Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) · Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) ... (FU) is storage of 1000 litres of waste and the study considers all processes from cradle to grave, i.e. from extraction

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Focusing on the climate impact of Paxxo’s Longopac cassettes and traditional waste bags 

Conducted by TEM Foundation 2018-10-05

1

Summary .................................................................................................................................. 2 Purpose .................................................................................................................................... 4 Scope ....................................................................................................................................... 4 

Products ................................................................................................................................ 4 Description of Paxxo Longopac ............................................................................................ 4 The functional unit ................................................................................................................ 6 System boundaries ............................................................................................................... 6 Assumptions and limitations ................................................................................................. 7 Data collection ...................................................................................................................... 7 

Inventory analysis ..................................................................................................................... 9 Longopac cassettes ............................................................................................................ 10 

Raw materials ................................................................................................................. 10 Production ....................................................................................................................... 10 Transportation ................................................................................................................. 10 End-of-life ........................................................................................................................ 11 

Traditional waste bags ........................................................................................................ 11 Raw materials and production ......................................................................................... 11 Transportation ................................................................................................................. 12 End-of-life ........................................................................................................................ 12 

Results ................................................................................................................................... 13 European waste scenario ................................................................................................... 14 

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 16 Annex 1 .................................................................................................................................. 17 Annex 2 .................................................................................................................................. 19 Annex 3 .................................................................................................................................. 20 

2

Summary This LCA compare Paxxo Longopac cassettes and traditional waste bags with focus on climate impact. The analysed products are Paxxo’s Longopac Mini, Midi and Maxi (made of a combination of different PE qualities), Longopac Zero (made of bio-based PE from sugarcane ethanol) and Longopac Biodegradable, (biodegradable and made of polysaccharides and polyesters). The Longopac cassettes are then being compared to six traditional waste bags with different thicknesses and volumes (made of Low-Density Polyethylene, LDPE) and one fictive bag made of the same material as Longopac Biodegradable. Both waste bags are compostable during right condition, but incineration has been applied as end-of-life in this study. The functional unit (FU) is storage of 1000 litres of waste and the study considers all processes from cradle to grave, i.e. from extraction of raw materials to end-of-life. The base scenario occurs in Sweden, with incineration as the end-of-life process. All traditional waste bags are assumed to have a fill grade of 60% to represent the general practice of using such bags. The total climate impact per 1000 litres of waste of the analysed products is shown in the figure below (‘µ’ represents the unit for a millionth of a meter relating to the thickness of plastic film).

In general, Longopac’s cassettes have a lower climate impact compared to traditional waste bags. If the Longopac Mini is compared to a 125 l traditional waste bag, its carbon footprint is almost 3 times lower than a 40 µ bag, and 2.5 times lower than a recycled bag of the same properties. Longopac Zero has almost a 4 times lower carbon footprint compared to a 40 µ 125 l traditional waste bag.

3

If the Midi is compared to a traditional 160 l 60 µ bag (with a 60% fill grade), the Midi has a carbon footprint 3.7 times lower than the traditional waste bag per functional unit. Using Longopac Maxi instead of a 240 l 60 µ traditional waste bag (with a 60% fill grade), the carbon footprint is 2.7 times lower. Like the Mini cassette, the Midi and Maxi is stronger than a traditional waste bag. Even though the Longopac cassettes are thinner than traditional waste bags, the composition of the cassettes still makes more durable. The major reason for a lower climate impact from the Longopac cassettes compared to traditional waste bags is the lower weight of polyethylene per volume of waste, which is a result of a better fill grade and thinner plastic film. These advantages reduce emissions during both extraction and processing of raw materials, as well as during incineration. The two biodegradable bags compared in the analysis had a relatively similar climate impact with a small advantage to the fictive traditional bag per functional unit. The traditional waste bag benefit from being thinner and therefore more lightweight per functional unit. At the same time Longopac Biodegradable has a higher filling degree and is produced using Swedish, and not European, electricity mix. The biodegradable bags are based on different materials than the PE bags, are not as durable and obtain different technical properties. Due to the higher density of the biodegradable bags the climate impact is slightly higher than the PE cassettes since more material is used per functional unit. The biodegradable bags contain both renewable and fossil raw materials. The main climate impact from all the products derives from raw materials extraction and from incineration. Raw materials extraction was generally the second most significant proportion of the climate impact during the products’ life-cycle, whereof polyethylene constituted for the major impact compared to the smaller quantities of other components. The bags and cassettes made of renewable raw materials have the lowest climate impact during the raw materials extraction phase of the life cycle, since the bio-based material is a carbon sink. The carbon footprint is also depending on where a waste bag is produced and what electricity mix being is used, i.e. Swedish, European or global.

