applied

sciences
Article
Bio-Based Polyester Fiber Substitutes: From GWP to a More
Comprehensive Environmental Analysis
Tijana Ivanović , Roland Hischier and Claudia Som *

Technology and Society Laboratory, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa),
CH-9014 St. Gallen, Switzerland; [email protected] (T.I.); [email protected] (R.H.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Featured Application: This article informs the textile industry stakeholders on the relevant en-
vironmental trade-offs when a major synthetic fiber such as polyester is subject to bio-based
sourcing. Due to the per-tinence and market presence of the underlying polymers, the findings
of this paper also apply to a wider spectrum of bio-based products and therefore inform the
environmental policy on the expected repercussions for large scale bio-sourcing.

Abstract: The textile industry has lately started exploring the possibility of bio-sourcing for synthetics,
notably polyester fiber, in the effort to break from the proven fossil-fuel dependency and decrease the
environmental impacts. Traditionally made out of fossil-based polyethylene terephthalate polymer,
polyester can be functionally substituted with three bio-based alternatives: bio-polyester, poly-
trimethylene terephthalate, and polylactic acid fibers. At present, however, there is a lack of studies
on the environmental effects of such substitution. We, therefore, performed a comparative, cradle-to-
gate life cycle assessment of conventional polyester and those substitutes featuring varying levels



of bio-content. The impact assessment was performed with the most recent version of the Envi-


ronmental Footprint method including some adaptations—using carbon crediting and a different,
Citation: Ivanović, T.; Hischier, R.;
distance-to-target weighting approach. Bio-sourced fibers are found to cause higher environmental
Som, C. Bio-Based Polyester Fiber
burdens than polyester. Acidification, eutrophication, ecotoxicity, water, and land use increase with
Substitutes: From GWP to a More
the bio-content and are predominantly linked to the first generation feedstock (agriculture and trans-
Comprehensive Environmental
port). The results on climate change vary with the impact method adaptations, yet do not manage to
Analysis. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2993.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app11072993
offset the aforementioned deteriorations. In single scores, only three out of nine substitutes are found
to perform comparably, while the rest perform significantly worse than the incumbent fiber.
Academic Editor: Rocco Furferi
Keywords: polyester; bio-polyester; polytrimethylene terephthalate; polylactic acid; bio-based;
Received: 26 February 2021 bio-sourcing; life cycle assessment; circular economy
Accepted: 24 March 2021
Published: 26 March 2021

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral 1. Introduction

with regard to jurisdictional claims in
Numerous studies from public agencies, the scientific community and businesses have
published maps and institutional affil-
shown that the current practices throughout the textile supply chain go against the sector’s
iations.
long-term sustainability. Business-as-usual in this resource-intensive sector involves a very
high fossil-fuel dependency, produces excessive greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, uses
high quantities of water, and causes substantial water pollution and other burdens to the
environment [1–3].
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. A major component in the textile industry is fibers. As intermediate products, they
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. are a common denominator for all subsequent products such as yarn or garments. On the
This article is an open access article
fiber market, polyester fiber accounts for little over half of the entire annual global fiber
distributed under the terms and
production [4]. In the textile industry, polyester conventionally refers to a fiber produced
conditions of the Creative Commons
by melt spinning the amorphous polyethylene terephthalate (PET) polymer, even though
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
polymer science groups many compounds, including PET, into polyesters. Hence, it is
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
a fossil-based product, where the entirety of the embedded carbon (C) comes from the
4.0/).

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2993. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11072993 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2993 2 of 19

fossil-based feedstock. In order to mitigate the environmental impacts of its products, to

decouple from the dependency on fossil resources, and to meet the sustainability-minded
consumer trends, the textile industry needs to rethink its current supply chains. At the
same time, “the ever-increasing consumption of textiles and clothing is only expected to intensify
the social and environmental issues” associated with their production [5].
Bio-sourcing is a solution, which supposedly has an effect on all the aforementioned
environmental impacts. It is particularly relevant for polyester fiber due to fiber’s market
dominance. Bio-sourcing relies on feedstock diversification, whereby so-called renewable
or bio-based feedstock such as crops (edible, first-generation) or lignocellulosic mass
(non-edible, second-generation) displaces the conventional fossil-based inputs [6,7]. In
short, bio-sourcing rests on the idea that changing the provenance of C in the product’s
backbone results in a decrease in the environmental impacts of the said product. The share
of total carbon in the product coming from the bio-based feedstock is expressed as % of
bio-based C content, ranging from 0% bio-C (in case of fossil-based polyester) to 100%
bio-C (when the polyester is entirely produced out of bio-based feedstock), with “partially
bio-based” capturing everything in between. Due to the current lack of standardization
in the bio-based field, both entirely and partially bio-based products are simply called
“bio-based”. Moreover, the European Commission (EC) particularly supports this strategy
with its recent European Green Deal [8]. Through these activities, the EC aims to stimulate
the development of new markets for climate-neutral and circular products, especially in
resource-intensive sectors, such as textiles and plastics (with relevant overlaps in polymer
production) [8].
In this light, polyester fibers could largely be substituted by three bio-based alterna-
tives, minding the necessary functionalities of the fiber in different applications [9]. By
accounting for the technical substitution potential of the total polyester put on the market,
Shen et al. [9] report that 65% of polyester can be substituted by bio-polyester, 20% by
polytrimethylene terephthalate (PTT) fibers, and 10% by polylactic acid (PLA) fibers. In
the first case, the substitute fiber is chemically identical to polyester, but the production
chain has been revised and slightly modified to accommodate bio-sourcing for the two
underlying PET monomers. Such an approach is referred to as drop-in substitution [10].
Secondly, PTT fiber, also known as Triexta (with the Federal Trade Commissions in the
United States), is a fiber made out of the homonymous polymer with favorable material
properties in substituting the conventional polyester fiber [11]. The industry has known
PTT fiber for a long time (i.e., it was discovered in 1941 as a fossil-based fiber), but the
production cost of one of its two monomers rendered it too expensive for any mass-market
application [12–14]. When a biotechnology solution for producing a bio-based version of
this monomer emerged, PTT, now in its bio-based form, was put back into consideration
due to favorable economic factors, i.e., smart drop-in substitution. Finally, PLA fiber is
a representative of novel products, with a “dedicated” production pathway [10] and no
fossil-based counterpart. It is made of a homonymous polymer.
It may be misleading to think that bio-based products are immune to the use of fossil
resources since the approach concerns only the product’s mass without any other particular
modification in the supply chain (e.g., energy production, transportation). Bio-sourcing
is not without risks either. Competition between food supply and biomass production,
the over-exploitation of natural resources, and the loss of biodiversity are just a few of the
possible undesired effects related to this strategy [15]. Whatever the case may be, whether
bio-sourcing is a good solution for synthetics or not, the actual impacts of polyester
substitution have not been studied abundantly to provide a conclusion.
In order to obtain a more adequate and complete picture of the environmental impli-
cations of such a solution, the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology is applied since
it accounts for the aggregate environmental impacts of a product [16]. All the resource
consumption and environmental emissions from feedstock (cradle) to fiber (factory gate)
are thereby accounted for. Thus far, published LCAs are in fact only indirectly related to
polyester because its underlying polymer (PET) is well established in the plastics and pack-
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2993 3 of 19

