California State University, Chico

Institute for Sustainable Development

Life Cycle Assessment of

Reusable and Single-use Plastic
Bags in California

January 2011

Produced under contract by:

California State University

Chico Research Foundation

Author:

Joseph Greene, Ph.D.

Sustainable Manufacturing Program
California State University, Chico
Chico, CA 95929-0789

Funding provided by
Table of Contents
Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................... 2
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... 3
List of Tables................................................................................................................................. 3
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 3
Glossary ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 7
Project Management ............................................................................................................... 7
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) ....................................................................................................... 7
ISO Standards on LCA............................................................................................................ 8
Literature Review of LCA on Plastic Bags .............................................................................. 9
U.S. LCA of Single-use Plastic Bags ...................................................................................... 9
Australian LCA of Reusable Plastic Bags ............................................................................. 10
Scottish LCA of Reusable Plastic Bags ................................................................................ 11
CSU, Chico, California LCA on Reusable Plastic Bags .............................................................. 13
Life Cycle Inventory............................................................................................................... 14
End-of-Life Scenarios............................................................................................................ 15
CSU Chico Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)............................................................................. 17
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) ............................................................................................... 18
Environmental Impacts of Washing Reusable Bag ............................................................... 19
Regulated Metals Testing ........................................................................................................... 21
Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 23
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................... 24
References.................................................................................................................................. 25

2
List of Figures
Figure 1. Phases of a Life Cycle Assessment .............................................................................. 8
Figure 2. Process flow of inputs and outputs for plastic bag manufacturing, use, and end-of-life
.................................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 3. Project management for research study ...................................................................... 24

List of Tables
Table 1. Life cycle inventory for 1500 plastic bags and 1000 paper bags .................................... 9
Table 2. Assumptions for the 2007 Australian study ................................................................... 10
Table 3. End-of-life assumptions in 2007 Australian Study ........................................................ 11
Table 4. Environmental impact of grocery bags in Australia ....................................................... 11
Table 5. LCA assumptions in Scottish report .............................................................................. 12
Table 6. Environmental indicators for plastic and paper bags in Scottish report ........................ 12
Table 7. Cradle-to-grave process steps for plastic bags ............................................................. 13
Table 8. Energy inputs and waste and GHG outputs for PE and PP plastic resin pellet
manufacturing .............................................................................................................................14
Table 9. End-of-life scenarios for plastic and paper bags ........................................................... 16
Table 10. Cradle-to-gate LCA of plastic bags, single-use paper bags, and reusable plastic bags
.................................................................................................................................................... 19
Table 11. Environmental indicators for single-use plastic bags, single-use paper bags, and
reusable plastic bags per standardized single-use polyethylene bag. ........................................ 20
Table 12. Additional environmental indicators for single-use plastic bags, single-use paper bags,
and reusable plastic bags per standardized reusable polyethylene bag .................................... 21
Table 13. Reuseable and single-use plastic bags in research study .......................................... 22
Table 14. Regulated metals testing of reusable and single-use plastic bags ............................. 22

Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge and thank Keep California Beautiful non-profit organization for
providing funding for the research project. The author would also like to acknowledge Mr. Bob Boughton
of CA Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC), and Mr. Jim Hill of California Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) for comments and suggestions for the report.

3
Glossary
BBL Barrel: a commercial unit of volume that can be used to measure liquids and is defined in
the United States as representing 31.5 gallons

CO2 eq Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions

EOL End-of-Life

GHG Green House Gases including CO2, methane, water vapor, nitrous oxide, and ozone

GSM Grams per square meter

GJ Giga joules of energy

MJ Mega joules of energy

HDPE High density polyethylene plastic

LDPE Low density polyethylene plastic

LCA Life Cycle Assessment

LCI Life Cycle Inventory

PCR Post Consumer Resin

PE Polyethylene plastic

PP Polypropylene plastic

4
Executive Summary
Reusable plastic bags can have lower environmental impacts than single-use polyethylene plastic grocery
bags. Keep California Beautiful non-profit environmental group funded an environmental impact study on
the use of reusable plastic bags in California with California State University, Chico. Life cycle
assessment (LCA) tools were used to calculate the energy usage, water usage, green house gas
emissions, and waste generation for reusable PP and LDPE plastic bags as compared to single-use
plastic and paper bags.

Three LCA studies from around the world are used for comparison. The first study, from Boustead
Consulting and Associates in the United States, found that single-use plastic bags require less energy,
fossil fuel, and water than an equivalent amount of paper bags. Also, single-use plastic bags generate
less solid waste, acid rain, and green house gases than paper bags. The LCA study did not consider the
environmental impacts of reusable bags. The second study from Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd of Victoria
Australia, found that reusable polypropylene bags had the lower environmental impacts than reusable
cotton bags, single-use plastic bags, and single-use paper bags. The Australian LCA study did not
consider using recycled plastic to produce reusable bags. The third study from Scottish Executive of
Edinburgh, Scotland, found that reusable plastic bags, that are used 20 times or more, have less
environmental impacts than all other types of lightweight carrier bags, including, paper, plastic, or
degradable plastic. The Scottish report found that the reusable bags are not likely be recycled. The
Scottish LCA study did not consider use of recycled plastics in the production of reusable plastic bags.

The CSU, Chico California LCA study expanded the three LCA studies to include reusable polypropylene
(PP), reusable recycled polyethylene (PE), single-use polyethylene, and single-use paper bags. The
Chico, California LCA study modified the Boustead data to include reusable polypropylene plastic bag,
reusable polyethylene plastic bag, and recycled polyethylene plastics in PE reusable bags. The LCA
study also included data from the Australian LCA on the number of uses (52) per year and the number of
bags (10) used in a weekly trip. The Chico California LCA study used the environmental indicator table
for plastic and paper bags from the Scottish report. The Chico California LCA study also included the
environmental effects of washing 20% of the reusable bags to remove harmful bacteria that can grow
when the bags are used to carry meats and some dairy products. The Chico California LCA report found
that reusable bags have lower environmental impacts than single-use plastic bags after they are used 8
times. Reusable plastic bags use less energy, emit less pollution, release less green house gases, and
create less solid waste than single-use plastic bags and single-use paper bags when used more than 8
times. However, non-woven PP reusable bags will use four times more water than the equivalent single-
use plastic bags after 52 uses, or 1-year of weekly uses. Recycled polyethylene reusable bags have the
least amount of energy use, green house gas emissions, and solid waste generation.

Currently, PP non-woven bags could not be produced from PCR due to the lack of recycling infrastructure
in the Unites States. However, PE reusable bags could be made with PCR in concentrations of 40% to
100% PCR. Likewise, single-use plastic bags can be produced with 40% to 100% PCR. The use of PCR
can offer significant environmental benefits for reduced carbon dioxide emissions, reduced solid waste,
and reduced pollution.

