Banten 15314, Indonesia
3
Biomass Technology Workshop, Faculty of Industrial Technology, Institut
Teknologi Bandung, Sumedang 45363, Indonesia
4
Department of Chemical Engineering, Politeknik Negeri Bandung, Jalan Geger
Kalong Hilir, Bandung 40012, Indonesia

E-mail: aza@itb.ac.id

Abstract. From the outdated understanding, bio-labeled materials seem always environmentally
friendly even though it does not necessarily true. A new approach by impact assessment should
be performed to meet sustainability. It examines the impact from its cradle, gate, and grave. In
this study, an impact assessment was conducted for 5 types of shopping bags that are often used
in Indonesia, i.e. virgin HDPE plastic, oxo-biodegradable plastic, goodie bag, bioplastic, and
recycled plastic, in a sequential term. The analysis started with raw material, production process,
product distribution and storage, product usage, and disposal/recycling. The functional unit was
based on 1 kg of product. Based on the results, the total energy requirements are 6.16 kWh/kg,
6.17 kWh/kg, 6.16 kWh/kg, 12.04 kWh/kg, and 1.10 kWh/kg. Meanwhile, global warming
potential as CO2 equivalent is 4.80 kg/kg, 4.81 kg/kg, 4.80 kg/kg, 10.43 kg/kg, and 0.80 kg/kg.
Although bioplastic is easy to degrade in the landfill, it consumes intense land use and water
requirements compared to other types of plastic. Therefore, it is summarized that the most
environmentally friendly plastic is recycled plastic and then followed by virgin HDPE plastic,
oxo-biodegradable plastic, goodie bag, and bioplastic. Consequently, bio-labeled materials are
not always more environmentally friendly than others.

1. Introduction
The outdated analysis always scrutinizes the environmental impact only at the grave stage (disposal of
waste). Focusing on one stage analysis or a single impact category can produce results that only shift
the environmental burden from one aspect to another aspect. This also creates a misleading paradigm
regarding shopping bags, for example, those with a bio label are always the most environmentally
friendly. If this continues, people will have a bad habit of using plastic shopping bags which makes the
environment even more threatened.
To overcome this, a new approach should be utilized by means of impact assessment. It is a process
tool to evaluate the environmental impact of a product from its cradle (raw materials) to its gate

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
INCRID 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1268 (2023) 012039 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1268/1/012039

(production, manufacture, distribution, usage) and until its grave (waste that should be disposed of or
recycled) [1-3]. Its concept relies on product lifecycle stages consisting of raw materials, production
processes and manufacture, product distribution and storage, product usage, and disposal/recycling [4].
Those five stages are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Product lifecycle stages.

It is important to note that the environmental impacts of different shopping bags can vary depending
on various factors such as specific raw materials, manufacturing processes, distribution by
transportation, usage behavior, and end-of-life management. Conducting a comprehensive LCA allows
for a more accurate comparison of the environmental impacts of different shopping bags [5,6]. It also
helps to consider and decide the impact of broader actions from the use of shopping bags.
To date, unfortunately, there are still few studies that deal with an impact assessment on 5 types of
shopping bags that are often used in Indonesia. Therefore, this study intends to perform an impact
assessment of virgin HDPE plastic (type I), oxo-biodegradable plastic (type II), goodie bag (type III),
bioplastic (type IV), and recycled plastic (type V).
All data were sourced from literature and actual data from several plastic industries and plastic waste
recycling companies in Indonesia. Based on product lifecycle stages, the categories of environmental
impacts compared are raw materials, production processes and manufacture, product distribution and
storage, usage, and disposal/recycling.

2. Methods

2.1. Process production of several shopping bags

The process production diagram for 5 types of shopping bags is schemed in Figures 2a-e.

Figure 2a. Process production diagram for virgin HDPE plastic (type I).

2
INCRID 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1268 (2023) 012039 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1268/1/012039

Figure 2b. Process production diagram for oxo-biodegradable plastic.

Figure 2c. Process production diagram for non-woven polypropylene goodie bag.

Figure 2d. Process production diagram for bioplastic.

Figure 2e. Process production diagram for recycled plastic.

2.1.1. Virgin HDPE plastic (type I)

The raw material for HDPE plastic is crude oil and the production involves pure HDPE resin. It has a
simple and long polymer chain structure which is classified as rigid homopolymers and copolymers
which are more resistant to cracking or tear strength [7]. The resin is synthesized from naphtha refining
and cracking processes.

