Bioplastics And Pops: What's The Connection?

Bioplastics are polymeric compounds that are functionally similar to synthetic plastics but are largely environmentally sustainable. They are made from renewable sources such as plants, animals, or microorganisms, and are biodegradable. Bioplastics have been touted as a solution to the problem of plastic waste, with reduced use of fossil fuels, a smaller carbon footprint, and faster decomposition. However, the production of bioplastics has been associated with greater amounts of pollutants due to the fertilizers and pesticides used in agriculture and the chemical processing required to turn organic material into plastic. The environmental impact of bioplastics is influenced by feedstock choices, processing methods, and disposal practices, and some bioplastics may contribute to global warming, pollution, and land use changes.

Bioplastics are made from renewable sources

Bioplastics are biodegradable and can be composted, breaking down into carbon dioxide, water, inorganic compounds, and biomass. They are less toxic than traditional plastics and do not contain bisphenol A (BPA), a hormone disruptor. Bioplastics also have a smaller carbon footprint and contribute to fewer greenhouse gas emissions than traditional plastics.

However, the production of bioplastics has been found to result in greater amounts of pollutants due to the fertilizers and pesticides used in agriculture and the chemical processing required to turn organic material into plastic. Bioplastics also contribute more to ozone depletion and require extensive land use.

Bioplastics are currently used in disposable items like packaging, containers, straws, bags, and bottles, as well as in non-disposable items like carpeting, plastic piping, phone casings, 3D printing, car insulation, and medical implants. The global bioplastics market is projected to grow, with an increasing focus on sustainability and the reduction of plastic pollution.

While bioplastics offer advantages over traditional plastics, there are still challenges to their widespread adoption, including negative agricultural impacts, competition with food production, unclear end-of-life management, and higher costs.

Bioplastics are less toxic than traditional plastics

Bioplastics are often touted as a less toxic alternative to traditional plastics. Traditional plastics are made from petroleum-based raw materials, whereas bioplastics are made from renewable materials, such as corn, sugar beets, or potato starch. Bioplastics are also biodegradable and have a smaller carbon footprint.

One of the key advantages of bioplastics is that they do not contain bisphenol A (BPA), a hormone-disrupting chemical commonly found in traditional plastics. BPA has been linked to adverse health effects, including reproductive impairments, and has been banned from use in baby bottles. Bioplastics also do not contain other toxic chemicals like phosgene, which is used in the production of traditional polycarbonate plastic.

However, it is important to note that bioplastics are not without their own toxicities. A 2020 study found that bioplastics and plant-based materials can contain toxic chemicals, with cellulose and starch-based products inducing the strongest in vitro toxicity. The study identified over 1,000 chemical features in most samples, with the maximum being 20,000 features. These chemicals can include monomers, oligomers, plastic additives, lubricants, and other non-intentionally added substances.

Additionally, the production of bioplastics can result in greater amounts of pollutants due to the fertilizers and pesticides used in agriculture and the chemical processing required to turn organic material into plastic. Bioplastics have also been found to contribute more to ozone depletion and require extensive land use.

Despite these concerns, bioplastics still hold promise in helping to reduce plastic pollution and our carbon footprint. Researchers are working to develop greener varieties and more efficient production processes to mitigate the negative impacts associated with bioplastics. It is worth noting that the term "bioplastics" lacks a standardized definition, and the level of fossil fuel-based plastic included in these materials can vary, impacting their toxicity and environmental impact.

Bioplastics are biodegradable and compostable

The word "bioplastics" does not have a standardized definition and is often used to refer to plastic that is either bio-based, biodegradable, or compostable. Bioplastics can even include up to 80% fossil fuel-based plastic. Bio-based plastics represent about 1% of the plastics available on the market. Bioplastics are commonly made from corn starch, cassava, or sugarcane. They provide an alternative to petroleum-based plastic and decompose faster and with fewer leftover toxins. Bioplastics are currently used in disposable items like packaging, containers, straws, bags, and bottles, and in non-disposable items like phone casings, 3D printing, and medical implants.