4

Purpose The reason for carrying out this study is to calculate the climate impact of Paxxo’s waste solutions Longopac Mini, Midi Maxi, Zero and Biodegradable, and to compare the results with traditional waste bags.

Scope 

Products  The following products are included in this study.

Longopac Mini, Midi och Maxi cassettes (fossil PE) Longopac Zero (bio-PE made from sugarcane ethanol) Longopac Biodegradable (biodegradable, based on polysaccharides (starch) and

biodegradable polyesters) Traditional waste bags, 125 l, 160 l, 240 l (fossil PE) Traditional waste bag 125 l (100% recycled PE) Traditional waste bag 125 l (biodegradable, based on polysaccharides (starch) and

biodegradable polyesters) The study is based on the LCA conducted in 2016 with some adjustments. The same assumptions about the data for the traditional bags (excluding the biodegradable bag) has been used in this analysis. Data for Paxxo’s products has been updated to align with the current production process, including energy consumption and packaging weight.

Products added in this study compared to the analysis performed in 2016 are Longopac Midi, Longopac Zero, Longopac Biodegradable and the reference bag Traditional biodegradable bag.

Description of Paxxo Longopac The waste system consists of a bag holder, Longopac Stand, on which the waste bag cassettes are mounted. The bag holder comes fitted to two sizes of cassettes, the larger version called Longopac Maxi, and the smaller cassette called Longopac Mini. The Maxi holds about 200 litres per bag if filled to its maximum, and Mini holds about 80 litres of waste. The Longopac Stand bag holder is not included in this assessment. The ancillary bag cassettes, Mini, Midi, Maxi, Zero and Biodegradable, consist of an open-ended horizontal folded PE (or biodegradable plastic in the case of Biodegradable) tubing that is pleated/folded into a compact cassette. When filled with waste, the user simply cuts the tube to create a separate bag, which is then sealed using a plastic cable tie, referred to as a clip in this report. On delivery, the cassettes are compact and include several plastic clips. The clips are not being used to seal the Biodegradable cassette, these waste bags are instead sealed by a knot. The Longopac bag system is economical, easy to use, efficient and saves time. The design allows for less bag material to be used compared to traditional waste bags.

5

Figure 1. Paxxo’s waste bag system

Table 1. Product description

Product descriptions

Longopac Mini bag cassette (excl. Longopac Stand bag holder) - Polyethylene (combination of different PE polymers)

- Diameter: 357 mm

- Length: 60 meter

- Film thickness:18 μ

Longopac Midi bag cassette (excl. Longopac Stand bag holder) - Polyethylene (combination of different PE polymers)

- Diameter: 465 mm

- Length: 85 m

- Film thickness: 22 μ

Longopac Maxi bag cassette (excl. Longopac Stand bag holder) - Polyethylene (combination of different PE polymers)

- Diameter: 570 mm

- Length: 110 m

- Film thickness: 25 μ

Longopac Zero bag cassette (excl. Longopac Stand bag holder) - Mixture of Polyethylene Medium Density (MDPE) and Linear low-density Polyethylene (LLDPE) made from sugarcane

ethanol)

- Diameter: 357 mm

- Length: 60 m

- Film thickness: 18 μ

Longopac Biodegradable bag cassette (excl. Longopac Stand bag holder) - Biodegradable plastic (based on starch and polyesters)

- Diameter: 357 mm

- Length: 40 m

- Film thickness: 24 μ

Plastic clips for sealing the tubing into separate bags. Supplied in the package together with the Longopac bag

cassette (excl. Biodegradable)

6

Product descriptions

- Made of polyamide

- 75 clips/Mini and Zero bag cassette, 100 clips/Midi bag cassette, 130 clips/Maxi bag cassette

Packaging - Corrugated cardboard

- Packaging for Mini, Zero and Biodegradable bag cassette weighs 90 g, packaging for Midi bag cassette weighs 139 g,

packaging for Maxi bag cassette weighs 202 g.