Sustainable plastic bags also must minimize the exposure to consumers of toxins, including heavy
metals. In January of 2006, California laws went into effect that limit the amount of regulated metals,
including cadmium and lead, in product packaging. Unfortunately, several reusable polypropylene bags
had high levels of heavy metals, also known as, regulated metals. As a comparison, heavy metals were
not found in reusable polyethylene (PE) bags or single-use polyethylene plastic bags. Regulated metals
were identified with a Bruker AXS S2 Ranger XRF testing machine. The XRF machine can identify the
presence of metals in the plastic sample but does not measure the concentration of the metals. The XRF
identified qualitatively the presence of regulated metals but does not provide a quantitative analysis.
Cadmium was found in 35% of the non-woven PP bags. Trace amounts of lead were found in 20% of the
reusable PP non woven bags. No heavy metals were found in reusable polyethylene plastic bags. Most of

5
the regulated metals were identified in the plastic insert at the bottom of the bag. The US standard allows
the following amounts of regulated metals: lead (150 mg/kg), cadmium (17 mg/kg), copper (750 mg/kg),
nickel 210 mg/kg), zinc (1400 mg/kg), and mercury (8.5 mg/kg).[1] Further wet-chemistry methods can be
done in the future to determine the concentrations of the regulated metals, though the work is outside the
scope of this research project.

The research report was evaluated by personnel from the Department of Toxic Substances and Control
(DTSC) and the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) organizations
in Sacramento, CA. The research report was evaluated by those two organizations for clarity and
accuracy for life cycle assessment standards and protocols. The report was changed to include more
accurate LCA assumptions and criteria. The report was modified to provide more transparent functional
units and better comparison criteria. The report was well received by both organizations and was thought
to provide relevant data for the sustainable evaluations of plastic bags and reusable bags.

6
Introduction
Plastic bags made from polyethylene plastics have become a perceived environmental nuisance.
Recently, reusable plastic bags are available to replace single-use plastic grocery bags. Also, single-use
paper bags can be used instead of single-use plastic bags or reusable plastic bags. The effects that these
bags have on the environment are important concerns for society of today. The environmental impacts
can be measured by which of these bag choices produces the least amount of Green House Gases
(GHG), the least amount of pollution, the least amount of solid waste, and requires the least amount of
water. Also, consumer choices involving the number of times that the reusable bags are used to replace
single-use plastic bags can result in different environmental consequences. The environmental impacts of
single-use versus reusable bags are evaluated using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tools.

Keep California Beautiful of Sacramento, CA initiated a research project with the Institute for Sustainable
Development at California State University, Chico to compare the environmental impact of reusable
recycled polyethylene plastic bags, as compared to reusable non-woven polypropylene (PP) plastic bags
and single-use HDPE plastic grocery bags. The reusable PP bags are imported from China and the
reusable polyethylene bags are produced in California. Paper bags were used for comparison purposes
though outside the scope of the research project. The research project scope did not include reusable
cotton bags. The research project will encompass three environmental impact areas for plastic bags:

• Life Cycle Assessment (LCA),

• Regulated metal content in the plastic bags, and

• Environmentally sustainable evaluations based on environmental specialists.

Project Management
The research project can be broken into three phases, as displayed in the Appendix, which includes, life
cycle assessment, regulated metal testing, and environmental sustainable evaluations of he LCA report.
The first phase will provide a LCA report for the plastic bag alternatives and include life cycle inventory
and assessment of reusable plastics bags, single-use plastic bags, and single-use paper bags. The
second phase of the research will provide a regulated metals testing report for lead and cadmium
concentrations in the plastic bags. The third phase of the research provides evaluations of the
methodology and format of the report from California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
(CalRecycle) and California Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC) organizations.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), also known as “cradle-to-grave” analysis, tracks the environmental impact
of products from the creation of raw materials, to the fabrication and use of the product, and finally to the
disposal or reuse of the product. The LCA process includes a Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) of all of the inputs
of making a product and all of the outputs or wastes of the production, use, and disposal of the product.
The LCA process, described in Figure 1, usually involves fours steps, including: Goal and Scope, Life
Cycle Inventory, Life Cycle Impact Assessment, and Interpretation.

7
 Figure 1. Phases of a Life Cycle Assessment

The goal of our LCA study is to compare the environmental impacts of reusable plastic bags and single-
use plastic grocery bags. The scope of the study will compare equal carrying capacity of the different
types of plastic bags. The functional unit is the number of bags that a consumer uses in one year. The
number of single-use plastic and paper bags are compared with the number of reusable plastic bags in
one year. The second step of the LCA process, Life Cycle Inventory, tabulates the energy, fuel, water,
and material inputs needed to produce and use plastic and paper bags and also lists the waste that is
created when the plastic and paper bags are made, used, and thrown away.

The third step of the LCA process, Life Cycle Impact Assessment, takes the inventory of energy, fuel,
water, materials, pollution, and waste and rearranges them in terms of the scope from the first step, to
provide a comparison of environmental measures on a per unit basis. The fourth step of the LCA process
involves interpreting the results from the Life Cycle Impact Assessment step and suggesting the most
environmentally desirable product. The research will compare the environmental impacts of reusable
plastic bags and single-use plastic and paper bags.

ISO Standards on LCA

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) published standards for Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA). LCA compares environmental performance of products in terms of greenhouse gas emissions,
pollution generation, waste generation, energy consumption, water consumption, and other resource
consumption. LCA compares these items in terms of a measurable quantity of the products. The ISO
standards (ISO 14040and 14044) 2, 3 requires four steps, including, goal and scope, inventory analysis,
life cycle assessment, and interpretation. ISO 14040 provides an overview of the life cycle assessment
practice, applications and limitations. ISO 14044 provides requirements and guidelines for LCA and
provides a guide to prepare, conduct, and evaluate a LCA. Most LCA are developed with dedicated
software packages. 4 According to the survey from 2006, 58% of respondents used GaBi Software, 5
developed by PE International, 31% used SimaPro, 6 developed by Pré Consultants, and 11% a series of
other tools.

8
Literature Review of LCA on Plastic Bags
Environmental aspects of plastic and paper bags have been analyzed by several researchers. Three LCA
studies are summarized in this report. The three studies conducted the LCA per ISO standards. The first
study, from Boustead Consulting and Associates, compares the LCA of single-use plastic bags with
single-use paper. The “cradle to gate” analysis included the environmental impacts of plastic bags from
the creation of the plastic from raw materials to plastic pellets. It is not considered “cradle to grave”
analysis since it did not include consumer use, transportation, nor end-of-life (EOF) effects on the
environment. The second study from Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd of Victoria Australia, is a cradle to grave
analysis that includes EOF and transportation. It compares the LCA of single-use plastic and paper bags
with reusable plastic and cotton bags. The third study from Scottish Executive of Edinburgh, Scotland,
compares the effects of a bag tax on consumers and the LCA of single-use plastic, paper, and
compostable bags versus reusable plastic bags. In the following report the numbers presented in tables
are rounded to reflect average values in the reports.