Bioplastics are recyclable through mechanical recycling. They degrade quickly in the environment. For example, researchers at the University of Washington have developed bioplastics using spirulina that have a degradation profile similar to organic waste and are on average 10 times stronger and stiffer than previously reported spirulina bioplastics. These bioplastics are also fire-resistant, instantly self-extinguishing when exposed to fire.

Despite the advantages of bioplastics, they are not a silver bullet to the plastic problem. Bioplastics production results in greater amounts of pollutants due to the fertilizers and pesticides used in growing the crops and the chemical processing needed to turn organic material into plastic. Bioplastics also contribute more to ozone depletion than traditional plastics and require extensive land use.

Bioplastics have a smaller carbon footprint

The carbon footprint of a product can be measured by carbon footprinting or the life cycle assessment (LCA, standard ISO 14040 and ISO 14044). One study calculated that bioplastics production resulted in 0.828 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per metric ton of bioplastics produced, compared to 2.4 for traditional plastics. Substituting the annual global demand for fossil-based polyethylene (PE) with bio-based PE would save more than 73 million tonnes of CO2, equivalent to the emissions of 20 million flights around the world per year.

Bioplastics also have a smaller carbon footprint due to their end-of-life options. Some bioplastics are compostable, meaning they can biodegrade in a compost site, breaking down into carbon dioxide, water, inorganic compounds, and biomass at the same rate as other organic materials, leaving no toxic residue. Some bioplastics are also marine degradable, meaning that if they end up in the ocean, they can serve as food for fish or bacteria. Bioplastics also have the potential to be processed and used to make virgin plastic again.

However, it is important to note that bioplastics are not a perfect solution to plastic pollution. The production of bioplastics can result in greater amounts of pollutants due to the fertilizers and pesticides used in growing the crops and the chemical processing needed to turn organic material into plastic. Bioplastics also contribute more to ozone depletion than traditional plastics and require extensive land use. Additionally, bioplastics technologies are still nascent, so there is room for improvement in this model. For bioplastics to be more sustainable than conventional plastics, we need to be able to separate them from other waste and process them appropriately.

Bioplastics are not a silver bullet

Bioplastics are often marketed as the solution to plastic pollution. However, they are not a silver bullet for several reasons. Firstly, bioplastics are not as eco-friendly as they are claimed to be. A 2010 study from the University of Pittsburgh found that when the life cycles of bioplastics and traditional plastics were compared, bioplastics did not always come out on top. The production of bioplastics results in greater amounts of pollutants due to the fertilizers and pesticides used in growing the crops and the chemical processing needed to turn organic material into plastic.

Bioplastics also contribute more to ozone depletion than traditional plastics and require extensive land use. While it is true that bioplastics have a smaller carbon footprint and decompose faster, they are not without their environmental impacts. Furthermore, bioplastics are more expensive to produce than traditional plastics, which poses a challenge to their large-scale production and distribution.

Another reason bioplastics are not a silver bullet is that they cannot simply be discarded and expected to break down and disappear. Recycling and reuse are the only effective strategies to manage plastic waste. This means that even if bioplastics are used, they still need to be properly recycled, just like traditional plastics.

Additionally, bioplastics can contaminate the waste stream of petroleum-based plastics during the recycling process. For example, PLA (polylactic acid), a common type of bioplastic, is mechanically recycled, which means it is cleaned, shredded, melted down, and made into pellets for reuse. However, if PLA ends up in a batch of chemically recycled petroleum-based plastic, it can contaminate the entire batch.

Finally, bioplastics are not a silver bullet because they are not a direct replacement for traditional plastics in all applications. For instance, bioplastics may not be suitable for products that require long-term durability or exposure to certain environmental conditions. In conclusion, while bioplastics may be a step in the right direction, they are not a magic solution to the plastic pollution problem. A variety of new approaches, such as overhauling the world's economy to recycle and reuse more plastic, are needed to address this complex issue.

Frequently asked questions