The functional unit When conducting a life cycle assessment, the term functional unit (FU) is used make a fair comparison of two different product systems, in this case systems for waste disposal. Both products should be able to meet the same needs and be related to the same function. The functional unit (FU) of this study is storage of 1000 litres of waste.

System boundaries This LCA considers all processes from cradle to grave. This includes the extraction of raw materials to end-of-life (incineration or landfill). All transportation from raw material production to the final production site at Paxxo and further to customers are included. Transportation to incineration/landfill is excluded. The base scenario occurs in Sweden, which means that the end-of-life process is mainly incineration. In the results section below, calculations are also made in a European scenario using European figures for general waste management schemes. Since the waste is of various origin recycling is not considered an alternative in this study. For comparison, also the biodegradable bags are assumed go to incineration. Even though these bags are compostable under industrial compost conditions not all composting facilities accept them.

7

Figure 2. System boundaries for LCA calculations

Assumptions and limitations The end-of-life of the waste bags is assumed to occur in Sweden. According to the Swedish Waste Management Association, less than 1% of household waste ended up in landfills in 20171. For that reason, this study will assume all waste to be incinerated. According to the general perception of Paxxo’s customers and other stakeholders in the industry, the fill grade of the traditional waste bag is assumed to be 60%2. To be directly comparable with the traditional bags, Mini, Zero and Biodegradable is assumed to be filled to the same volumes as a 60% filled 125 l, resulting in 75 l. Midi is filled correspondingly to a 160 l bag, resulting in 96 l of waste per bag, and Maxi is filled correspondingly to a 240 l bag, resulting in 144 l of waste per bag. The CO2 emissions related to the traditional waste bags packaging are assumed to be the same as for the Paxxo Longopac bag cassettes. Spill-over granulates in Paxxo’s production amount to 3%, out of which 75% of the spill-over is reinserted and reused in production. This is incorporated in the LCA. Longopac Stand bag holders are excluded.

Data collection LCA data, such as CO2 emissions and process data, are collected from Henrik Péters, Managing Director and Leif Andersson, Production Manager at Paxxo in Malmö, and from

1 The Swedish Waste Management Association (2018), Svensk Avfallshantering 2018. Available: https://www.avfallsverige.se/fileadmin/user_upload/Publikationer/Svensk_avfallshantering_2018_01.pdf 2 Confirmed by Henrik Péters, Managing Director at Paxxo (2018)

8

- Ecoinvent, one of the world's most recognized databases containing environmental

data for more than 2000 industrial processes. - Idemat, a database of The Program Design for Sustainability, School of Industrial

Design, Engineering and Production at Technical University in Delft, The Netherlands - Plastic Europe, a leading European trade association - Scientific literature and previously conducted LCA:s

Scientific literature and previously conducted LCA:s have been used when data has not been able to collect through database inventory. Compared to the LCA conducted in 2016 this study also includes emission factors for Longopac Zero and the biodegradable waste bags. Data for Longopac Zero has been collected from the supplier of bio-based PE, Braskem through a study performed by E4tech in 2013. To include this data in this LCA, the emission factor has been compared to other studies also using the study from E4tech. By doing so, adjustments have been done to compensate for credits considered in the E4tech study, such as direct land use change, carbon removal from the atmosphere and distribution of electricity to the national grid from sugarcane mills. Depending on how credits are being used when calculating the emission factor for extracting bio-based PE different results are in place. In this study an average emission factor from different studies has been used. In Annex 1, an alternative scenario using the emission factor from the E4tech study is presented. Raw materials extraction for the biodegradable waste bags result in different carbon emissions depending on material composition, i.e. the ratio between renewable and fossil raw materials3.The biodegradable waste bags consists not only of bio-based raw materials but also synthetic biodegradable polymers. Data in this assessment has been collected from a previously conducted LCA on a biopolymer based on starch. The fictive traditional biodegradable waste bag in this assessment has the same properties as a biodegradable waste bag on the market. See Annex 3 for detailed sources and databases of the input materials.