aging sectors, driving bio-based innovation. As to our knowledge, there are no published
LCAs on PLA or PTT fibers available either. Thus far, published studies address bio-based
PET and PTT monomers [17–22], bio-based PET polymer [23–27] or bio-based PET and
PLA bottles [28–31]. While they act as very valuable proxies for an impact assessment and
a degree of overlap indeed exists between the polymers and fibers, further comparison to
other synthetic or natural fibers is not possible if studies stay on the lower product levels.
Recent reviews found that LCA studies related to bio-based synthetics through the
aforementioned proxies do not follow the same methodology (impact assessment method,
inclusion of transport, etc.), have vastly different scopes (cradle-to-gate, cradle-to-grave,
variant) and functional units, and are often fully aggregated and thus not entirely trans-
parent [32,33]. Further, existing studies are found to focus mainly on the global warming
potential (GWP) or fossil resource depletion, largely ignoring other environmental im-
pacts [34]. In fact, the goal of the only paper related to bio-based polyester fibers (including
PET and PLA polymer) was to study GHG emissions and non-renewable energy use
assuming incineration at the end of life [35]. On the topic of decreased climate impacts
of bio-based products, Walker and Rothman [32] found that present LCAs have been
favoring bio-based polymers by applying carbon crediting for the uptake of carbon (C) as
carbon dioxide (CO2 ) from the air during feedstock growth. In the absence of immediate
photosynthesis, a carbon credit is not applied to the fossil-based products since the method
is founded on the so-called short C cycle (the uptake of the non-fossilized C from air). They
point that carbon crediting is a “controversial and potentially misleading method when used in
cradle-to-gate studies where the end of life emission of CO2 is not included”. If the end of life
(EOL) is included, studies are found to report much higher GWP results for polymers than
those which limit the scope to granulate, i.e., to the gate [34].
When only climate factors are accounted for, there is a great chance to miss adverse
effects or trade-offs in other categories such as water consumption, eutrophication, acidifi-
cation, ecotoxicity, land use, etc., which may stem from the agricultural practices or the
modified supply chains. Furthermore, an LCA study [25] that compared recycled PET
and PLA polymers against the conventional PET in Europe found that recycled PET out-
performs both counterparts. By examining 11 non-climate impacts in addition to climate
change, the study found that the bio-based representative does not show clear environmen-
tal advantages and that current European waste management practices strongly question
its sustainability [25]. Given that melt spinning is the only step between polymers and
synthetic fibers in question, very close outcomes can be expected on the fiber level.
Last but not least, in the absence of comprehensive LCA studies on the substitution
of fossil-based fibers by the bio-based alternatives, the political or corporate decisions of
prioritizing bio-based fibers and textiles over conventional ones stay without a scientific
foundation. The present paper acts in this information vacuum and aims to shed light
on the implications of bio-sourcing for polyester by performing a cradle-to-gate LCA
on polyester fiber and its bio-based substitutes with varying levels of bio-content. By
assessing a wide range of environmental impacts, the study revolves around two main
hypotheses that: (i) bio-sourcing decreases the climate impacts of bio-based fibers relative to
fossil-based polyester as a consequence of omitted consumption of fossil-based feedstock;
(ii) bio-sourcing simultaneously causes adverse effects in non-climate impacts of bio-
based fibers relative to the conventional polyester. The impact assessment was performed
with the Environmental Footprint method and three adaptations on carbon crediting and
distance-to-target weights (see Methods and Materials). This method was chosen as the
future reference method of the European Union (EU) for the product’s environmental
footprint while the EU’s bio-based policy is expected to drive the innovation for these and
products alike. The results, therefore, enable institutional decision-makers, sustainability
managers as well as the general public to grasp the environmental consequences of this
well-intended strategy.
To do so, the on-hand manuscript is structured in the following way: the first part
defines the goal and scope of this study and gives an overview of the methodology. The
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2993 4 of 19

prevailing production pathways on the market for each of the fibers and their modeling
are elaborated in the subsequent section. Finally, we present the most relevant results for
each examined fiber and summarize the discussion of these results.

2. Materials and Methods

This study performs a comparative LCA of polyester and three types of its substitutes
with varying levels of bio-based content. It aims to identify the environmental advantages
and disadvantages of the bio-sourcing of polyester and point to the most influential
parameters for the environmental performance of bio-based alternatives (in the context
of the European bio-based economy). The functional unit of comparison is 1 kg of fiber,
finished, at factory gate, while the scope of the study is cradle-to-gate, i.e., from the primary
inputs (crop or fossil-based compounds) to the finished fiber, at factory gate. Life cycle
inventories were modeled based on state-of-the-art production processes (see chapter
Production Pathways and Scenarios) for every fiber. Background data for this modeling
were retrieved from the ecoinvent database, version 3.6 (recycled-content system model).
The entire modeling was conducted in the software tool Simapro, version 9.1.1.1.
For the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), the Environmental Footprint (EF) method
as implemented in Simapro (i.e., “EF 3.0 Method (adapted), version 1.00”)—with its default
characterization, normalization, and weighting factors—was applied in the first step (referred
here as Default EF). However, the implementation of this method in Simapro does not account
for biogenic CO2 uptake and emissions during the life cycle; therefore, a modified version of
the said impact assessment method was applied to account for carbon sequestered from the
atmosphere during crop growth. Modifications in characterization factors for climate change
impacts for the uptake of CO2 from the air (factor -1 instead of 0), for biogenic emissions of
CO2 (factor of 1 instead of 0), and for biogenic carbon monoxide emissions (factor of 1.57
instead of 0) were added. No other characterization factors, normalization or weighting
parameters were modified. This Modified EF method, therefore, allowed us to determine the
relevance of biogenic C net emissions in the production process of the fiber.
Additionally, two more modified EF methods are produced by replacing the default
weighting factors with distance-to-policy-target weights reported in Castellani et al. [36],
which reflect the gap between the EU’s current and the desired state in environmental
impacts. Amongst others, the importance of climate change decreases with these alternative
target weights, while the relevance of factors such as ecotoxicity, eutrophication, and
acidification increases [36]. These modified methods allowed us to assess whether bio-
based innovation was indeed aligned with the European environmental policy targets
(binding and non-binding) as well as to perform a sensitivity analysis of our results. The
impact assessment method where only these weights are changed is referred to as Default
Castellani. Finally, the method where both elements, i.e., the characterization (same as in
Modified EF) and the weighting factors, are modified is referred to as Modified Castellani.
The characterization results are calculated for all 16 EF default impact categories
included in this method. The single score results represent the aggregate scores after
normalization and corresponding weighting and are expressed in points (Pt). Production
pathways are represented in Figure 1, while LCIA results are summarized in Table 1 and
Figures 2–6. In order to facilitate the interpretation of the results, the same color-coding
is applied throughout the paper, where grey stands for fossil-based products, orange for
partially bio-based, and green for fully bio-based products. In LCIA, a darker shade of bars
refers to results of Default EF and lighter to Modified EF.

3. Production Pathways and Scenarios

PET polymer is predominantly produced through the esterification of monoethylene
glycol (MEG) and purified terephthalic acid (PTA) according to Reaction 1 [17,37]. The two
monomers are synthesized independently of each other and then brought together in a
polymerization plant.

n C2 H6 O4 (MEG) + n C8 H6 O4 (PTA) → C10 H8 O4 (PET) + 2n H2 O (Reaction 1)