2.1.2. Oxo-biodegradable plastic (type II)

The production process of virgin HDPE plastic and oxo-biodegradable plastic is not much different.
Oxo-biodegradable plastic is produced by utilizing HDPE resin and additives in the form of cobalt
stearic to accelerate the degradability [8,9]. Cobalt stearic is considered a heavy metal, but its use in
small amounts does not pose a threat to human health or the ecosystem.

2.1.3. Goodie bag (type III)

The raw material for producing goodie bag is polypropylene (PP) spun bond which is sourced from
crude oil. It is a homopolymer that is widely used in the production of non-woven fabrics [10].

3
INCRID 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1268 (2023) 012039 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1268/1/012039

Polypropylene has several advantages such as chemical resistance, hydrophobic, affordable prices, and
ease of obtaining [11,12].

2.1.4. Bioplastic (type IV)

Bioplastic is synthesized natural resources based on starch polymer, i.e. corn, potatoes, and cassava
[13,14]. Indonesia is the third largest producer of cassava in the world so has high potential to process
cassava starch into bioplastic. Starch polymers have flexible chains, strong bonds, and can be degraded
with microbes [14]. However, the polymer is brittle, sensitive to water, and can be retrograded.
Bioplastic should meet several requirements, namely biodegradable, thermoplastic (melting point at
approximately 90oC), transparent, control of retrogradation, and selling prices that compete with others
[11]. Retrogradation is the process of recrystallization and the formation of gelatinized starch matrix
due to the influence of temperature [15]. Beyond cassava starch, the process involves polyol and
additives as chemicals.

2.1.5. Recycled plastic (type V)

Recycled plastic is mostly reused as original or lower-quality products. In Sweden, recycled plastics are
used as plastic bricks for building purposes because they have light properties and are stronger than
commonly used bricks [6]. In Indonesia, recycled plastics are commonly reused as shopping bags. The
utilization of plastic waste can preserve the environment, increase economic value, and benefit certain
people who manage it.

2.2. Impat assessment procedures

The goal of this study is to assess the environmental impact of 5 types of shopping bags that are
frequently used in Indonesia. The scope of this study was defined in the green and orange dashed
boundaries in Figures 2a-e. The parameters for analysis were started with raw materials and were then
followed by energy requirements involved in the production, global warming potential (GWP) resulting
from the process, land use for production, water requirements for production, product price, product
mass, product volume, product usage times, and plastic waste management.
The functional unit for all of plastic types was 1 kg of product. Inputted data were the amount of raw
material and the amount of energy in the form of fuel and electricity. The used database was obtained
from literature, several plastic industries, and plastic waste recycling companies in Indonesia. This was
done because the data did not yet exist in the life cycle inventory database.

2.3. Results summary by scaling

All the results from the impact assessment (beyond disposal/recycling criterion) were then scaled to
summarize the most environmentally friendly to the least environmentally friendly plastic. The scale
values ranged from 1 to 5. The type of plastic that gave the least impact had a scale of 5, while the most
significant impact was given a scale of 1.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Raw materials

The raw materials for the 5 types of shopping bags are different. The discrepancy affects the properties,
prices, and environmental impacts of each shopping bag. Virgin HDPE plastic and oxo-biodegradable
plastic have the same raw material, namely crude oil which is processed into HDPE powder and then
formed into the desired plastic. However, oxo-biodegradable plastic utilized prodegradant additives in
the form of cobalt stearic catalysts in the processing [8,9] as much as 2-3%-wt [16]. The amount for
producing 1 kg of HDPE is approximately 1.75 kg of crude oil [17].
Goodie bag has raw material of crude oil which is processed into polypropylene powder and
undergoes the process of spun bonding into non-woven bag [10]. Bioplastic is synthesized from cassava
starch which starts from the cassava planting process. Recycled plastic comes from HDPE plastic waste
which are processed back into plastic pellet that can be reused.

4
INCRID 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1268 (2023) 012039 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1268/1/012039