3 Broeren et al. (2017), Environmental impact assessment of six starch plastics focusing on wastewater-derived starch and additives

9

Inventory analysis Quantification of products per functional unit To determine the weight of raw material input per functional unit (FU), 1000 litres of waste, the number of cassettes or waste bags needed per FU is calculated, see table 2 below. Table 2. Number of waste bags needed per FU

Fill grade Waste volume per waste bag (litres)

Number of waste bags needed for 1000 litres of waste

125 l 60% 75 13.3 160 l 60% 96 10.4 240 l 60% 144 6.9

To store 75 litres of waste, the required length of Mini or Zero amounts to 1.13 m, the length of Midi needed to store 96 litres of waste is 1.01 m, and the length of Maxi needed to store 144 litres is 1.17 m, according to Paxxo’s measurements. To store 75 litres of waste in Longopac Biodegradable the required length of the cassette is 1.25 m. Since no clips are being used for the Biodegradable the required length increases compared to the PE cassettes. The number of cassettes needed per FU is shown in table 3 below. Table 3. Number of cassettes needed per FU

Fill grade Waste volume per waste bag (litres)

Number of cassettes needed per FU

125 l 60% 75 0.25 Mini or Zero 125 l (biodegradable) 60% 75 0.42 Biodegradable 160 l 60% 96 0.12 Midi 240 l 60% 144 0.07 Maxi

When a bag is full, it is separated from the cassette by cutting it loose. The bottom of the next bag is sealed by using a polyamide clip, as illustrated in figure 3 below. To represent the length of cassette needed to separate a full bag and attach a clip to a new/empty one, two times 0.4 dm is incorporated in the required length of cassette needed per bag.

Figure 3. The cutting between two Longopac waste bags

To store 1000 litres of waste, 0.25 Mini or Zero cassettes are required, and correspondingly 0.12 Midi cassettes, 0.07 Maxi cassettes or 0.42 Biodegradable cassettes are needed. The

10

number of separate traditional waste bags needed to store 1000 litres of waste if filled to 60% is the following: 13.3 waste bags à 125 litres, 10.4 waste bags à 160 litres or 6.9 waste bags à 240 litres.

Longopac cassettes 

Raw materials  Table 4. Raw material quantity needed to produce Longopac cassettes and the traditional waste bags.

Production Mini, Midi, Maxi, Zero and Biodegradable are produced at Paxxo’s plant in Malmö, Sweden. The average energy use during the production is estimated to 1,34 kWh/kg used plastic. The average is based on the overall consumption at the facility and has not been allocated to different processes. The emission factor for the Swedish electricity mix of 0,013 kg CO2e/kWh4 is applied for the Longopac cassettes. The reference data shows that electricity consumption during the process of extrusion varies, which can have numerous explanations. There may be several underlying reasons for the variation of the data, bound to the specifics of the production process. Conclusively, this LCA uses Paxxo’s own primary data for electricity consumption, which is shown to be within realistic boundaries compared to other data for PE extrusion processes. Transportation Paxxo purchases polyethylene (PE) granulates from four large plastic producers. Production of PE takes place at various locations in North and Central Europe such as Austria, Sweden, Finland and Germany. Granulates are delivered in 100%-filled tank trucks (26 tons) 2-3 times per month. In the calculations an average distance of 975 km has been assumed. The polyamide clips are delivered in 100%-filled containers by boat from Shenzhen, China. Packaging material is delivered by truck after being produced about 40 km from Paxxo’s production site in southern Sweden. Paxxo purchases the bio-based PE resins produced in Brazil, from a European distributer after transportation to the Netherlands. Transportation included in this assessment is

4 Swedenergy (2017), Energibranschens klimat– och miljöpåverkan. Available: https://www.energiforetagen.se/globalassets/energiforetagen/statistik/energiaret/energiaret2016_miljo_27-september.pdf?v=qh4qjlb85gunRX8Yp8bBRsCSwbw