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2993 5 of 19

The production of fossil-based MEG and PTA is globally well-established. The tra-
ditional production of MEG starts with ethylene derived from natural gas. Ethylene is
oxidized into ethylene oxide and subject to hydrolysis to arrive to MEG [28]. All the
production steps are enchained on the same production site. On the other hand, the main
raw material for PTA, para-xylene, is obtained cheaply and in large quantities from the
crude oil’s aromatic stream [17,24]. Para-xylene (PX) is subject to catalytic partial oxidation,
after which the crude form of terephthalic acid is purified [17,18]. This process, also known
as the Amoco process, is currently the leading technology for PTA production on a global
scale with very high process efficiency parameters [17].
Reaction 1 does not depend on the origin of the monomers, and thus equally applies
to the partially and fully bio-based PET production as well. Partial bio-content means that
only one of the two monomers is derived from bio-based feedstock, while the other is taken
from fossil resources. Monomers alone always stem from just one feedstock, making them
either fully bio- or fossil-based. The bio-based C content of a polymer is then calculated
as the weighted average of the C contents of the two monomers. Namely, as Reaction
1 demonstrates, MEG accounts for 20% of C content of PET, while the remaining 80%
comes from PTA. Partially bio-based PET consists of bio-based MEG and fossil-based PTA,
and therefore has 20% bio-based C content; the reverse combination of monomers is not
known as of yet. PET can also be 100% bio-based when both monomers are derived from
biogenic sources.
In the case of bio-based MEG, instead of sourcing ethylene from the natural gas,
it is obtained indirectly through bio-ethanol (see Figure 1). Bio-ethanol is industrially
produced in the microbial fermentation of natural sugars present in sucrose (e.g., sugarcane)
and starchy (e.g., corn) biomass, notably in the United States of America (USA) and
Brazil [35,38]. The USA uses corn to produce 63% of the global bio-ethanol volumes,
while Brazil uses sugarcane and accounts for 24% [35,38]. Second-generation feedstock for
bio-ethanol production is yet to be commercialized [38] and as such is far from relevant
industrial-scale production. Corn-based production predominantly uses the dry milling
technology [39] in which starch is extracted from the corn grain and separated into glucose
units. This simple sugar is then fermented and ethanol is distilled. Conversely, ethanol from
sugarcane can be obtained in two modes—in direct fermentation of raw sugarcane with
cogeneration (energy recovery) of lingo-cellulosic by-products [24]; or via fermentation
of molasses, a by-product in sugar mills, where crystal sugar is extracted for human
consumption. Regardless of the exact production method of ethanol, this compound is
dehydrated into ethylene [40]. All the subsequent steps, downstream of ethylene, then
mimic those of the petrochemical chain of MEG (see Figure 1).
New pathways to produce PTA from diverse non-fossil sources have already been
considered in the literature and practice [41]. The only industrial-scale production of PTA
to date involves bio-sourced iso-butanol, which is converted into bio-PX using the Gevo
process in a bio-refinery in the USA [17,18]. Its production also requires the extraction
of glucose from corn, followed by its fermentation into iso-butanol, conversion into iso-
butylene, and several intermediary steps to arrive at the bio-PX [42]. Finally, the bio-based
PX is converted into PTA using the Amoco process, just as for the conventional PX.
PTT polymer is produced in an esterification reaction between 1,3-propanediol (PDO)
and PTA whose conditions are similar to PET polymerization [12,13].

n C3 H8 O2 (PDO) + n C8 H6 O4 (PTA) → n C11 H10 O4 (PTT) + 2n H2 O (Reaction 2)

Monomers are again synthesized separately and brought together during the poly-
merization. As attested by Reaction 2, PDO accounts for 27% of C in PTT. Depending on
whether one or either monomer is bio-based, PTT can therefore have a bio-based C content
of 27% (partially bio-based) or 100% (fully bio-based). Unlike PET, where the production
of bio-MEG implies a change for the intermediary product, in PTT, fossil- and bio-based
PDO have vastly different production pathways (see Figure 1). Fossil-based PDO used to
be produced from ethylene via the Shell process [43,44]; however, such a monomer is no
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2993 6 of 19

longer commercially available due to the high costs of production [21]. For the production
of bio-based PDO, only one fully commercialized route exists, i.e., the fermentation of
corn-derived glucose for a direct production of bio-PDO using genetically engineered E.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 20
Coli [14,19,20,44]. Corn cultivation and glucose extraction via starch hydrolysis therefore
precede bacterial fermentation [19,20] like in all other corn-based monomers.

Figure 1. The
Figure production
1. The production pathways
pathwaysofofpolyester
polyesterand
and its
its bio-based substitutes.Polymers
bio-based substitutes. Polymersare
aretransformed
transformed into
into fibers
fibers viavia
melt spinning. Note that in this graph grey stands for fossil-based, green for bio-based and orange for partially
melt spinning. Note that in this graph grey stands for fossil-based, green for bio-based and orange for partially bio-basedbio-based
products.
products. Scenarios
Scenarios refertotothe
refer thesystem
systemsetup
setupininmodeling.
modeling. Scenario
Scenario 11 contains
containscorn-based
corn-basedmonoethylene
monoethylene glycol (MEG);
glycol (MEG);
MEG in Scenario 2A and 2B stems from sugarcane, whereas the ethanol production processes differ
MEG in Scenario 2A and 2B stems from sugarcane, whereas the ethanol production processes differ between the two. between the two.
Same
Same explanations apply for Scenarios 3, 4A and 4B, respectively. (MEG: monoethylene glycol; PTA: purified terephthalic
explanations apply for Scenarios 3, 4A and 4B, respectively. (MEG: monoethylene glycol; PTA: purified terephthalic acid;
acid; PET: polyethylene terephthalate; PDO: 1,3-propanediol; PTT: polytrimethylene terephthalate; PLA: polylactic acid).)
PET: polyethylene terephthalate; PDO: 1,3-propanediol; PTT: polytrimethylene terephthalate; PLA: polylactic acid).)
Table 1. Feedstock requirements for each scenario. Note that these results are independent of the
Lastassessment
impact but not least, PLA is a polymer with a 100% bio-based carbon content [26,45]. From
applied.
the point of view of life sciences, PLA is a biopolymer, hence biodegradable [45,46]. As it does
Scenarios
not have a fossil-based counterpart, it is classified asFeedstock Requirements
a novel/dedicated polymer [10] and
a new generic fiber [4]. PLABio-Based
is predominantly produced in ring-opening Quantity
polymerization
Name (Polymer) Primary Input
C Content in the USA, which is currently
of lactides [47], used by NatureWorks kg Input/kg Fiber
its most notable
producer [26,48]. Here, corn-derived glucose is fermented
ethylene into crude lactic acid by diverse
0.199
Scenario 0 (PET) 0%
bacteria; several continuous extraction and purification
para-xylenesteps are applied0.585to obtain an
aqueous polymer-grade lactic acid [26]. The acid iscorn transformed into lactides
1.089 followed by
Scenario 1 (PET) 20%
an open ring polymerization and pelletization by which PLA granulate is0.585
para-xylene obtained [26,47].
As a final step, conventional polyester fibers are produced
sugarcane by melt spinning
3.043 the PET
ScenarioMelt
granulate. 2A (PET) 20%
spinning is a thermo-mechanical, solvent-free process, possible only if the
para-xylene 0.585
decomposition temperature of the polymer is above its
sugarcane melting point [12],
2.235which yields
Scenario 2B
continuous or (PET)
staple fiber (cut20%into predetermined length for a cotton-like
para-xylene 0.585 fiber). Melt
spinning can equally
Scenario 3 (PET) be applied
100%on PTT and PLA polymers
corn [13,45]. 4.476
Based on the state-of-the-art production processes,
sugarcane and to account for different levels
3.043
Scenario 4A
of bio-based (PET) and feedstock,
content 100% a total of seven different scenarios for PET fiber, two
corn 3.387
for PTT fiber and one for PLA fiber are modeled here as presented in Figure 1. Scenario
sugarcane 2.235
0 isScenario 4B (PET)
the baseline 100%
scenario for fossil-based polyester; Scenarios 1, 2A, 2B combine the bio-
corn 3.387
corn 0.862
Scenario 5 (PTT) 27%
para-xylene 0.545
Scenario 6 (PTT) 100% corn 4.019
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2993 7 of 19