3.2. Production processes and manufacture

The energy in the plastic production and manufacturing process consists of fuel and electricity. The
energy in raw materials transportation to the factory is excluded from the calculation because each
country has different policies. In order to calculate energy requirements from raw materials to final
products, it is divided into the processing of raw materials to resin pellet or powder (green boundary in
Figures 2a-e) and the processing of resin pellet or powder to shopping bags (orange boundary in Figures
2a-e).
Chiarakom et al. reported that the energy for producing 1 kg virgin HDPE resin plastic pellet or PP
powder from crude oil is 17.2 MJ and for producing 1 kg bioplastic resin pellet from cassava is 39.6 MJ.
Recalculation gives 4.78 kWh/kg of energy for virgin HDPE and 10.99 kWh/kg of energy for bioplastic
[18,19]. This calculation is still acceptable because according to the Association of Plastic Europe Plastic
Manufacture, as many as 21.7 MJ (or 6.03 kWh) of energy are needed to produce 1 kg virgin HDPE
resin pellet or PP powder [7].
In accordance with Edwards, the energy for processing pellet or powder to the final product is 0.76
kWh/kg, 0.77 kWh/kg, 0.76 kWh/kg, and 1.04 kWh/kg for type I, II, III, and IV, in successive term [20].
Apart from that, according to the Indonesian Plastic Recycling Entrepreneurs Association (APDUPI),
the total energy to produce 1 kg of recycled plastic is 1.10 kWh. The results show that energy
requirements from the lowest to the largest in sequence are recycled plastic, virgin HDPE plastic and
goodie bag, oxo-biodegradable plastic, and the highest value is nominated to bioplastic. All of these
values are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. The energy requirements in the plastic production and manufacturing process
Parameter Unit Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V
Raw materials to resin kWh/kg 5.40* 5.40* 5.40* 11.00* -
pellet or powder
Resin pellet or powder to kWh/kg 0.76** 0.77** 0.76** 1.04** -
shopping bags
Total energy requirement kWh/kg 6.16 6.17 6.16 12.04 1.10***
* **
Data from average value of Ref [7] and Ref [19]; Data from Ref [20];
***
Data from APDUPI

HDPE and PP production with fossil fuels produce CO2 emissions. The highest source of CO2
emissions is the steam cracking process which contributes 1.5-2.5 tons CO2/ton ethylene [22]. Other
than that, the cassava plantation also releases CO2 and CH4. In the long term, it increasingly evidences
global warming and climate change [23,24].
The GWP served as specific CO2-equivalent emission as in Figure 3. The results show that bioplastic
produces the highest GWP which has a similar pattern as reported by United Nations Environment
Programme [25]. It is then followed by oxo-biodegradable plastic, virgin HDPE plastic and goodie bag,
and recycled plastic. The GWP of oxo-biodegradable plastic is slightly larger than virgin HDPE plastic
because of additives [25].
12
10.43
10
GWP (kg CO2/kg

8
product)

6 4.80 4.81 4.80

4
2 0.80
0
Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V
Plastic Types
Figure 3. Comparison of GWP in producing 5 types of shopping bags.

5
INCRID 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1268 (2023) 012039 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1268/1/012039

From the perspective of land use, bioplastic production involves greater land compared to others
because it requires cassava cultivation. According to Amarullah, cassava is planted with a spacing of
100 × 100 cm and productive age of 4.5-6 months [26]. The productivity of cassava plants reaches more
than 100 tons/ha, so the land for cassava cultivation needs to be designed in such a way as to increase
its productivity to guarantee the continuity of bioplastic production.
The land use for goodie bag production is greater than virgin HDPE plastic due to the spun bonding
section. Oxo-biodegradable plastic has a similar land use to virgin HDPE plastic because the process
only added plastic pellet mixers with cobalt stearic [8,9]. Recycled plastic requires the least area of land
because the process starts from plastic waste which does not involve a plastic manufacturing unit
operation.
The water requirement to produce bioplastic reaches the greatest when compared to others since it is
used for cassava planting [4,5,26]. The oxo-biodegradable plastic, virgin HDPE plastic, and goodie bag
have no significant difference in water requirement because the manufacturing process is almost similar.
On the other hand, recycled plastic only employs water for washing and pellet making. The data was
processed in units per kilogram of plastic products to be compared.
A comparison of prices for 5 types of shopping bags is obtained from field surveys on the market.
Goodie bag is the most high-cost plastic because it can be used several times. The price of bioplastic is
the 2nd most expensive because the specific price of cassava is higher than crude oil. Likewise, oxo-
biodegradable plastic is more expensive than virgin HDPE plastic due to the effect of cobalt stearic
[8,9]. Meanwhile, recycled plastic is the cheapest plastic. All the results are outlined in Table 2.

Table 2. Land use, water requirement, and price for 5 types of shopping bags
Parameter Unit Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V
Land m2/kg 0.017 [4] 0.017 [4] 0.028 [4] 0.83 [4] 0.012 [21]
Water requirement L/kg 3.25 [4] 3.85 [4] 3.72 [4] 11.87 [4] 1.12 [21]
* ** [14]
Price Rp/kg 27,000 32,000 85,000 35,000 20,300 [21]
Price Rp/sheet 220 260 9800 600 150
*
Data from PT. Mandiri Creative Multiplas; ** Data from Goodie Bag Factory (Jakarta)