11

transportation by boat from Brazil to Netherlands and by truck from Netherlands to Paxxo’s site in Malmö. The granulate to Longopac Biodegradable are manufactured in Europe and transported in boxes of 1000 kg to Paxxo’s site in Malmö. Distance from supplier and Paxxo is 778 km. Transportation of waste bag from Paxxo’s site to customer has been included with an average distance of 40 km. See Annex 3 for details on distances, calculations and emission factors. End‐of‐life The base scenario occurs in Sweden. Less than 1% of all waste ended up at landfill in 2017, according to the Swedish Waste Management Association5 and therefore PE and polyamide waste is assumed to be incinerated at the end-of-life. According to the Packaging and Newspaper Collection Service, 80% paper packaging is sent to recycling6. The emission factor for recycling of cardboard is neglected in this study due to its minimal effect on the total emissions. Emissions factors during end-of-life is shown in table 5. Table 5. The emission factors for Longopac cassettes materials at incineration

Material kg CO2e/kg Database

Disposal, packaging cardboard, 19.6% water, to municipal incineration

0,025 Ecoinvent

Disposal, polyethylene, 0.4% water, to municipal incineration 2,99 Ecoinvent

Disposal, polyamide to municipal incineration 1,7 Eco IT

Traditional waste bags 

Raw materials and production The traditional waste bags of varying thickness (measured in the unit ‘µ’, one in a million, which is usually referred to as an indirect measure of the strength of the material), to be compared with the Longopac cassettes made of PE, consist of Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE). This report examines both LDPE made from raw materials as well as one recycled product. The traditional waste bag is assumed to be produced in Shanghai, China, with the process of film extrusion. The energy use for this process is 0.5 kWh/kg used materials according to Ecoinvent. To make the climate impact calculations comparable, the energy use is adjusted to 1 kWh/kg used materials. This since the energy use at Paxxo’s site covers the entire facility and not just the extrusion process. This emission factor is however still slightly lower

5 Swedish Waste Management Association (2018), Deponering. Available: https://www.avfallsverige.se/avfallshantering/avfallsbehandling/deponering/ 6 FTI AB (2017), Återvinningsstatistik. Available: https://www.ftiab.se/180.html

12

than the emission factor at Paxxo´s own production site due to economies of scale. The same estimation has been used for the traditional biodegradable bag. The emission factor for the global electricity mix of 0.6 kg CO2e/kWh7 is applied for the production of traditional waste bags made of PE since the production is assumed to occur in Shanghai, China. The emission factor for the European electricity mix of 0.337 kg CO2/kWh8 is applied for the traditional biodegradable bag. Transportation The traditional waste bags are assumed to be transported by boat from Shanghai to Malmö. Transportation from raw material supplier to production site of waste bags is neglected. The biodegradable bag is assumed to be transported by truck from Europe to Malmö with a distance of 1464 km and then to customers with an average distance of 40 km.

End‐of‐life Same as Longopac cassettes.

7 Malmodin et al. (2014), Life Cycle Assessment of ICT 8 Energiföretagen (2017), Energibranschens klimat– och miljöpåverkan. Tillgänglig via: https://www.energiforetagen.se/globalassets/energiforetagen/statistik/energiaret/energiaret2016_miljo_27-september.pdf?v=qh4qjlb85gunRX8Yp8bBRsCSwbw

13

Results The total climate impact per 1000 litres of waste (FU) of the analysed products are shown in table 6. From a life cycle perspective, Longopac cassettes and the traditional biodegradable bag contribute to the lowest climate impact while the traditional waste bags based on PE from fossil raw materials are causing a higher impact. Emissions from raw materials extraction and incineration are the main emission sources, excluding the waste bag made of recycled PE where incineration is the major source alone. The highest impact levels derive from the waste bags made of fossil PE. Raw materials extraction for packaging and polyamide clips stand for a small part of the raw material impacts due to the low weight needed per FU and lower climate impact materials (card boarding). Table 6. Total climate impact per 1000 litres of waste of the analysed products, Swedish waste scenario

kg CO2e/FU

Mini à 75 l, 18 µ 1,6 Midi à 96 l, 22 µ 1,7 Maxi à 144 l, 25 µ 1,9 Zero (bio-based PE) (not biodegradable) à 75 l, 18 µ 1,3 Biodegradable à 75 l, 24 µ 2,7 125 l waste bag, 40 µ, 70 g 5,1 125 l waste bag, 40 µ, 70 g, återvunnen PE 4,2 125 l waste bag, 50 µ, 80 g 6,0 125 l waste bag, 80 µ, 112 g 8,5 160 l waste bag, 60 µ, 108 g 6,4 240 l waste bag, 60 µ, 131 g 5,2 Traditional Bio (biodegradable), 125 l, 17 µ, 50 g 2,6