MEG and fossil-PTA; Scenarios 3, 4A, 4B combine the bio-MEG and bio-PTA; Scenario 5
combines bio-PDO and fossil-PTA; Scenario 6 combines bio-PDO and bio-PTA; Scenario 7
refers to PLA.
Firstly, fossil-based MEG (Scenario 0) is derived from ethylene in existing produc-
tion facilities around the world. All the steps from ethylene to MEG happen on one
site. Its global production and transport are modeled using ecoinvent datasets without
modifications. Further, three versions of bio-based MEG are modeled:
• Bio-MEG derived from corn grain in the USA. The entire production from ethanol
to MEG is assumed to happen on one production site. Ethanol is obtained using dry
milling technology (for Scenarios 1 and 3).
• Bio-MEG derived from sugarcane in Brazil. The ethanol is obtained in an autonomous
plant in the direct fermentation of sugarcane, where bagasse is incinerated for energy
recovery (for Scenarios 2A and 4A).
• Bio-MEG derived from sugarcane in Brazil. The ethanol is obtained in an annexed
plant through the fermentation of sugar molasses from the crystal sugar production
(for Scenarios 2B and 4B).
In all three versions, the dehydration of ethanol into ethylene is assumed based
on [18,40]. The rest of the chain up to MEG and its transport is modeled in the same way
as for the fossil-MEG, with appropriate modifications of inputs and biogenic emissions.
Secondly, fossil-PTA is derived from para-xylene using the Amoco process in existing
production facilities around the world. The extraction of PX and its transformation into
PTA happen on the same site (for Scenarios 0, 1, 2A/B, 5). PTA’s global production
and transport are modeled using ecoinvent datasets without modifications. Conversely,
bio-PTA is produced from corn on one site in USA using the Gevo process. Iso-butanol
fermentation and its transformation to iso-butylene are adapted from corn-to-ethanol and
ethanol-to-ethylene (for MEG) processes using stoichiometric relations. The remainder of
the chain up to bio-based PX is based on data from [18]. The transformation of PX into PTA
is modeled as for fossil-PTA with appropriate input modifications and same transport.
As for the PET polymerization, the same global facilities are assumed to be used for
applicable bio- and fossil-based scenarios, both modeled with ecoinvent datasets (scenarios
0 to 4B).
Bio-PDO is produced from corn in the USA (for Scenarios 5 and 6). Glucose extraction
followed by fermentation is modeled using the data from [19–21]. PTT polymerization is
adapted from PET polymerization using stoichiometric relations since the two reactions
show a strong similarity (esterification under similar conditions, water as a by-product,
shared monomer) and a potential for retrofitting.
PLA (Scenario 7) is obtained from corn in the USA; the entire corn-to-polymer produc-
tion chain is modeled using an ecoinvent dataset.
All polymers are transported to a fiber production site, modeled with PET polymer
transport data from ecoinvent. Further, all are subject to melt spinning in order to produce
the homonymous fiber in available fiber production facilities around the world. The melt
spinning is modeled using the ecoinvent dataset on polyester production. More details on all
datasets, approximations, and modifications can be found in the Supplementary Information.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Feedstock Requirements
As evidenced by the production pathways, current bio-based strategies follow par-
ticular substitution approaches, all starting from first-generation feedstock. In the case of
bio-polyester fibers, they displace the fossil-based intermediary products in established pro-
duction pathways, namely ethylene and para-xylene, by homologous alternatives derived
from bio-feedstock. In doing so, they add production steps to derive the two compounds
through fermentation and chemical modification of an alcohol, while a substantial part
of the chain follows without major modifications (e.g., Amoco process for PTA, ethylene-
to-MEG, polymerization, melt spinning). In the case of PTT, an entirely new bio-based
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2993 8 of 19

path for PDO was developed using bacterial fermentation; ethylene for fossil-based PDO
is not substituted simply because its conversion into PDO is financially unattractive. In
the case of PLA, its novelty does not permit a comparison with a pre-existing fossil-based
counterpart, except that it too uses microbial fermentation.
Under these conditions, modeled scenarios are shown to have vastly different feed-
stock requirements, as shown in Table 1. Namely, in order to produce 1 kg of the conven-
tional polyester, 0.199 kg of ethylene and 0.585 kg of para-xylene are needed. The two
compounds are regarded as primary inputs, while additional inputs such as oxygen or
water not listed here do not fall under the bio-based innovation (no C to replace). When
crops displace these petrochemical inputs, the requirements for primary inputs are shown
to rise substantially due to feedstock and process modifications.

Table 1. Feedstock requirements for each scenario. Note that these results are independent of the
impact assessment applied.

Scenarios Feedstock Requirements

Bio-Based Quantity
Name (Polymer) Primary Input
C Content kg Input/kg Fiber
ethylene 0.199
Scenario 0 (PET) 0%
para-xylene 0.585
corn 1.089
Scenario 1 (PET) 20%
para-xylene 0.585
sugarcane 3.043
Scenario 2A (PET) 20%
para-xylene 0.585
sugarcane 2.235
Scenario 2B (PET) 20%
para-xylene 0.585
Scenario 3 (PET) 100% corn 4.476
sugarcane 3.043
Scenario 4A (PET) 100%
corn 3.387
sugarcane 2.235
Scenario 4B (PET) 100%
corn 3.387
corn 0.862
Scenario 5 (PTT) 27%
para-xylene 0.545
Scenario 6 (PTT) 100% corn 4.019
Scenario 7 (PLA) 100% corn 1.530

Partially bio-based fibers require 1.089 to 3.043 kg crop/kg fiber in addition to the
unchanged para-xylene quantities. Moreover, corn-derived MEG is observed to have higher
feedstock efficiency than the sugarcane-derived versions since it requires less feedstock
than the other two variations. MEG from directly fermented ethanol has a higher sugarcane
requirement than the one stemming from molasses. The latter comes from a by-product of
crystal sugar extraction, which means that other products are extracted from the sugarcane
mass in parallel; in the former case, after fermentation, the mass is burned for energy
recovery. The feedstock requirements rise for fully bio-based scenarios, where they range
from 1.53 to 6.43 kg crops/kg fiber. It should be noted that the present LCA only partially
accounts for whether the crop is of natural or genetically modified (GMO) origin. Namely,
in accounting for the spatial and mass distribution of global corn production, part of
this feedstock grown in the USA is presumed to be GMO. This question remains of great
relevance to public opinion.
At this point, the contribution of feedstock to the aggregate environmental impacts
of the fiber is not addressed, only the crop quantities. The latter will depend on the
environmental intensity of said crops, i.e., how they are grown. Since agriculture is an
environmentally intense activity, we explore the contribution of bio-based feedstock to
different impact categories in sub-chapter 4.3 (Further Midpoint Categories).
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2993 9 of 19

4.2. Climate Change Impact

Climate change impact (CCI) has the highest weight in the single score results of
the EF impact assessment method, reflecting its relevance in the overall environmental
narrative of the EU. For this reason, the results of climate change impacts are presented and
discussed in the first step of the assessment. Figure 2 shows the CCI results with the Default
and the Modified EF, the latter of which incorporates biogenic C uptake and emissions (as
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
described in Materials and Methods). Since Walker and Rothman [32] find that presenting 6 of 20
only the CCI results obtained with carbon crediting in a cradle-to-gate study is misleading,
we also take the opportunity to not only explore the relevance of the biogenic C but address
theScenario
issue of 7carbon
(PLA) crediting on a solid example. corn
100% 1.530

Figure 2. Climate change impacts calculated with Default EF (darker bars) and Modified EF (lighter bars) methods. Note
Figure 2. Climate change impacts calculated with Default EF (darker bars) and Modified EF (lighter bars) methods. Note that
that the difference between the dark and light bars for each scenario reflects the biogenic carbon embedded in the fiber.
the difference between the dark and light bars for each scenario reflects the biogenic carbon embedded in the fiber. The
The relative change between the two results is therefore calculated as (modified − default)/default result and illustrates
relative
the change
impact between
of carbon the two
crediting on results
climateischange
therefore calculated as (modified − default)/default result and illustrates the
results.
impact of carbon crediting on climate change results.

When Default EF is applied (i.e., darker bars in Figure 2), only three scenarios (2A,
2B, 7) are shown to perform within a ±10% range of the conventional polyester, which is
associated with 4.07 kg CO2 eq./kg fiber. All other scenarios far surpass the baseline, rising
up to 7.13 kg CO2 eq./kg fiber for bio-based polyester derived from corn. Except in the
case of PLA fiber, CCI is found to rise with the bio-content.
Contrary to it, Modified EF (i.e., lighter bars in Figure 2) leads to a completely different
conclusion on the bio-based fibers as all perform notably better than the conventional
polyester. Unlike 4.10 kg CO2 eq./kg polyester, bio-based fibers are shown to have emis-
sions as low as 1.54 kg CO2 eq./kg fiber when crediting is applied. Furthermore, CCI
decreases with the increasing bio-based content. Namely, when comparing the correspond-
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2993 10 of 19