3.3. Product distribution, storage, and usage

Product distribution and storage depend on its mass and volume. Goodie bag has a thick material that
can be used several times so it has the greatest mass and volume [10,12]. Cassava also has a large mass
and volume so the transportation and storage required by bioplastics are also greater than virgin HDPE
plastic, oxo-biodegradable plastic, and recycled plastic.
The mass and volume of oxo-biodegradable plastic are slightly higher than virgin HDPE plastic
because it is added with cobalt stearic. Recycled plastic has the smallest mass and volume because it
reprocesses HDPE plastic waste where there is a high possibility of material loss.
Virgin HDPE plastic and recycled plastic can generally be used twice. The first is used as the original
function to carry goods and the second is often used as a trash bag. Those three plastics have strong
resistance since they are produced from pure HDPE powder. On the other side, oxo-biodegradable
plastic can only be used once because it is easy to degrade in a short period of time as a consequence of
additives [27]. Goodie bag is the strongest material so they can be used several times, up to 14 until it is
totally damaged [20]. Bioplastic can only be used once because it is fragile when exposed to water [27]
so it is not suitable for trash bag. The mass, volume, and usage time of 5 types of shopping bags are
tabulated in Table 3.
Table 3. Mass, volume, and usage time of 5 types of shopping bags
Parameter Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V
[18,20] [20] [18,20] [18,20]
Mass (g) 6.0-8.1 8.3 65.6-115.8 12.5-16.5 6.0-7.70 [4,18]
[20] [20] [20] [20]
Volume (L) 19.1 19.1 19.75 19.1 21.6 [4]
[20]
Usage (times) 2 1 14 1 2

6
INCRID 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1268 (2023) 012039 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1268/1/012039

3.4. Disposal/recycling
Disposal/recycling is the processing method that should be done for shopping bag waste. Disposal is not
recommended because virgin HDPE plastic still has great potential to be reused or reprocessed into other
products. Waste from virgin HDPE plastic is favored to be recycled and reused because it is still pure
and has high strength. Recycled plastic waste management is similar to virgin HDPE plastic. In addition,
recycled plastic can be reused until it is damaged. Disposal is actually not a solution for both plastic
waste management and becomes an environmental burden [25,27].
It is not preferable to recycle oxo-biodegradable plastic waste because it degrades in a short time. It
generally consists of two stages. In the first stage, the plastic breaks down into smaller particles when
exposed to sun heat, ultraviolet light, or mechanical pressure. In the second stage, small particles of
plastic are further degraded by microorganisms. Due to this characteristic, it can be disposed of in a
landfill. Also, oxo-biodegradable plastic waste is not recommended to be recycled because it contains
additives that have the potential to reduce the quality of recycled products [20].
Polypropylene goodie bags can last for 1-2 years [10,12]. The disposal of goodie bag waste in landfill
becomes a burden for the environment so it should be the last choice. Goodie bag waste can be recycled
because it is made of polypropylene and can be processed into other products. Besides, waste
management of goodie bags can be realized by incineration. Bioplastic waste is designed to be disposed
of in landfill because it is biodegradable. The last option is reuse but it has less strong resistance and is
not resistant to water. The management of shopping bag waste is summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Methods for processing shopping bag waste

Parameter Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V
Recycling  - - - 
Reuse     
Disposal -    -
 : First priority;  : Second priority;  : Last act; - : do not manage

3.5. Scaling results and analysis

From the scaling results in Table 5, the sequence of shopping bag types from the least environmental
impact until the most significant environmental impact are recycled plastic, virgin HDPE plastic, oxo-
biodegradable plastic, goodie bag, and bioplastic. It should be realized that the obtained results can be
different when compared with other countries, which becomes a limitation in this study. It occurs
because impact assessment studies are unique and depend on data, regulations, and industrial conditions
in a specific country [2,3]. In contrast, the results should not be used as standard values but are better in
providing new insight into the sustainability criteria of plastic materials and supporting paradigm
changes in plastic usage.
Table 5. Scaling results of various types of shopping bags
Parameter Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V
Total energy requirement 2 3 2 1 5
Global warming potential 2 3 2 1 5
Land use 4 4 3 1 5
Water requirement 2 4 3 1 5
Price/kg 4 3 1 2 5
Price/sheet 4 3 1 2 5
Mass 5 3 1 2 4
Volume 5 5 4 5 1
Usage 2 1 5 1 2
Total 30 29 22 16 37

7
INCRID 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1268 (2023) 012039 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1268/1/012039

4. Conclusions and closing remarks

In Indonesian case study, it is shown that recycled plastic is the most environmentally friendly. It is then
followed by virgin HDPE plastic, oxo-biodegradable plastic, goodie bag, and bioplastic. As can be
concluded that label “bio” does not guarantee the material is sustainable and environmentally friendly.
It happens because simple judgments have only been made in the grave stage whereas the impact
assessment examines in holistic from cradle, gate, and grave. Also, it should be remembered that this
study is not to vilify specific types of plastics, but the results are aimed at supporting paradigm changes
in plastic usage to become wiser.