U.S. LCA of Single-use Plastic Bags

The Boustead report is comprehensive in its evaluation of the life cycle assessments of paper and plastic
bags. 7 The Boustead report was funded by the American Chemical Council Plastics Division. The
information on the compostable bag was incomplete and not included in our LCA study. The Boustead
report compares Life Cycle Assessments of 1500 plastic bags with 1000 paper bags and 1000
compostable plastic bags. The 1.5:1 ratio was determined from a Franklin report from 1990 that pointed
out that consumer bagging behavior illustrates that plastic to paper use ranged from 1:1 all the way to 3:1,
depending on the situation. 8 The information for the LCI was taken from Boustead database and from
information from plastic suppliers. Plastic bags require less energy, fossil fuel, and water than an
equivalent amount of paper bags. Also, plastic bags generate less solid waste, acid rain, and green
house gases than paper bags. Paper bags weigh significantly more than the traditional thin plastic bag
and use a water-slurry process to manufacture the paper bags. The results are listed in Table 1. Paper
bags can use higher recycled content, but the study selected 30% recycled content.

The Boustead report provides an excellent LCA analysis but failed to consider recycled content for
plastics and the effects of using reusable bags instead of single-use bags. The report uses 30% recycled
paper content which might be low. Other paper products have higher recycled content. Further research
studies can determine the significance of using higher recycled content.

Table 1. Life cycle inventory for 1500 plastic bags and 1000 paper bags

1500 Plastic 1000 Paper

Bag industry bag (30%
average recycled)
Total Energy, MJ 763 2,622
Fossil fuel used, kg 15 23
Municipal solid waste, kg 7 34
Greenhouse emissions,
Tonnes CO2 0.04 0.08
Fresh water usage, gal 58 1004
Mass, g, per paper 6 52

9
Australian LCA of Reusable Plastic Bags
The second LCA report on plastic bags is from Consulting Pty Ltd of Victoria Australia, which compares
the environmental impacts of shopping bag alternatives for carrying goods in Australia. 9 The
Australian report was funded by Sustainability Victoria, which was created from the Sustainability Victoria
Act 2005. The LCA data in the report was updated from an earlier LCA report from an Australian
University of Design for RMIT in 2002 with more accurate values of recycling rates, bag mass, and bag
capacity. The HDPE plastic grocery bag was compared with bags made from paper, compostable
plastics, cotton, and polypropylene. The cotton and polypropylene bags were reusable bags. The capacity
of the bags was similar and able to carry 70 grocery items home from a grocery store for 52 weeks. The
Australian study assumed that each trip would require 10 plastic bags. Some of the assumptions in the
study are listed in Table 2. Cotton bags can be used more than two years if not damaged from use or
from washing cycles. The study assumed two-year expected life to be consistent with reusable PP plastic
bag, even though a cotton reusable bag may last longer.

Table 2. Assumptions for the 2007 Australian study

Bag Material Mass, g Expected Life Bags per year
HDPE Single-use 7 Single-use 520
Kraft paper single-use bag 43 Single-use 520
Kraft paper reusable bag 43 Two trips 260
PP reusable bag 95 2-years (104 5
trips)
Cotton calico reusable bag 85 2-years (104 5
trips)

The Australian study calculated the environmental effects of transportation of the different bags with
plastic bags being imported from Hong Kong and paper bags being manufactured in Australia. The
transportation environmental impacts were negligible. The report also considered End-of-Life scenarios
for the plastic and paper bags and whether the bags were recycled, sent to landfill, composted, discarded
as litter, or reused as trash liner. The results show that approximately 75% of single-use plastic bags were
sent to landfill, 19% reused as trash liners, 5% recycled, and 0.5% discarded as litter. The plastic bags
used as trash liners will be sent to landfill with the trash, thus, the total sent to landfill should be 94%. A
recent Canadian study found that 40 to 50% of plastic grocery bags are reused to contain garbage or
recyclables to the waste and recycling containers for curbside pickup. 10 The reuse of single-use plastic
and paper bags for trash liners provides an environmental benefit for carbon offsets by being a substitute
for trash bags made from plastic or paper.

The End-of-Life scenarios for other bags include the fact that approximately 99.5% of reusable PP plastic
bags are sent to landfill and 0.5% of the bags are discarded as litter. Approximately 99.5% of Kraft paper
bags are sent to landfill and 0.5% of the bags are discarded as litter. The paper bags can contain
recycled content and provide an environmental benefit. Paper bags can be recycled if they are not
contaminated with food. The recycling rate of paper bags is higher in CA than in Australia. Table 3 lists
the End-of-Life assumptions. The Australian study assumed that the reusable bags would not be recycled
because the volume of bags would not have high enough volume to create a market for them. The study
also assumed that the single-use paper bags were sent to landfill as a trash container and not sent to
industrial compost facilities.

10
Table 3. End-of-life assumptions in 2007 Australian Study
Bag Material Landfill % Recycled % Litter %
HDPE Single-use 94.5 5 .5
Kraft paper single-use bag with 99.5 0 .5
100% recycled content
PP reusable bag 99.5 0 .5
Cotton calico reusable bag 99.5 0 .5

The Australian study used a LCA software called SimaPro 5.1 to assess the environmental impact of the
carrier bags. The LCA analysis included production of raw materials, manufacturing of the bags,
transportation of the bags to retailers, and disposal of the bags at the end-of life. Australian data is used
for energy production, material production, transportation, recycling, and waste disposal.

The Australian study found that the reusable polypropylene bags had the least amount of environmental
impact. The cotton reusable bag had low environmental impact except for high water usage. The results
of the study are listed in Table 4 with relative ratings of 1 (Preferred) to 5 (Unacceptable)

Table 4. Environmental impact of grocery bags in Australia

Bag Material Energy GHG (CO2 Material Water Use Disposal
Consumption eq) Consumption Options
PP reusable bag 1 1 1 1 Recycle at major
super markets
Cotton calico 1 1 1 5 No recycling,
reusable bag sent to landfill
HDPE Single-use 4 2 3 1 Recycle at major
super markets
Kraft paper single- 5 5 5 2 Reused as trash
use bag liner and sent to
landfill

The report was a good evaluation of the importance of reusable bags. The report did not provide enough
information on the assumptions of the data for the LCA. The numbers for water use seem low for Kraft
paper and the recycling of PP reusable bag can be problematic for recyclers. Also, the reusable bag has
a mass of over 90 g which is significantly higher than the single-use bag of 7g. The report though is
limited by the different carrying capacities of the plastic and paper bags. The report does show the
importance of using recycled plastics in the manufacture of single-use bags but does not show the use of
recycled plastic for reusable bags. PP in the reusable bag is not recycled much in the United States (less
than 1%) as compared to HDPE (30%). The report also did not include the environmental impacts of
washing the reusable bags.

Scottish LCA of Reusable Plastic Bags

The third LCA report on plastic bags is from Scotland and the U.K. that studied the environmental effects
of taxes on several plastic bag scenarios. 11 The Scottish report acknowledged the Scottish Waste
Strategy Team, Carrier Bag Consortium, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Friends of the Earth
Scotland, Scottish Retail Consortium, and The Scottish Environment Protection Agency for direction and
support during the project. The report used LCA to evaluate the environmental effects of grocery bag
consumer choices. The report found that assessing a tax would reduce the use and prevalence of plastic

11
in the environment and that consumption of non-renewable energy, solid waste, greenhouse gas
emissions, and eutrophication of lakes and rivers would be significantly less.