ing partially and fully bio-based scenarios (1 vs. 3, 2A vs. 4A, 2B vs. 4B, 5 vs. 6), the latter
display lower climate impacts; between these scenarios, we observe that CCI decreases
from 32 to 41% by substituting not only MEG/PDO but PTA as well.
Regardless of the method, we observe that Scenario 1 with a corn-derived MEG
has a higher climate impact than the sugar-derived ones (2A, 2B). In comparison, such a
conclusion is consistent with the finding of Shen et al.; in their cradle-to-grave study on
GHG emissions, they identified that partially bio-based PET polymer from corn has higher
climate results than the one from sugarcane [35]. Moreover, Anex and Ogletree [19] had
found that partially bio-based PTT polymer (here comparable to Scenario 5) has emissions
of 4.1 kg CO2 eq./kg polymer. Indeed, our Default EF calculations point to a comparable
level of emissions (4.71 kg CO2 eq./kg fiber) for Scenario 5. Finally, Vink et al. showed that
NatureWorks’ brand of PLA polymer emits 3.2 kg CO2 eq./kg polymer without and 1.3 kg
CO2 eq./kg polymer with carbon crediting [27]. Their results are equally in the range of
ours, as we add the melt spinning.
Furthermore, on the topic of two impact methods, darker bars in Figure 2 reflect the
fossil-based process emissions in the production chain of fibers. The difference between
darker and corresponding lighter bars highlights the role of CO2 sequestered from the
atmosphere via crops’ photosynthesis. The gap is thus displaying the carbon capture since
the sequestered C eventually ends up embedded in fiber mass. The extent of this effect is
portrayed by the relative change where we see the resulting decrease in emissions. The
lighter bars hence represent net CO2 eq. including all emissions and when this uptake is
taken into account.
Present cradle-to-gate LCA, however, cannot account for what happens to the embed-
ded C at the end of life. In theory, all this C (i.e., fossil-based and bio-based) is released
back into the atmosphere at the end of life; as Hottle et al. [34] suggest the extension of the
scope to the grave would inherently increase the net CO2 emissions relative to the present
study. Accounting for the EOL of fibers is, therefore, possible through scope expansion
and adding grave variants specific to the individual waste management systems. Due
to the high variability of these systems, different material properties are desirable under
different local circumstances and, as such, they influence the aggregate climate impact
of the fibers. If there exists an incineration facility for heat and energy recovery, then a
fiber with higher energy content per kg is more desirable (PET or PTT). If only composting
or digestion are available in local circumstances, a biodegradable product such as PLA
might be preferred over the other, non-biodegradable alternatives. If all textile waste
ends up landfilled, biodegradable fiber may be the worst option due to the anaerobic
conditions causing the production of methane in the body of landfill, which is far more
potent than CO2 in terms of climate impacts. The final effects of applied EOL solutions on
the environmental performance of fibers remain to be investigated.
Finally, since the EOL of textile products (of which fibers are a part) is not accounted
for at present, our results should be interpreted solely in a way to understand the relevance
of C uptake to these bio-based fibers. Conversely, as Figure 2 shows, carbon crediting alone
can artificially decrease the climate impact results by up to 70% and misportray the climate
impacts of the substitutes, especially knowing that effective emission will rise when the
scope is enlarged.

4.3. Further Midpoint Categories

In addition to climate change, all 15 other impacts were examined in the impact assess-
ment. Since carbon crediting affects only the emissions related to climate change, results
for the remaining 15 categories are the same regardless of whether the applied EF method
is modified or default. Here, 8 out of 15 most relevant categories are discussed in detail,
while the remainder, which have low normalization results, can be found in Supporting
information. Due to low relevance for the bio-based economy, the use of metal and mineral
resources is, however, not elaborated here. Conversely, despite low normalization results,
land use was still included due to its relevance in the bio-based economy in terms of
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2993 11 of 19

agricultural surface needs. Note that any change in all the aforementioned impacts relative
to Scenario 0 is still accounted for with upcoming single scores.
The said results are found to largely depend on the bio-content and crop choice. As
to the former, the gravity of acidification, all three eutrophication categories, ecotoxicity,
water use, and land use generally increases with the bio-content, as attested by Figure 3. As
to the latter, partially bio-based polyesters derived from sugarcane have the lowest results
in acidification, eutrophication, ecotoxicity and water use and are largely comparable to
those of polyester. Notably, the scenarios (2A, 2B) with MEG derived from sugarcane
outperform those with MEG stemming from corn (3). To recall, scenarios 2A and 2B have or
stem from a useful by-product in sugar/ethanol production (bagasse and molasses), which
results in shared environmental burdens among the main and by-products. Moreover, out
of all scenarios, fully bio-based scenarios have the worst impact results in acidification,
eutrophication categories, ecotoxicity, water use as well as land use. Finally, the use of
fossil resources does not decrease substantially, nor enough to balance out the increase
in other impacts. For 8 out of 9 scenarios, fossil resource use is within 85% of the fossil
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20
consumption of conventional polyester.

Figure 3. Impact results for 8 chosen categories calculated with Default EF. Note that 100% of each impact category refers
Figure 3. Impact results for 8 chosen categories calculated with Default EF. Note that 100% of each impact category refers to
to the scenario with the highest results.
the scenario with the highest results.

Conventional polyester is shown to have a better eutrophication profile than all bio-
based fibers. It is identified that polyester causes eutrophication in the order of 0.17 g P
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2993 12 of 19

eq./kg polyester (freshwater), 3 g N eq./kg polyester (marine) and 0.032 mol N eq./kg
polyester (terrestrial). The said indicators increase with the bio-based content, up to 4.5,
4.7, and 5.3 times, respectively, as indicated in Figure 3. Limited comparison with previous
studies is possible on this topic. An existing cradle-to-gate LCA has found that bio-based
PET polymer, derived from sugarcane (comparable to Scenario 2B), has a eutrophication
potential of 0.179 g P/kg polymer [24]. In our case, including melt spinning, the result
for Scenario 2B amounts to 0.174 kg P eq./kg fiber. Furthermore, a recent study [25]
found that freshwater and marine eutrophication increase 1.8 and 3.2 times, respectively,
during manufacturing when switching from PET polymer to PLA. In our case, the increases
amount to 3 times for freshwater and 2.2 times for marine eutrophication when comparing
the PLA fiber (Scenario 7) to polyester (Scenario 0). The primary difference between our
setups is that the said study [25] does not incorporate the transport and is elaborated on
the polymer level for Europe only.
Freshwater ecotoxicity impacts for bio-based fibers resemble those of freshwater
eutrophication. Corn-based bio-polyester (Scenario 3) has the poorest ecotoxicity profile,
its result being 4.9 times higher than Scenario 0. Corn agriculture is characterized by the
notable use of pesticides such as glyphosate or atrazine, which contribute substantially to
ecotoxicity profiles (high characterization factors). Moreover, as part of the modeled corn
comes the genetically modified spectrum, and the use of pesticides is even more prominent
and negatively affects the environmental impacts.
Furthermore, the acidification potential increases with bio-content up to 3.2 times
relative to Scenario 0. As the only recent point of reference, a study [25] also found that the
acidification potential of PLA polymer increases 1.76 times relative to fossil-based PET. In
our study, we find 1.3 times the difference between the two comparable fibers.
The production of conventional polyester is found to require 1.972 m3 water/kg fiber.
Partially bio-based fibers derived from sugarcane have a comparable water requirement,
while other bio-based scenarios require 2.3 to 7.1 times more. Fully corn-based fibers have
the worst water impact profile.
Land use in bio-based fibers increases the most of all other impacts, as seen in Figure 3;
bio-based fibers require 6 to 27 times more land for their production than the conventional
polyester. Even though the share of agricultural land consumption which falls specifically
on fiber production can be regarded as small, switching other products to bio-based
alternatives will put additional stress on the available land as evident from this example.
There are two major implications associated with increased land requirements—land
clearing and biodiversity loss, as well as feedstock competition. Firstly, if requirements are
not met by the historically cleared land, the destruction of intrinsically richer ecosystems
such as forests or rainforests is foreseeable and leads to irreparable loss of biodiversity [15]
in order to make a place for intensive monoculture. Amongst other ecological services
such as land erosion prevention, forests are also a major carbon sink; therefore, their
clearing has negative climate implications. This is increasingly important for one of the
crops of choice—sugarcane grown in Brazil, where regions are particularly susceptible to
deforestation to make space for the intensive agriculture. The more bio-based products are
put on the market, the more first-generation feedstock is required. In the case of limited
land availability, feedstock competition may be provoked as the same crops end up as non-
edible products instead of as a source of food. Indirect and direct land use are, therefore,
an important part of the bio-based economy with substantial ramifications that should be
addressed in more detail before bolder bio-based innovation steps are taken.
Our discussion of bio-based fibers, which rely on agriculture, is complemented with
an assessment of feedstock contribution (agriculture and transport) to the eight non-
climate impact categories. Figure 4 shows that the feedstock determines a big part of the
fibers’ impacts.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2993 13 of 19
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20