14

Figure 4. Total climate impact of the analysed products (CO2e/FU)

European waste scenario In a European scenario, 25% of the waste bags (if filled with household waste) end up in landfill, 30% end up at an incineration plant and 47% is composted or recycled9. In this study all waste is assumed to go to incineration or landfill. Table 7 and figure 5 below display the results of the European scenario for waste treatment. The figures are slightly lower than for the base (Swedish) scenario since the emissions from incineration are higher than for landfill. Table 7. Total climate impact per 1000 litres of waste of the analysed products, European waste scenario.

kg CO2e/FU

Mini à 75 l 1,2 Midi à 96 l 1,2 Maxi à 144 l 1,3 Mini Zero (bio-based PE) (not biodegradable) à 75 l 0,8 Biodegradable à 75 l 2,1 125 l waste bag, 40 µ, 70 g 3,9 125 l waste bag, 40 µ, 70 g, återvunnen PE 3,0 125 l waste bag, 50 µ, 80 g 4,6 125 l waste bag, 80 µ, 112 g 6,5 160 l waste bag, 60 µ, 108 g 4,9 240 l waste bag, 60 µ, 131 g 4,0 Traditional Bio (biodegradable), 125 l, 17 µ, 50 g 2,1

9 Swedish Waste Management Association (2018), Avfall i Europa. Available: https://www.avfallsverige.se/kunskapsbanken/avfallsstatistik/europeisk-avfallsstatistik/

15

Figure 5. Total climate impact of the analysed products (CO2e/FU), European scenario

16

Conclusion  The main reasons to why Longopac cassettes incur a lower climate impact than traditional waste bags are the lower weight of polyethylene per volume of waste, which is possible due to a better fill grade and thinner plastic film in the Paxxo products. This reduces emissions during both extraction and production of raw material as well as during the incineration of the waste bags. Even when compared to the recycled polyethylene bag, Longopac cassettes incur significantly lower figures on climate impact. The new product Longopac Zero made from bio-based PE produced in Brazil does not only emit less climate gas per functional unit than the traditional waste bags, but also holds a better climate performance compared to the Longopac cassettes made of fossil PE. Due to carbon removal from the atmosphere, net emissions during raw materials extraction are lower than for bags or cassettes based on fossil PE. Depending on what credits are considered during raw materials extraction different emission factors can be calculated for the bio-based PE. Carbon removal from atmosphere, direct land use change and co-production of electricity have been considered in the E4tech study. The calculations in this assessment is based on an average of the E4tech calculations and another LCA which have used the E4tech calculations without the known credits as benchmark data. If only the emission factor from E4tech is being applied, Longopac Zero has even lower climate impact, shown in Annex 1. Climate impact from the biodegradable waste bags varies depending on the amount bio-based material in the bags. Climate impact during production vary depending on where and how the waste bags are produced and what electricity mix is being used. Traditional waste bags are assumed to be produced in China with the method of film extrusion, and the use of a global electricity mix. The same method is assumed for the traditional biodegradable bag. Compared to producing the traditional waste bags, the use of electricity mix used at Paxxo’s plant (Swedish electricity mix) as well as required kWh/kg plastics are known. Even if the major emissions are related to raw materials extraction and waste management, methods used for producing the waste bags and the energy source can influence the overall climate impact. By improving production processes and choosing more environmentally friendly electricity the impact can be reduced. In the European scenario, the climate impact for all products is lower. The reason for this is that less material ends up at incineration in Europe than in Sweden. The CO2 emission/kg PE is lower for landfill than for incineration. Paxxo Biodegradable has a higher density compared to PE waste bags and requires more material per cassette. No clips are being used which leads to an increased material consumption since a wider margin must be considered when cutting the tube. These bags also have different technical properties compared to the PE bags.

17

Annex 1  In this annex results from the LCA is being compared with the results from similar life cycle assessments. The figures below display the results of the traditional waste bags and recycled waste bag) compared with results from studies performed by IFEU10 and INTERSEROH11.