The assumptions of the Scottish report are listed in Table 5 including the mass of the bags, relative sizes
compared to conventional polyethylene plastic bag, ability for material to be recycled, and the number of
bags projected to be used in a year. The relative storage capacity is based on volume carrying bag
capacity.

Table 5. LCA assumptions in Scottish report

Bag Material Mass, g Relative bag Recyclable Number of
storage bags per year
HDPE Single-use 8 1 Yes 775 million
LDPE reusable bag 47 4 Yes 8 million
PP reusable non-woven bag 139 20 No 8 million
PP reusable woven bag 226 20 No 8 million
Kraft paper reusable bag 51 8 Yes 39 million

The Scottish report uses LCA data from a Carrefour French study from 2004. 12 The Carrefour LCA study
examined energy, fuel, water and other resource requirements for production, manufacture, use, and
disposal of several plastic bags. The study considered plastic grocery bags, reusable polyethylene bags,
Kraft paper bags with recycled paper content, and compostable plastic bags. The Carrefour LCA study
assessed the environmental impact of the energy use, fuel and other resource use, waste generation,
GHG emissions, and pollutant emissions.

The results are summarized in Table 6 for eight environmental indicators with relative ratings of 1
(Preferred) to 5 (Unacceptable)

Table 6. Environmental indicators for plastic and paper bags in Scottish report
Indicator of Single-use Reusable LDPE Reusable LDPE Single-use paper
environmental impact HDPE plastic bag (2x) plastic bag (20x) bag
plastic bag
Non-renewable energy 1.0 1.4 .1 1.1
Water use 1.0 1.3 .1 4.0
GHG emissions 1.0 1.3 .1 3.3
Acid rain 1.0 1.5 .1 1.9
Ozone formation 1.0 .7 .1 1.3
Eutrophication 1.0 1.4 .1 14.0
Solid waste 1.0 1.4 .1 2.7

The report found that reusing plastic bags created comparably low environmental impact. The report
found that most negative of the environmental impacts come from the production of the plastic pellets and
paper from the raw materials in the first stage of manufacturing. The second manufacturing stage of
conversion of the pellets and paper into plastic and paper products that are sent to retailers has less
environmental impact but not negligible. The end-of life scenarios for grocery bags can have significant
impact on the creation of solid waste in the environment.

Other environmental indicators include eutrophication and acid rain generation. The environmental effects

12
on polyethylene and polypropylene reusable plastic bags would be similar due to the similar plastic
chemistry and process to manufacture the bags. The Scottish report found that reusable bags have
significantly less eutrophication and acid rain generation than single-use plastic or paper bags.

The results from the Scottish report demonstrate that reusable plastic bags have lower environmental
impacts than all other types of lightweight carrier bags, including, paper, plastic, or degradable plastic.
The report did not list environmental indicators of reusable polypropylene plastic bag. The report did not
include the environmental impacts of washing the reusable bags. The report could go further by studying
a reusable plastic bag made from recycled plastics. The reusable plastic bag made from recycled plastics
will be compared to other single-use plastic bags using LCA.

CSU, Chico, California LCA on Reusable

Plastic Bags
This report takes information from the three reports and investigates the environmental impacts of using
recycled plastics for reusable plastic bags compared to single-use plastic and paper grocery bags. The
plastic bag manufacturing data are based on averages of plastics bag manufacturers in the United States.
California plastic bag manufacturers would have lower carbon footprints due to the sources of energy in
California are more from natural gas, hydroelectric power, and solar than coal. The Australian and
Scottish reports are based on consumer choices and waste management practices and not
manufacturing. The Australian, Scottish, and U.S. LCA reports are consistent with then ISO standards for
Life Cycle Assessment. Our report also investigates the environmental impacts of washing reusable bags
and the resulting water usage that is required.

Table 7. Cradle-to-grave process steps for plastic bags

PE
Grocery Reusable PP non-
Steps bag: HDPE PCR woven

1 Produce plastic pellets from oil and natural gas X X X

2 Ship pellet to converter X X X
3 Convert pellet to film X X X
4 Convert film to non-woven X
5 Ship product to retail stores X X X
6 Consumer uses bag first time X X X
7 Consumer uses bag multiple times per year X X
Consumer washes 20% of the reusable bag
8 weekly. X X
9 Consumer recycles plastic bag X X
10 Consumer throws plastic in trash for landfill X

In this report, the goal of the LCA is to compare the environmental impacts of reusable plastic bags and
single-use plastic grocery bags. The scope of the study will be to compare equal carrying capacity of the
different types of plastic bags as demonstrated in the three previous reports. In our case, 1500 single-use
plastic bags will be compared with 1000 reusable plastic bags for equal carrying capacity. The cradle-to-
grave process steps for plastic bags manufacturing and use is shown in Table 7. Cradle to grave analysis
for paper bags would provide balance for the study but was outside the scope of the project. The
consumer has the ability to recycle polyethylene bags since the recycling infrastructure is in place in

13
California. Whereas, the consumer does not have the opportunity to recycle PP non-woven bags due to
the lack of infrastructure.

Life Cycle Inventory

The second step of the LCA process, Life Cycle Inventory, tabulates the energy, fuel, water, and material
inputs needed to produce and use plastic and paper bags and also lists solid waste that are created when
the products are made, used, and thrown away for plastic and paper bags. Polyethylene can have three
types of resins that are used for plastic bags, namely, LLDPE, LDPE, and HDPE. HDPE is commonly
used for single-use grocery bags. LLDPE and LDPE are commonly used for trash bags and for thicker
department store bags. Each of the three polyethylene plastics can be used for reusable plastic grocery
bags. Each of the process steps from Table 7 has environmental aspects that affect energy usage, water
usage, GHG emissions, pollution, and solid waste generation.

Table 8 lists the cradle to gate aggregate US-averaged values of energy required, solid waste, and GHGs
produced during the production of polyethylene and polypropylene. Polyethylene and polypropylene are
made from natural gas and petroleum. The amount of energy and water that are needed to make
polyethylene and polypropylene as well as the amount of solid waste, pollution and GHG generated
during production is provided in Table 8. The polyethylene pellets are extruded and then blown into
plastics bags with a blown film extrusion line. Similarly, polypropylene pellets are extruded in a sheet
extruder and pressed into non-woven film that is sewn into a bag.

Table 8 shows that PP requires less energy to produce pellets and also then produces less house gases
(GHG) due to the lower energy use. PP though produces more solid waste during the manufacturing of
plastic pellets. The solid waste and GHG information can be used later in the report to compare the
environmental benefits of using recycled plastic as a source for plastic bags rather than virgin plastic. If
recycled plastics are used for plastic bags then the amount of energy needed to produce the virgin plastic
can be saved when using recycled plastics since the plastic pellet is already available and does not need
to be created from raw materials.

Table 8. Energy inputs and waste and GHG outputs for PE and PP plastic resin pellet
13
manufacturing.