Figure
Figure 4.
4. Contribution
Contribution ofoffeedstock
feedstock(agriculture
(agriculture and
and transport)
transport) to the
to the resulting
resulting impacts
impacts of fibers.
of fibers. Note100%
Note that that of
100%
eachof each
impact
impact stands for the resulting impact of the fiber in question. Feedstock contributions were calculated for each scenario
stands for the resulting impact of the fiber in question. Feedstock contributions were calculated for each scenario as (impact of
as (impact of the crop as per Default EF method x feedstock requirement per kg of fiber)/impact of the fiber as per Default
the crop as per Default EF method x feedstock requirement per kg of fiber)/impact of the fiber as per Default EF method.
EF method.
In most of the impacts elaborated here, Scenarios 2A and 2B are an exception to the
rule. Not only do they display lower absolute impact results relative to other scenarios, but
the contribution of sugarcane is also less notable than in other cases, due to the sharing of
environmental burdens as explained. The relevance of feedstock in acidification, eutrophi-
cation (all three types), and ecotoxicity rises with bio-content. Terrestrial eutrophication is
affected by feedstock the most—from 43% to 71% is directly tied to feedstock. Crops also
account for 50–85% of water use, as a direct consequence of intensive agriculture. Land
use is heavily governed by crop needs, as more than 80% of land requirements of the fiber
production falls on feedstock. Finally, the results on the use of fossil resources indicate
that a bulk of oil and gas consumption happens during the transformation and production
processes, rather than at the feedstock stage.

4.4. Single Score Results

The aggregate environmental impacts of the fiber were examined through single
scores. The results that bring all 16 impact categories together were produced with Default
EF and are presented in Figure 5. When all the impacts are addressed jointly, it is shown
that only partially bio-based polyesters derived from sugarcane (Scenarios 2A/2B) and
PLA fiber (Scenario 7) have comparable performance to conventional polyester. Their
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2993 14 of 19

single score results are in the ±10% range from the said baseline. Conversely, conventional
polyester outperforms all other bio-based alternatives, notably all fully bio-based ones
just like elaborated midpoint scores had shown. Fully bio-based polyester made from
corn (Scenario 3) is characterized by the most substantial increase in environmental impact
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 20
relative to polyester.

Figure5.5.The
Figure Theaggregate
aggregateenvironmental
environmentalimpact
impactofofpolyester
polyester and
and itsits bio-based
bio-based substitutes.
substitutes. The
The re-
results
sults refer to single scores obtained with Default EF method.
refer to single scores obtained with Default EF method.

The choice of the crop has a decisive impact on the aggregate performance of the fiber,
owing to their different environmental intensities. Corn-derived fibers have a higher overall
environmental impact relative to the corresponding sugar-derived ones as Scenarios 1 and
2A/2B show. Here, only MEG is substituted with a bio-based form, making sugarcane a
better alternative than corn for MEG sourcing.
Bio-based PTA is found to have a poorer performance relative to the fossil-based
version of the monomer. Due to its relevance for the bio-based C content of the polyester
and PTT fibers (80% and 73% C content), the environmental performance of these bio-based
fibers hinges on the development of the environmentally sound bio-PTA. On the side of
LCA, it should be noted that the modeling of PTA is subject to many approximations, and
to increase the accuracy, bio-PTA assessment necessitates either on-site process data or
modeling in chemical engineering software. As it stands at present, an increase in the
bio-based content is shown to have an adverse effect on the aggregate environmental
performance of the bio-based fibers in question.
Furthermore, the lighter colored bars in Figure 6 represent the results obtained with
the Modified EF method. Three substitute scenarios (2A, 2B, 7) are again shown to have
comparable performance to conventional polyester. The remaining bio-based scenarios
again show a poorer overall environmental performance, with an increase in the bio-based
content resulting in a bigger gap between the two methods. For each scenario, the entire
score gap between modified and default EF results stems from the difference in the climate
impacts
Figure 6.due to carbon
Sensitivity crediting.
analysis of single score results with distance-to-target (Castellani) weights.
The results refer to single scores obtained with Default EF (darker bars), Modified EF (lighter bars),
Default Castellani (line), Modified Castellani (triangle) methods.

3. Production Pathways and Scenarios

PET polymer is predominantly produced through the esterification of monoethylene
glycol (MEG) and purified terephthalic acid (PTA) according to Reaction 1 [17,37]. The
two monomers are synthesized independently of each other and then brought together in
a polymerization plant.
Reaction 1
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2993 15 of 19
Figure 5. The aggregate environmental impact of polyester and its bio-based substitutes. The re-
sults refer to single scores obtained with Default EF method.

Figure6.6.Sensitivity
Figure Sensitivityanalysis
analysisofofsingle
singlescore
scoreresults
resultswith
withdistance-to-target
distance-to-target (Castellani)
(Castellani) weights.
weights. The
The results refer to single scores obtained with Default EF (darker bars), Modified EF (lighter bars),
results refer to single scores obtained with Default EF (darker bars), Modified EF (lighter bars), Default
Default Castellani (line), Modified Castellani (triangle) methods.
Castellani (line), Modified Castellani (triangle) methods.
3. Production Pathways
As a final step, andtoScenarios
in order corroborate that non-climate impacts of fibers are highly
PETtopolymer
relevant is predominantly
the overall environmentalproduced through
performance, we the esterification
performed of monoethylene
a sensitivity analysis
glycol
of single(MEG)
scores.and
We purified terephthalic
applied European acid (PTA) according to
distance-to-policy-target Reactionfactors
weighting 1 [17,37]. The
for the
two monomers are synthesized independently of each other and then brought together
Default Castellani and the Modified Castellani methods (see Materials and Methods). Notably, in
a polymerization
we find that trendsplant.
stay largely the same—bio-content in linked to poorer performance of
the bio-based fibers, while the gravity of the performance gap increases. Distance-to-target
n C2 H6 O4 (MEG) + n C8 H6 O4 (PTA) → C10 H8 O4 (PET) + 2n H2 O Reaction 1
weights show that when climate change is given less priority, the aggregate impacts of the
bio-based fibers in fact increase, which demonstrates that the substitution of polyester by
bio-based alternatives goes against achieving environmental targets of the EU.
The reduction in carbon footprint which is achieved through bio-sourcing (and shown
through the bar difference) applies only in circular economy systems, where material
recycling, product durability, and increased life span will sustain the carbon reduction
over a longer period until EOL management. In European countries, incineration for
energy recovery is a highly plausible scenario for a wide array of textile products, whereby
bio-C ends up in the atmosphere as CO2 after burning. The final climate performance of
intermediaries such as fibers is contingent on the textile products which they form. Notably,
in the case of durable, long-life textile products (e.g., carpets), the carbon in the bio-based
product’s structure is released back into the atmosphere further down the timeline. These
products may therefore bring the benefit of carbon capture. Conversely, when fibers form
fast fashion products, this is lost due to the associated short use and fast disposal. All the C
is rapidly released back into the atmosphere without a “grace period” on carbon emissions.
Considering that polyester is a fiber inherently linked to fast fashion [49], the examined
bio-based substitutes are likely to serve in fast fashion applications. Consequently, their
climate impacts have to be interpreted in accordance with their future application.
As for recycling, by keeping these products in a closed-loop system, life is inevitably
prolonged. In the textile sector, the mechanical recycling of conventional as well as drop-in
polyester fibers in closed loop is not common. In fact, current recycled polyester is a method
of down-cycling PET bottles; therefore, conventional recycled polyester itself presents the
second life of PET. In the case of the recycling of substitute fibers, if the efforts of their
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2993 16 of 19

recycling are too high, then the impacts of closed loops can end up being negative. At
present, we do not dispose of enough evidence on the burdens of polyester recycling.
Further, on the topic of recycling and circular economy, the present LCA does not fully
cover the issues of public perception, corporate communication, or greenwashing. The
term “bio” was shown to be innately associated with a better environmental performance
of the products [32] even though our results point to different conclusions. People may as-
sociate “bio-based” with a long-term solution to the textile waste problem and microplastic
pollution, the effects of which have not yet been investigated. Not all bio-based textiles are
biodegradable, nor does the reverse apply. Even when a product has the potential of being
biodegradable (PLA), whether it actually does will depend on a number of environmen-
tal conditions and the waste management facilities. After all, bio-based synthetic fibers
remain synthetics, requiring chemical engineering to convert the feedstock, whatever the
perception around them may be.