5. References
[1] Maga D, Hiebel M and Aryan V 2019 Sustainability 11(19) 5324
[2] Joglekar S N, Kharkar R A, Mandavgane S A and Kulkarni B D 2019 Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.
26 492
[3] Quispe I, Navia R and Kahhat R 2019 J. Clean. Prod. 209 1235–44
[4] The Sustainable Packaging Alliance Limited 2009 Environmental Impacts of Shopping Bags
(Melbourne: Australia)
[5] Dilli, R 2007 Comparison of Existing Life Cycle Analysis of Shopping Bag Alternatives (Victoria:
Australia)
[6] Greene, J 2015 Life Cycle Assessment of Reusable and Single-Use Plastic Bags in California,
(California State University: Chico)
[7] Association of Plastic Plastic Europe Manufacture 2008 Environmental Product Declarations of
European Plastics Manufactures High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) (Polyolefins Group Plastic
Europe: Belgium)
[8] Aldas M, Paladines A, Valle V, Pazmiño M and Quiroz F 2018 Int. J. Polym. Sci. 2018 2474176
[9] Vazquez Y V, Ressia J A, Cerrada M L, Barbosa S E and Vallés E M 2019 J. Polym. Environ.
27 pp 464–71
[10] Yuan Y, Jian W, Yanan Z and Mingqiao G 2014 J. Rare Earths 32(12) pp 1196-2000
[11] Janssen, L P B M 2006 Thermoplastic Starch (University of Groningen: Netherlands)
[12] Kansal, H 2016 Experimental Investigation of Properties of Polypropylene and Non-Woven
Spunbond Fabric (Vimal Industries: India)
[13] Nugroho, A F 2012 Bioplastic Synthesis of Sweet Potato Starch Using ZnO Metal Amplifiers and
Clay Natural Enhancers (University of Indonesia: Depok)
[14] Saptorahardjo, A 2016 Proceedings of the 5th National Seminar on Leather, Rubber, and Plastics
[15] Widyastuti, E 2012 Modification of Starch (Universitas Brawijaya: Indonesia)
[16] Abdelmoez W, Dahab I, Ragab E M, Abdelsalam O A and Mustafa A 2021 Polym. Adv. Technol.
32 pp 1981–96
[17] Kumar S, Panda A K and Singh R K 2011 Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55(11) pp 893–910
[18] Muthu, S and Yi, L 2014 Assessment of Environmental Impact by Grocery Shopping Bags
(Springer Heidelberg: London)
[19] Chiarakom, S, Permpoonwiwat, C K and Nanthachatchavankul, P 2014 Financial and Economic
Viability of Bioplastic Production in Thailand (Economy and Environment Program for
Southeast Asia: Philippines)
[20] Edwards, C 2011 Life cycle assessment of supermarkets carrier bags: A review of the bags
(Bristol: English)
[21] Ministry of Environment and Forestry 2020 National Plastic Waste Reduction Strategic Actions
for Indonesia, Republic of Indonesia (Indonesia: Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup)
[22] Gielen, D J and Podkanski, J 2006 International Symposium on Sustainable Iron Making,
Brisbane, Australia
[23] Steven S 2023 Proceedings of the International Conference of Tropical Studies and its
Applications (ICTROPS 2022), Series: Advances in Biological Sciences Research (Atlantis
Press) pp 335–50
[24] Bindar Y, Steven S, Kresno S W, Hernowo P, Restiawaty E, Purwadi R and Prakoso T 2022
Biomass Conv. Bioref.

8
INCRID 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1268 (2023) 012039 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1268/1/012039

[25] United Nations Environment Programme 2020 Single-use plastic bags and their alternatives:
Recommendations from Life Cycle Assessments (Life Cycle Initiative: France)
[26] Amarullah A, Indradewa D, Yudono P and Sunarminto B H 2016 Ilm. Pertan. (Agric. Sci.) 1(3)
pp 100–4
[27] Edwards C and Parker G 2012 A Life Cycle Assessment of Oxo biodegradable, Compostable and
Conventional Bags (Intertek Expert Services: United Kingdom)

Acknowledgments
We thank all the companies that have helped provide data in this study, e.g. HDPE and PP
manufacturers, oxo-biodegradable plastic manufacturers, goodie bag manufacturers, bioplastic
manufacturers, and recycled plastic manufacturers.