Plastic Energy, GJ per Solid Waste, kg GHG, tonnes

1,000 kg of waste per 1,000 CO2 eq
plastic kg plastic
HDPE 69 78 1480
LDPE 74 79 1480
LLDPE 69 74 1480
PP 63 83 1340

Figure 2 describes the energy and resource inputs during the production and use and disposal of plastic
bags as well as the waste, GHG, and pollution generation. The cradle-to-grave analysis calculates the
environmental impacts of creating plastic pellets from raw materials, transporting them to the plastic bag
converter, producing the plastic bags, and transporting the plastic bags to the retailers. The LCA is
influenced by choices that consumers make on single-use versus reusable bags, and choices that
consumers make on recycling, waste disposal, or waste to energy end-of life options.

14
 Figure 2. Process flow of inputs and outputs for plastic bag manufacturing, use, and end-of-life

End-of-Life Scenarios
End-of-Life scenarios for plastic bags have important environmental consequences. The End-of-Life
options for the plastic bags are to be recycled, incinerated for energy, sent to landfill, or discarded as
litter. Several reports suggest that single-use plastic bags are often reused again for a trash liners. The
reused plastic bag can be filled with trash and then discarded with the trash to the landfill. Reusing plastic
bags can replace some small trash bags. Reuse of the single-use plastic bags is an important issue but
difficult to quantify. It needs to be studied further but is outside the scope of this research. The single-use
plastic bag term is generally accepted to refer to HDPE plastic bags that are available at grocery and
retail stores. Australian and Scottish LCA reports found that the reusable bags and paper bags are mostly
sent to landfill (99.5%). The remaining 0.5% was discarded as litter. The single-use plastic bags can be
recycled at a rate of 5% which is similar to the U.S. recycling rate of plastic bags. The remaining single-
use plastic bags are sent to landfill (94.5%) or discarded as litter (0.5%).

In our study, the end of life for reusable plastic bags would be similar to the Australian and Scottish LCA
results, except that the reusable polyethylene bag would be able to use the recycling infrastructure that is
established for single-use polyethylene bags. The reusable non-woven polypropylene plastic bags would
not be recycled since there is not an infrastructure established to collect them. Both polyethylene and
polypropylene based reusable bags could be incinerated along with paper trash and single-use plastic
bags. Though, since it would be the same for all bags it will be neglected in this study. Table 9 lists the
end-of-life scenarios for the plastic and paper bags. The table is based on data from the Scottish and
Australian LCA reports. In the, United States the recycling rate of single-use plastic bags is approximately
5% on average. Reusable polyethylene plastic bags could expect the same recycling rate of 5%.
Reusable polypropylene bags though would not have the same recycling rate due to the lack of recycling
infrastructure for polypropylene. Paper bags are readily recyclable and a recycling infrastructure exists for
them.

15
Table 9. End-of-life scenarios for plastic and paper bags
Grocery bag Recycled % Landfill %
alternative
Single-use HDPE 5 94.5
bag
Reusable non-woven 5 94.5
PE bag
Reusable non-woven 0 95.5
PP bag
Paper bag 10 to 40 60 to 90

Recycling infrastructure exists for polyethylene and PET in 11 states that have beverage return laws.
Post-consumer resin (PCR) can be used for recycled plastics content if the collection and sorting
infrastructure is available and that the PCR can be certified. Both of these conditions exist for PET and
HDPE bottles and for polyethylene plastic bags. The American Chemical Council (ACC) published a
report in 2008 that claims that for plastic bottles, 1.451 billion PET bottles were recycled at a rate of 27%,
936.7 billion HDPE bottles were recycled at a rate of 29%, and 21.2 million PP bottles were recycled at a
rate of 11.4%. 14 The recycled PET can be made into new bottles or into fiber for strapping or woven
products. The recycled HDPE can be made into bottles or into plastic lumber.

Secondly, the American Chemical Council (ACC) also published a report in 2008 that claims that for
plastic bags and film, 832 million pounds of post-consumer film was collected for recycling and then
converted to film and sheet (4%), plastic lumber (29%), export (57%), and other (10%). All of the post-
consumer film was made with polyethylene. 15

Thirdly, the American Chemical Council (ACC) also published a report in 2008 that claims that 361 million
pounds of post-consumer non-bottle rigid plastic was recovered in 2008. 16 Polyethylene and PET were
the most commonly collected plastics, accounting for 38% and 25% respectively. The recycled rigid
plastics were collected from commercial recycling efforts, curbside collections, and community drop-off
collections. Most material recovery facilities (MRF) in the West sort out PET (#1) and HDPE (#2) bottles
and then bale the remainder of the rigid plastics together as “mixed rigid” plastics. In 2008, 62% of the
rigid plastics that were collected were converted in the US or Canada. In 2008, 38% of the rigid plastics
that were collected were then exported overseas. Polypropylene copolymers are used commonly for car
battery housings. The recycling rate of car batteries is high (between 98 and 99%). 17 However, use of
recycled PP from car batteries can lead to exposure to regulated metals, e.g., Pb and Cd.

Thus, a recycling infrastructure exists for PET and polyethylene plastics. PET can be recycled from
bottles and then easily converted to fiber that can be made into a woven plastic bag. Polyethylene can be
recycled from bottles, film, sheet, or bags and then converted back to plastic bags in single-use or thicker
reusable plastic bags.

Polypropylene bottles and other rigid products would not easily be converted back to non-woven or
woven plastic bags due to the lack of collection and recycling infrastructure. Also, certification of PCR
content would need to be developed for PP that would be similar to existing programs for polyethylene
plastic bags. 18 Recycled PP would come from a variety of product sources, each with a different melt
flow properties, density, and additives. Recycled PP sources could be contaminated with regulated
metals that would not be suitable for reusable plastic bag use. Reusable non-woven PP plastic bags are
made in an extrusion process that creates a sheet of PP that is then made into reusable plastic bags
through a stitching process. The manufacturing process would need a consistent recycled input stream
which may be difficult if the majority of the recycled PP is baled with mixed plastics at local MRFs and

16
sent overseas.

The use of PCR can offer significant environmental benefits for reduced carbon dioxide emissions,
reduced solid waste, and reduced pollution. Currently, PP non-woven bags could not be produced from
PCR due to the lack of recycling infrastructure in the Unites States. Likewise, single-use plastic bags can
be produced with 40% to 100% PCR. Likewise, PE reusable bags could be made with PCR in
concentrations of 40% to 100% PCR.

CSU Chico Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Life cycle inventory (LCI) of the plastic bag manufacturing process can be determined based on the data
from the Boustead report, the Australian report, and the Scottish report. The methodology used in this
report combines the data from the Boustead report with the reusable bag data from the Australian and
Scottish report.

The methodology for the CSU, Chico LCA normalizes the Boustead data energy use, GHG emissions,
water usage, and waste generation for polyethylene plastic bags to the mass of the bag. The functional
unit for the LCA analysis is a plastic bag of equal carrying capacity that would be used in one-year time
span by consumers. The analysis assumes 1 trip per week that includes 10 bags.