5. Conclusions
The here summarized project performed a comparative LCA of fossil-based polyester
(originating from fossil-based PET) and its bio-based substitutes—i.e., bio-polyester (drop-
in), PTT fiber (smart drop-in), and PLA fiber (novel). All of the aforementioned fibers
are produced here by melt spinning the homonymous polymers. Currently, all state-of-
the-art production processes of these bio-based substitutes use first-generation feedstock,
i.e., crops, predominantly corn and sugarcane. Production pathways of bio-based and
fossil-based PET and PTT are found to have significant overlaps, which is a strong point
for the use and retrofitting of the existing production capacities.
As for the impact assessment, several common trends are observed across all presently
examined fibers. Only three out of nine substitutes are found to be in the range of polyester,
based on the overall scores (Default EF). The remainder offer no real environmental advan-
tage since single scores are higher than for the incumbent. Moreover, the performance of
bio-polyester and PTT fibers is shown to be strongly influenced by the profile of bio-PTA
since this monomer accounts for a prevailing part of their C contents. More accurate
modeling of PTA is therefore necessary for the future.
We find that conclusions on climate results significantly depend on whether carbon
crediting is applied or not. Climate impacts decrease for the same fiber up to 70% when
biogenic carbon is accounted for. However, for this reduction to hold in the long(er)
term, circular economy principles are mandatory. Otherwise, carbon crediting may end
up as a method that artificially reduces the climate impacts of bio-based products as
previously suggested.
We also show that highly relevant impacts for all examined bio-based fibers are
acidification, eutrophication (terrestrial, marine, freshwater), ecotoxicity, land and water
use. Their impacts are found to rise with an increasing bio-content, while a sizeable part
of the aforementioned impacts is directly linked to the used feedstock. Our study thus
confirms that the adverse effects of bio-sourcing on non-climate impact categories are
overlooked if not accounted for. Finally, the consumption of fossil resources is shown to
drop only slightly relative to conventional polyester, by which we also show that the fossil-
fuel dependency of the process chain does not decrease simply by a change to bio-based
starting materials. In order to mitigate the adverse effects of bio-sourcing, we identify three
major options—search for other functional substitutes of polyester, revert to feedstock
diversification or improve the agricultural practices. In the first case, other bio-based fibers
with favorable material properties should be considered, e.g., polyethylene furanoate.
In the second case, the so-called second-generation feedstock should be considered and
involves lingo-cellulosic waste and products such as wood mass, stalks, leaves, etc. As of
yet, all the processes using such feedstock are only at the very beginning of development,
and it will take significant time to catch up with present processes, based on first feedstock
generation. In the last case, the environmental intensity of agriculture is to be mitigated by
reducing the use and pollution of water and the use of pesticides and fertilizers, all of which
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2993 17 of 19

are linked with acidification, eutrophication, and ecotoxicity. While the first strategy may
have positive consequences on the plastic and textiles sectors, the mitigation of agricultural
impacts should have a spill-over effect on all domains of the bio-based economy.
In summary, taking into account the constraint of this research and the currently
available technologies, this project identified important implications for bio-based textiles.
Bio-based alternatives are found to be environmentally uncompetitive with conventional
polyester. When European distance-to-target weights are applied, bio-based products are
found to be counterproductive in mitigating environmental impacts. From a strictly envi-
ronmental perspective, moving to bio-based synthetics still asks for several optimizations
and improvements. As long as they stay predominantly “agro-based”, their use as “green”
substitutes for polyester is scientifically unfounded.

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10

.3390/app11072993/s1. Tables S1–S9: LCI data; Figure S1: LCI data; Tables S10–S13: LCA mid-point
results; Table S14: LCA single score results.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, all authors; methodology, R.H. and T.I.; formal analysis,
T.I.; investigation, T.I.; data curation R.H. and T.I.; writing—original draft preparation, T.I.; writing—
review and editing, all authors; visualization, T.I. and R.H.; supervision, C.S.; project administration,
C.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data used in this study is available in the supplementary materials.
Acknowledgments: This publication is based on the master thesis “Life cycle assessment of bio-
based synthetic fibers: the case of polyester substitutes” conducted by Tijana Ivanović in 2020 in
collaboration between EMPA and Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL). We would
sincerely like to thank Philippe Thalmann and Vincent Moreau for the contribution during their time
as the academic supervisors of this project.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Claudio, L. Waste Couture Environmental of the Clothing Industry. Environ. Heal. Perspect. 2007, 115, A449–A454. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
2. Quantis. Measuring Fashion: Environmental Impact of the Global Apparel and Footwear Industries Study; 2018; Available online: https://
quantis-intl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/measuringfashion_globalimpactstudy_full-report_quantis_cwf_2018a.pdf (ac-
cessed on 28 January 2021).
3. Nathani, C.; Frischknecht, R.; Hellmüller, P.; Alig, M.; Stolz, P.; Tschümperlin, L. Environmental Hotspots in the Supply Chain of
Swiss Companies; Rütter Soceco AG & treeze Ltd.: Rüschlikon, Switzerland, 2019.
4. Textile Exchange, Preferred Fiber & Materials Market Report 2019; Textile Exchange: Guangzhou, China, 2019; pp. 1–87. Available
online: https://store.textileexchange.org/product/2019-preferred-fiber-materials-report/ (accessed on 14 January 2021).
5. Peters, J.; Simaens, A. Integrating sustainability into corporate strategy: A case study of the textile and clothing industry.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6125. [CrossRef]
6. Babu, R.P.; O’Connor, K.; Seeram, R. Current progress on bio-based polymers and their future trends. Prog. Biomater. 2013, 2, 8.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Lambert, S.; Wagner, M. Environmental performance of bio-based and biodegradable plastics: The road ahead. Chem. Soc. Rev.
2017, 46, 6855–6871. [CrossRef]
8. European Commission Bio-Based Products. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/biotechnology/bio-based-
products_en (accessed on 20 January 2021).
9. Shen, L.; Worrell, E.; Patel, M. Present and future development in plastics from biomass. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining 2010, 4, 25–40.
[CrossRef]
10. Carus, M.; Dammer, L.; Puente, Á.; Raschka, A.; Arendt, O. Bio-Based Drop-in, Smart Drop-in and Dedicated Chemicals; 2017;
Available online: https://www.roadtobio.eu/uploads/news/2017_October/RoadToBio_Drop-in_paper.pdf (accessed on 15
December 2020).
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2993 18 of 19