Figure 4.The four left bars represent results from this LCA compared to corresponding traditional waste bags (125 l 40 µ) in other similar LCA:s. The four right bars compare the data of polyethylene and recycled polyethylene from Ecoinvent with data from the report INTERSEROH.

10 IFEU - Institut für Energieund Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH (2009), Life Cycle Assessment of Waste Bags 11 Fraunhofer Institute for Environmental, Safety and Energy Technology (UMSICHT) and INTERSEROH (2009), Recycling for climate protection

18

In the figure below the biodegradable bags are compared to Shen & Patel (2008)12 who also studied starch plastics with polyester additives.

Figure 7. Kg CO2e emissions/kg material

The results displayed in the figure below shows climate impact when using the emission factor from bio-based PE provided by Braskem in the study from E4tech with no adjustments. Braskem has also performed a more recent analysis but to provide the average in this study the numbers from 2013 are being used. Braskem consider credits for CO2 removal from atmosphere, direct land use change and electricity distribution to the national grid from the sugar cane mills.

Figure 8. Total climate impact of the analysed products CO2e/FU (alternative scenario)

12 Shen, L. & Patel, M K (2008). Life Cycle Assessment of Polysaccharide Materials: A Review, J Polym Environ 16:154-167

19

Annex 2 Emission factors and climate impacts per 1000 litres of waste of all processes (raw material, transportation, production and incineration) of Mini, Midi, Maxi, Zero, Biodegradable, Traditional waste bags and Traditional waste bag recycled.

20

Annex 3 Sources and databases of the input materials. Process/material Source/Database

Raw material

Polyethylene Plastic Europé (2014). High-density Polyethylene (HDPE), Low-density Polyethylene (LDPE), Linear Low-density Polyethylene (LLDPE). Average between LDPE and HDPE.

Clips - Polyamide Ecoinvent

Box - Corrugated cardboard Ecoinvent, Corrugated board, recycling fibre, single wall, at plant.

Recycled polyethylene Ecoinvent

Polyethylene (LDPE) Ecoinvent

Bio-based PE E4tech & LCAworks (2013), Environmental assessment of Braskem’s biobased PE resin. Summary of the life cycle assessment, land-use change and water footprint reports IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute. Commissioned by BillerudKorsnäs AB. (2016), A comparative LCA study of various concepts for shopping bags and cement sacks

Biodegradable plastics Broeren et al. (2017), Environmental impact assessment of six starch plastics focusing on wastewater-derived starch and additives, Resources, Conservation & Recycling 127 (2017) 246–255

Transportation PE: Truck. Europe - Malmö Ecoinvent. Transport, lorry 16-32t, EURO3

Polyamide: Boat. Shanghai - Malmö Ecoinvent. Transport, transoceanic freight ship

Packaging: Truck. Skåne - Malmö Ecoinvent. Transport, lorry 7.5-16t, EURO3

Trad. waste bags: Boat. Shanghai- Malmö Ecoinvent. Transport, transoceanic freight ship

Bio-PE: Boat. Brasilien-Rotterdam Ecoinvent. Transport, transoceanic freight ship

Bio-PE: Truck. Rotterdam-Malmö Ecoinvent. Transport, lorry 16-32t, EURO3

Biodegradable granulate: Truck. Europa-Malmö Ecoinvent. Transport, lorry 16-32t, EURO3

Waste bag: Truck. Malmö-Customer Ecoinvent. Transport, lorry 16-32t, EURO3

Production Paxxo’s site (Swedish electricity mix) Paxxo

Traditional waste bag PE (global electricity mix) Ecoinvent, Film extrusion

Traditional waste bag biodegradable (European electricity mix) Ecoinvent, Film extrusion

End-of-life Incineration PE Ecoinvent, “Disposal, polyethylene, 0.4 % water, to

municipal incineration” Incineration polyamide Ecoinvent, polyamide

Incineration packaging Ecoinvent, “Disposal, packaging cardboard, 19.6 % water, to municipal incineration”

Incineration biodegradable plastics Boustead Consulting & Associates Ltd. (n.d.) commissioned by the Progressive Bag Alliance