The normalize Boustead data used in the LCA analysis include values of energy use, GHG emissions,
water usage, and waste generation per kg of polyethylene. The reusable polyethylene and polypropylene
bags will have the same dimensions and not include handles. The reusable polyethylene thickness is
0.003 inches, whereas, the reusable polypropylene bag is 80 grams per square meter of bag. The LCA of
polypropylene is calculated based on combining the Boustead data with the PP pellet manufacturing data
from Table 8. The LCA of the PP per kg is calculated to include GHG emissions, energy usage, water
usage, and waste generation per kg or PP. The LCA of reusable polyethylene and polypropylene bags
are calculated by multiplying the per kg LCA by the mass of the reusable bags. Thus we can determine
the energy use, GHG emissions, water usage, and waste generation of three bags, i.e., HDPE grocery
bag (Boustead data), reusable polyethylene bag (modified Boustead data), and reusable non-woven
polypropylene bag (modified Boustead data). Lastly, the environmental credits for using recycled
polyethylene in the reusable polyethylene bag is determined by subtracting the amount of energy use,
GHG emissions, water usage, and waste generation from the virgin resin that was replaced by the
recycled plastic and add the amount of energy and GHG produced by converting the recycled
polyethylene to plastic pellets.

The assumptions of the new LCA are listed in the following:

• The Boustead data for single-use HDPE bag can be used to represent the manufacturing process
of the thicker reusable polyethylene bag since it is made with the blown film extrusion process.

• The Boustead data for single-use HDPE bag can be modified to represent the manufacturing
process of the thicker reusable non-woven polypropylene bag since the non-woven PP bag is
made with sheet extrusion process which requires similar energy use as blown film extrusion.

• The production of PP non woven bags has the same values for GHG, waste generation, energy
usage, and water usage as HDPE blown film bags.

• The non-woven PP bag is 80 grams per square meter (GSM). The two options for polypropylene
non-woven bags are 80 GSM and 100 GSM based on industry standards.

• Transportation of non-woven polypropylene from China to Los Angeles has a distance of

approximately 11,000 kilometers. The GHG emissions from fuel consumptions are approximately
3% of the overall GHG emissions from the bag manufacturing based on data from the Australia

17
 report.

• Reusable polyethylene is manufactured in California and distributed throughout the United States.

• Transportation of reusable non-woven polypropylene and reusable polyethylene bags through out
the United States accounts for 1% of the overall GHG emissions. This 1% value is an estimate
based on experience of the author.

• The dimensions of the non-woven reusable bag are the same as the dimensions of the
polyethylene reusable bag. The difference is the thickness of the bags.

• For 40% recycled LLDPE, the energy, GHG, waste, and water that is required from the pellet
production is subtracted from the bag manufacturing minus the conversion costs of the recycled
bag to pellets. The recycled content of 40% is the largest acceptable value for polyethylene
plastic bag manufacturers who were consulted by the author.

• The cost of conversion of recycled polyethylene to pellets is $.04 per pound of PCR. The energy
costs are $0.13 per KW-h energy cost. The conversion of energy costs to GHG is based on
0.524 lbs of CO2 per kW-h from PG&E. The numbers used in this step were estimates provided to
the author from several polyethylene plastic bag manufacturers.

• The pellet manufacturing conversion of recycled polyethylene to pellets does not require any
water and does not generate much waste. Most of the water is created from the pellet creation or
from washing the bags. These environmental elements are disregarded.

• The number of reusable bags used by the consumer per trip is 10 based on the Australian study.

• The number of bags with meats or eggs is 20% and will require washing every week. The
analysis assumes 2 bags out of 10 would be used to carry meats or eggs. Consumer choices to
limit the meats and egg consumption can reduce the 20% value. Vegan consumers would not
have as much bacteria contamination from meats and eggs.

• The wash cycle includes 20 bags in 20 gallons that are washed with detergent and then rinsed
with water for a required 2 gallons for every bag for the wash cycle. The values of the water
required for washing was determined by the author during field studies of a Kenmore washing
machine.

• Reusable polyethylene bags could be wiped with disinfectant cloth after exposure to meats and
eggs and rinsed with soapy water. The texture of the blown film bag makes it easier to wash than
the non-woven bag. The volume of water needed would be two bags per gallon of water.

• The energy used in a washing and drying of the reusable bags was not considered.

• The environmental impacts of detergents during the washing of the bags were not considered.

The LCI includes the manufacturing of plastic pellets and paper from raw materials, the conversion of
plastic pellets into plastic bags, conversion of paper into paper bag, and transportation to the retail stores.
The “cradle to grave analysis” can illustrate the environmental benefits of reusing the plastic bag and the
benefits of using recycled plastic.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

The third step of the LCA process, Life Cycle Impact Assessment, takes the inventory of energy, fuel,
water, materials, pollution, and waste and rearranges them in terms of the scope from the first step, to

18
provide a comparison of environmental measures. In our case, the amount of energy, water, materials,
and fuel needed to make 1500 plastic grocery bags can be compared with the amount of energy, water,
materials, and fuel needed to make 1000 reusable plastic bags and 1000 paper bags. Likewise, the
pollution, Green house Gases (GHG), and solid waste produced to make 1000 plastic garbage bags will
be compared to the waste produced from 1000 reusable plastic bags and 1000 paper bags.

Table 10 lists the cradle-to-gate life cycle inventory of single-use plastic bags, single-use paper bags,
reusable non-woven polypropylene plastic bags, and reusable polyethylene (LLDPE) plastic bags. The
table lists grocery bags with equal amount of carrying capacity for up to 1 year or 52 weeks. This is
consistent with the Australian LCA. Single-use paper bags are presented as a comparison but are
outside the scope of the research. The LCA data for paper bags is from the Boustead report. Recycling
content is included in the reusable polyethylene bag. The reusable bags are washed at a rate of 20% of
the bags over the time period in the table. The single-use plastic bag is smaller than the reusable and
paper bags. Thus, 1500 single-use plastic bags has similar carrying capacity as 1000 reusable plastic
and single-use paper bags. This is consistent with the Boustead report.

The data is Table 10 represents the environmental impacts of using equal-carrying capacity bags for 1
year.

Table 10. Cradle-to-gate LCA of plastic bags, single-use paper bags, and reusable plastic bags
Environmental 1500 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
impact HDPE Reusab Reusable Reusable Reusable Reusable Reusable Paper
indicator single- le PP PP non- PP non- LLDPE LLDPE LLDPE bag
use non- woven 8 woven 52 bag with with 40% with 40% single
bag woven times times 40% PCR PCR bag PCR bag -use
single- single- 8 times 52 times
use use
Non-renewable 763 3736 467 72 2945 368 57 2620
energy, GJ
GHG emissions, 0.04 0.262 0.033 0.005 0.182 0.023 0.003 0.08
CO2 eq
Solid Waste, kg 7.0 34.3 4.29 0.7 34.1 4.3 0.7 34
Fresh water 58 426 85 216 250 40 57 1000
consumption,
gal
Mass, g 6 42 42 42 44 44 44 52

Table 10 illustrates that single-use reusable bags made from polypropylene or polyethylene have
significantly worse environmental impacts than the single-use polyethylene bags. The reusable bags have
a better environmental impact if they are used more that 8 times, which is an environmental cross-over
point for reuse. The reusable plastic bags have significantly better environmental impact if they are used
26 times (once a week for 6 months) or more.