11. Textile Exchange. Quick Guide To Biosynthetics; 2018; Available online: https://textileexchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/0
1/Textile-Exchange-Quick-Guide-To-Biosynthetics-2018.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2021).
12. Sattler, H.; Schweizer, M. Fibers, 5. Polyester Fibers. Ullmanns Encycl. Ind. Chem. 2011. [CrossRef]
13. Chan, C.H.; Thomas, S. Poly(Trimethylene Terephthalate) –The New Generation of Engineering Thermoplastic Polyester; Polyester,
InTech-Open Access Publisher: London, UK, 2012.
14. Liu, H.; Xu, Y.; Zheng, Z.; Liu, D. 1,3-Propanediol and its copolymers: Research, development and industrialization. Biotechnol. J.
2010, 5, 1137–1148. [CrossRef]
15. European Commission. Bio-based economy for Europe: State of play and future potential—Part 2: Summary of position papers
received in response to the European Commission’s Public on-line Consultation. Biotechnology 2011, 92. [CrossRef]
16. Rebitzer, G.; Ekvall, T.; Frischknecht, R.; Hunkeler, D.; Norris, G.; Rydberg, T.; Schmidt, W.P.; Suh, S.; Weidema, B.P.; Pennington,
D.W. Life cycle assessment Part 1: Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environ. Int. 2004,
30, 701–720. [CrossRef]
17. Volanti, M.; Cespi, D.; Passarini, F.; Neri, E.; Cavani, F.; Mizsey, P.; Fozer, D. Terephthalic acid from renewable sources: Early-stage
sustainability analysis of a bio-PET precursor. Green Chem. 2019, 21, 885–896. [CrossRef]
18. Akanuma, Y.; Selke, S.E.M.; Auras, R. A preliminary LCA case study: Comparison of different pathways to produce purified
terephthalic acid suitable for synthesis of 100 % bio-based PET. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 1238–1246. [CrossRef]
19. Anex, R.P.; Ogletree, A.L. Life-cycle assessment of energy-based impacts of a biobased process for producing 1,3-propanediol.
ACS Symp. Ser. 2006, 921, 222–238. [CrossRef]
20. Urban, R.A.; Bakshi, B.R. 1,3-Propanediol from fossils versus biomass: A life cycle evaluation of emissions and ecological
resources. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2009, 48, 8068–8082. [CrossRef]
21. DuPont Tate & Lyle Bio Products company. Life Cycle Analysis Overview—Susterra Propanediol; 2018; Available online:
https://api.duponttateandlyle.com/sites/default/files/2019%20Susterra%28r%29%20Propanediol%20Life%20Cycle%20
Analysis%20Overview_1.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2021).
22. Semba, T.; Sakai, Y.; Sakanishi, T.; Inaba, A. Greenhouse gas emissions of 100% bio-derived polyethylene terephthalate on its life
cycle compared with petroleum-derived polyethylene terephthalate. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195, 932–938. [CrossRef]
23. Tabone, M.D.; Cregg, J.J.; Beckman, E.J.; Landis, A.E. Sustainability metrics: Life cycle assessment and green design in polymers.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 8264–8269. [CrossRef]
24. Tsiropoulos, I.; Faaij, A.P.C.; Lundquist, L.; Schenker, U.; Briois, J.F.; Patel, M.K. Life cycle impact assessment of bio-based plastics
from sugarcane ethanol. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 90, 114–127. [CrossRef]
25. Rybaczewska-Błażejowska, M.; Mena-Nieto, A. Circular economy: Comparative life cycle assessment of fossil polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) and its recycled and bio-based counterparts. Manag. Prod. Eng. Rev. 2020, 11, 121–128. [CrossRef]
26. Vink, E.T.H.; Davies, S. Life Cycle Inventory and Impact Assessment Data for 2014 Ingeo®Polylactide Production. Ind. Biotechnol.
2015, 11, 167–180. [CrossRef]
27. Vink, E.T.H.; Davies, S.; Kolstad, J.J. The eco-profile for current Ingeo®polylactide production. Ind. Biotechnol. 2010, 6, 212–224.
[CrossRef]
28. Chen, L.; Pelton, R.E.O.; Smith, T.M. Comparative life cycle assessment of fossil and bio-based polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
bottles. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 137, 667–676. [CrossRef]
29. Koch, D.; Mihalyi, B. Assessing the change in environmental impact categories when replacing conventional plastic with bioplastic
in chosen application fields. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2018, 70, 853–858. [CrossRef]
30. Gironi, F.; Piemonte, V. Life Cycle Assessment of Polylactic Acid and Polyethylene Terephthalate Bottles for Drinking Water.
Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2011, 30, 459–468. [CrossRef]
31. Groot, W.J.; Borén, T. Life cycle assessment of the manufacture of lactide and PLA biopolymers from sugarcane in Thailand. Int. J.
Life Cycle Assess. 2010, 15, 970–984. [CrossRef]
32. Walker, S.; Rothman, R. Life cycle assessment of bio-based and fossil-based plastic: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 261, 1–15.
[CrossRef]
33. Hottle, T.A.; Bilec, M.M.; Landis, A.E. Sustainability assessments of bio-based polymers. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2013, 98, 1898–1907.
[CrossRef]
34. Hottle, T.A.; Bilec, M.M.; Landis, A.E. Biopolymer production and end of life comparisons using life cycle assessment. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 122, 295–306. [CrossRef]
35. Shen, L.; Worrell, E.; Patel, M.K. Comparing life cycle energy and GHG emissions of bio- based PET, recycled PET, PLA, and
man-made cellulosics. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining 2012, 6, 625–639. [CrossRef]
36. Castellani, V.; Benini, L.; Sala, S.; Pant, R. A distance-to-target weighting method for Europe 2020. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21,
1159–1169. [CrossRef]
37. Gubbels, E.; Heitz, T.; Yamamoto, M.; Chilekar, V.; Zarbakhsh, S.; Gepraegs, M.; Köpnick, H.; Schmidt, M.; Brügging, W.; Rüter, J.;
et al. Polyesters. Ullmann’s Encycl. Ind. Chem. 2018. [CrossRef]
38. IEA-ETSAP, IRENA. Production of Bio-Ethylene; 2013; Available online: https://irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/
Publication/2013/IRENA-ETSAP-Tech-Brief-I13-Production_of_Bio-ethylene.pdf (accessed on 21 December 2020).
39. Gustafson, C.; Fewell, J. Ethanol Production-Dry Versus Wer Grind Process. Available online: https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/energy/
biofuels/energy-briefs/ethanol-production-dry-versus-wet-grind-processing (accessed on 8 December 2020).
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2993 19 of 19

40. Liptow, C.; Tillman, A.M. A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Study of Polyethylene Based on Sugarcane and Crude Oil. J. Ind.
Ecol. 2012, 16, 420–435. [CrossRef]
41. Siracusa, V.; Blanco, I. Bio-Polyethylene (Bio-PE), Bio-Polypropylene (Bio-PP) and Bio-Poly(ethylene terephthalate) (Bio-PET):
Recent Developments in Bio-Based Polymers Analogous to Petroleum-Derived Ones for Packaging and Engineering Applications.
Polymers 2020, 12, 1641. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Peters, M.W.; Taylor, J.D.; Jenni, M.M.; Manzer, L.E.; Henton, D.E. (Gevo)Integrated Process To Selectively Convert renewable
Isobutanol to P-Xylene. US 2011/0087000 A1, 14 April 2011.
43. Samudrala, S.P. Glycerol Transformation to Value-Added 1,3-Propanediol Production: A Paradigm for a Sustainable Biorefinery
Process, Glycerine Production and Transformation—An Innovative Platform for Sustainable Biorefinery and Energy, Marco
Frediani, Mattia Bartoli and Luca Rosi. IntechOpen 2019. [CrossRef]
44. European Commission. Environmental Factsheet: 1,3-Propanediol; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/
BISO-EnvSust-Bioproducts-13PDO_140930.pdf (accessed on 14 January 2021).
45. Gupta, B.; Revagade, N.; Hilborn, J. Poly(lactic acid) fiber: An overview. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2007, 32, 455–482. [CrossRef]
46. Kabasci, S. Bio-Based Plastics: Materials and Applications; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014; ISBN 978-1-119-99400-8.
47. Niaounakis, M. Biopolymers: Processing and Products; William Andrew Publishing: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; ISBN
9780323266987.
48. Vink, E.T.H.; Rábago, K.R.; Glassner, D.A.; Gruber, P.R. Applications of life cycle assessment to NatureWorksTM polylactide (PLA)
production. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2003, 80, 403–419. [CrossRef]
49. Changing Markets Foundation. Fossil Fashion. The Hidden Reliance of Fast Fashion on Fossil Fuels; 2021; Available online: http:
//changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/FOSSIL-FASHION_Web-compressed.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2021).