Table 10 also illustrates that the reusable polyethylene bag has the lowest environmental impact than the
reusable polypropylene bag due to the use of recycled polyethylene plastic or PCR.

Environmental Impacts of Washing Reusable Bag

Reusable bags made from polyethylene and propylene can be used as carrier bags in grocery stores.
The bags can be used to carry fruits, vegetables, can goods, bottled goods, boxed goods, dairy products,
and meats. The dairy products and meats can cause bacteria to grow on the bags. In fact, large numbers

19
of bacteria were found in many reusable bags in a recent study. 19 Also, coliform bacteria were found in
half of the bags and E. coli bacteria were found in 12% of the bags. The human health impacts are not
typically found in LCA studies but are warranted due to the need to consider health with environmental
aspects of consumer choices.

The Australian report recommended that the average consumer uses 10 bags per week for 52 weeks. We
could assume that 20% of the bags would have meats or dairy in the bags and would need to be washed.
This assumption would vary depending upon the meat and dairy preferences of the consumer. This report
assumes that 2 bags per week would need to be washed and that each bag would use 2 gallons of water
plus detergent for the wash and rinse cycles in a standard washing machine. This research found that 4
bags fill a 10 quart bucket and 20 bags fill a 20-gallon washing machine. For this research the number of
bags used for 52 weeks were multiplied by 20% as the number of bags washed times 2 gallons per bag
would determine the amount of water needed to wash the bags for 52 weeks. This amount of water was
added to the amount of water needed to produce the reusable plastic bag. The wash cycle of the bags
may also cause the bags to deteriorate, especially around the stitching that holds the bag together.

The LCA data in Table 11 can be normalized to the values for single-use plastic bag in a similar fashion
as in the Scottish report as presented in Table 6. This can illustrate the environmental effects of using
reusable bags and using recycled plastics in the manufacturing of the plastic bags. Table 11 lists the
normalized values for environmental impacts that include reusable bags with recycled content and
washing of the bags. The values in Table 11 are rounded for clarity.

Table 11 illustrates that 1,000 single-use reusable non-woven PP plastic bags require 5 times more
energy, emit 7 times more GHG, generate 5 times more waste, and consume 7 times more water than
1,500 single-use polyethylene plastic bags. On the contrary, the reusable non-woven plastic bag that is
used 8 times has equivalent environmental impact as the single-use polyethylene plastic bag. Likewise,
the reusable non-woven plastic bag that is used 52 times has significantly lower environmental impact
than the single-use polyethylene plastic bag. In fact, if the reusable bag is used once a week for 52
weeks, the reusable non-woven PP bag bags require significantly less energy, emit 87% less GHG,
generate 91% less waste. It would however consume 4 times more water than 1,500 single-use
polyethylene plastic bags due to washing 20% of the bags every week. Table 11 also illustrates how the
reusable polyethylene plastic bag with 40% Post Consumer Resin (PCR) plastic has the lowest
environmental impact of all of the carrier bag alternatives.

Table 11. Environmental indicators for single-use plastic bags, single-use paper bags, and
reusable plastic bags per standardized single-use polyethylene bag.
Environmental 1500 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
impact HDPE Reusable Reusable Reusable Reusable Reusable Reusable Paper
indicator single- PP non- PP non- PP non- LLDPE bag LLDPE LLDPE with bag
use bag woven woven 8 woven 52 with 40% with 40% 40% PCR single-
single-use times times PCR single- PCR bag bag 52 use
use 8 times times
Non- 1 5 0.6 0.1 4 0.5 0.1 3
renewable
energy, GJ
GHG 1 7 0.8 0.1 5 0.6 0.1 2
emissions,
CO2 eq
Solid Waste, 1 5 0.6 0.1 5 0.6 0.1 5
kg
Fresh water, 1 7 1.5 4 4 0.7 1 17
gal

20
Table 10 can be rearranged to have the reusable polyethylene bag that is used 52 times as the basis for
comparison. Table 12 lists the environmental impacts of plastic and paper bags with reusable
polyethylene plastic bag as the basis.

Table 12. Additional environmental indicators for single-use plastic bags, single-use paper bags,
and reusable plastic bags per standardized reusable polyethylene bag

Indicator of 1,000 reusable 1,000 reusable 1,500 single-use 1,000 single-use

Environmental LLDPE plastic non-woven PP HDPE plastic bag paper bags
Impact bags with 40% plastic bags and
PCR and 52 52 times
times
Non-renewable 1 1.3 13 46
energy
GHG, CO2 eq. 1 1.7 17 27
Solid Waste 1 1 10 53
Generation, kg
Fresh Water, gal 1 4 1 18

The results of our LCA study demonstrate that the reusable polyethylene plastic bag made with 40% PCR
and reusable polypropylene plastic bags have lower environmental impacts than other reusable and
single-use plastic and paper bags. Reusable LLDPE plastic bags with 40% recycled PCR content have
lower energy usage, lower GHG emissions, lower solid waste generation, and lower water usage than
reusable non-woven PP bags, single-use plastic bags, and single-use paper bags. Further research can
determine the environmental impacts of 100% PCR based reusable and single-use plastic bags.

Regulated Metals Testing

In January of 2006, California laws went into effect that limits the amount of regulated metals, including
cadmium and lead, in product packaging. The US EPA standard allows the following amounts of
regulated metals: lead (150 mg/kg), cadmium (17 mg/kg), copper (750 mg/kg), nickel 210 mg/kg), zinc
(1400 mg/kg), and mercury (8.5 mg/kg).[20] Pigments with green and blue colors cause the amount of
copper to increase in plastic. [21] Pigments of heavy yellow can cause the amount of lead to increase in
soil.

Reusable and single-use plastic bags were tested for the presence of regulated metals, including
cadmium and lead. The following bags were purchased at local grocery and retail stores. Table 13 lists
the bags that were tested.

The ten bags were tested for regulated metals with a Bruker AXS S2 Ranger XRF machine. X-ray
fluorescence spectrometry can be used to identify metals, powders, and other elements in cement,
minerals, mining, metals, slag, oils and lubricants, pharmaceuticals, polymers and RoHS. 22

The XRF machine performs elemental analysis from Sodium (Na) to Uranium (U) in solids, powders or
liquids. The XRF machine can identify the presence of metals in the plastic sample but does not measure
the concentration of the metals. The XRF identified qualitatively the presence of regulated metals but
does not provide a quantitative analysis.

Plastic samples were taken from the bottom insert in those bags that had the inserts and also from the
side walls of the bags. The sample size is small due to the limited duration and scope of the research
project. Table 14 lists the regulated metals found in the plastic bags. Cadmium was found in 35% of the

21
non-woven PP bags. Cadmium was the most common metal found in four of the reusable PP bags. Trace
amounts of lead were found in 20% of the reusable bags. Most of the regulated metals were identified in
the plastic insert at the bottom of the bag. Further wet-chemistry methods can be done in the future to
identify concentrations of the regulated metals, though outside the scope of this research work.

Table 13. Reuseable and single-use plastic bags in research study

Store Color Country of Material
Manufacture
Grocery Store A Brown China Non-woven PP
Grocery Store B Green China Non-woven PP
Grocery Store C Purple China Non-woven PP
Grocery Store D Black China Non-woven PP
Grocery Store E yellow/white USA Polyethylene
Grocery Store F White USA Polyethylene-
single-use
Retail Store A Green China Non-woven PP
Retail Store B Black China Non-woven PP
Retail Store C Green China Non-woven PP
Retail Store D Black USA Polyethylene

Table 14. Regulated metals testing of reusable and single-use plastic bags
Store Bottom or side Presence of Presence
Cd of Pb
Grocery Store A Non-woven PP Bottom insert Y N
Non-woven PP Side wall N Y
Grocery Store B Non-woven PP Bottom insert Y N
Non-woven PP Side wall N N
Grocery Store C Non-woven PP Side wall N N
Grocery Store D Non-woven PP Bottom insert Y N
Non-woven PP Side wall N N
Grocery Store E Polyethylene Side wall N N
Grocery Store F Polyethylene Side wall N N

Retail Store A Non-woven PP Bottom insert Y N

Non-woven PP Side wall N N
Retail Store B Non-woven PP Side wall Y N
Retail Store C Non-woven PP Bottom insert N N
Retail Store D Polyethylene Side wall N N

22
Conclusions and Recommendations
Reusable plastic bags can reduce the amount of green house gas emissions, solid waste generation, and
acid rain pollution than single-use polyethylene plastic bags. The plastic bag with the least amount of
environmental impacts would have the following features:

• Reusable,

• Made from recycled plastics, and

• Lightest weight possible.

Currently, PP non-woven bags could not be produced from PCR due to the lack of recycling infrastructure
in the Unites States. However, PE reusable bags could be made with PCR in concentrations of 40% to
100% PCR. Likewise, single-use plastic bags can be produced with 40% to 100% PCR. The use of PCR
can offer significant environmental benefits for reduced carbon dioxide emissions, reduced solid waste,
and reduced pollution.

The polyethylene based reusable bag with 40% PCR is the plastic bag with the least amount of
environmental impacts. The reusable bags though will require more fresh water than a single-use
polyethylene bag due to the washing requirements of the bags that carry meats and dairy products.

The research report was evaluated by personnel from the Department of Toxic Substances and Control
(DTSC) and the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) organizations
in Sacramento, CA. The research report was evaluated by those two organizations for clarity and
accuracy for life cycle assessment standards and protocols. The report was changed to include more
accurate LCA assumptions and criteria. The report was modified to provide more transparent functional
units and better comparison criteria. The report was well received by both organizations and thought to
provide relevant data for the sustainable evaluations of plastic bags and reusable bags.

23
Appendix

Figure 3. Project management for research study

24
 References
[1]
“City of Orilla Biodegradable Bag Study,” December 2003,
<www.bpiworld.org/Files/Article/ArttJInBM.pdf> (August 2005).
2
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=37456 (August 2008)
3
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=38498 (August 2008)
4
Cooper, J.S.; Fava, J. (2006), "Life Cycle Assessment Practitioner Survey: Summary of Results",
Journal of Industrial Ecology
5
BaBi Software Product Sustainability, http://www.gabi-software.com/index.php?id=85&L=6&redirect=1
(August 2008)
6
SimaPro LCA Software, http://www.pre.nl/simapro/ (August 2010)
7
Chaffe, C. and Yaros B., Boustead Consulting and Associates, ” Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types
of Grocery Bags- Recyclable Plastic; Compostable Plastic , and – Recycled, Recyclable Paper -2007,
http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/doc.asp?CID=1106&DID=7212 (July 2010)
8
Council for Solid Waste Solutions. "Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Polyethylene and
Unbleached Paper Grocery Sacks." CSWS (800-243-5790), Washington, DC, June 1990.
9
Dili, R., Sustainability Victoria, “Comparison of existing life cycle analysis of shopping bags alternatives-
2007,” http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/LCA_shopping_bags_full_report[2].pdf
(July 2010)
10
“Plastic Waste Management Strategy for Ontario,” ENVIROS RIS,
http://www.plastics.ca/_files/file.php?fileid=itemqRHcTzdOXV&filename=file_files_Plastics_Waste_Man
agement_for_Ontario_Sept01.pdf (December 2010)

11
Cadman, J. et. al., Environmental Group Research Report, “Proposed Plastic Tax Levy Extended
Impact Assessment- 2005,” http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/08/1993102/31039 (July
2010)
12
‘’Évaluation des impacts environnementaux des sacs de caisse Carrefour. Analyse du cycle de vie de
sacs de caisse en plastique, papier et matériau biodégradable’, Report prepared for Carrefour,
Ecobilan, February 2004. www.ademe.fr/htdocs/actualite/rapport_carrefour_post_revue_critique_v4.pdf
(July 2010)
13
“Cradle to Gate Life Cycle Inventory for Nine Plastic Resins and Four Polyurethane Precursors,” Final
Report, American Chemistry Council,
http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/sec_pfpg.asp?CID=1439&DID=5336 (July 2010)
14
“2008 United State National Post Consumer Plastics Bottle Recycling Report,” Association of Post
Consumer Plastic Recyclers, American Chemistry Council
http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/sec_content.asp?CID=1593&DID=10383 (August 2010)
15
“2008 National Post Consumer Recycled Plastic Bag and Film Report,” Association of Post Consumer
Plastic Recyclers, American Chemistry Council
http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/sec_content.asp?CID=1593&DID=10776 (August 2010)
16
“2008 National Post Consumer Report on Non-Bottle Rigid Plastic Recycling,” Association of Post
Consumer Plastic Recyclers, American Chemistry Council
http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/sec_content.asp?CID=1593&DID=10383 (August 2010)
17
http://earth911.com/recycling/automotive/car-batteries/ (August 2010)
18
http://www.green.ca.gov/EPP/building/PlasticBags.htm (August 2010)
19
Gerba, C., Williams, D., and Sinclair, R.,” Assessment of the Potential for Cross Contamination of Food
Products by Reusable Shopping Bags,” Loma Linda University School of Public Health,
http://www.docuticker.com/?p=37322 (July 2010)

25
 [20]
“City of Orilla Biodegradable Bag Study,” December 2003,
<www.bpiworld.org/Files/Article/ArttJInBM.pdf> (August 2005).
[21]
J. Kaiser, “Testing the performance and the disintegration of biodegradable bags for the collection of
organic wastes,” Macromoecular Symposia 165, March 2001, p. 115–122.
22
“S2 RANGER – Leading the performance class in Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence (EDXRF) with
XFlash® Technology,” http://www.bruker-axs.com/s2_ranger.html (August 2010)

26

View publication stats