Macro Chemistry Physics - 2022 - Venkatachalam - Design for Recycling Strategies Based on the Life Cycle Assessment And

PERSPECTIVE
www.mcp-journal.de
Design for Recycling Strategies Based on the Life Cycle

Assessment and End of Life Options of Plastics in a Circular
Economy
Venkateshwaran Venkatachalam,* Merlin Pohler, Sebastian Spierling, Louisa Nickel,
Leonie Barner, and Hans-Josef Endres
1. Introduction
The plastic economy, despite offering unique properties in fulfilling the
functions of products in different industrial sectors over decades, has so far Plastics have been evolving during the last
been mainly linear, that is, “take-make and dispose” with only a small fraction century into a versatile material group that
is used for products ranging from packag-
of plastics being recycled worldwide. With ever-increasing circular economy
ing to building materials. In the timeframe
initiatives and the urge to conserve resources and prevent plastic pollution from 1950 to 2015, approximately 8300 Mio
from affecting ecosystems, more emphasis on the resource recovery of plastic t. plastic were produced. While only 600
products after its use has been made over the last few years. It is necessary Mio t. was recycled, the main share of 5700
for manufacturers to understand the value chain as early as the design phase Mio t. was disposed of or incinerated.[1] This
highlights the current linear economy char-
while manufacturing and distributing plastic products across the world. The
acter of the plastic economy. Due to the low
current study provides an overview of the status quo of plastic waste cost of polymers as well as versatile types
management and analyzes the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies of of products manufactured from plastics (us-
different End-of-Life (EoL) options for plastics. Based on the LCA studies, a ing a broad range of additives), recycling in-
preliminary, country-specific Circular Footprint (CF) is calculated and Design frastructure and circular economy for plas-
for Recycling (DfR) strategies are identified. Results show that the tics is still in its early developmental phase.
Against the backdrop of limited re-
environmental impacts of different EoL options differ significantly for different
sources, a growing global population and
plastics. The CF highlights the lack of data regarding the composition and other sustainable challenges like climate
recovery of plastics in different countries thus showing the necessity to change, marine litter (LI), and associated
consider the whole lifecycle when quantifying the environmental impacts of challenges with toxicity in ecosystems[2] it is
plastics. imminent to improve the circularity of plas-
tics and its products. Tackling plastic pollu-
tion and sustainable consumption of plas-
tics have also become an integral part of
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) globally. The United
Nations Environmental Assembly has even adopted a declara-
tion, to significantly reduce the manufacturing and use of single-
V. Venkatachalam, M. Pohler, S. Spierling, L. Nickel, H.-J. Endres use plastic products by 2030.[3]
Institute of Plastics and Circular Economy To increase the circularity of plastics, different recycling op-
Leibniz Universität Hannover
An der Universität 2, Garbsen 30823, Germany tions have emerged in the past decade (in contrast to the current
E-mail: [email protected] established End-of-Life (EoL) options for plastics like incineration
L. Barner (IC) with/without energy recovery and landfilling), which could
Centre for a Waste-Free World play an integral role in the circular economy of plastics. The pos-
Faculty of Science, School of Chemistry and Physics sible EoL options for plastics are shown in Figure 1, including
Queensland University of Technology
2 George Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia
different recycling possibilities as well as other recovery or dis-
posal options that are currently in use.
The use and the magnitude of these EoL options to treat plas-
The ORCID identification number(s) for the author(s) of this article tic wastes differ significantly between countries, which highlights
can be found under https://doi.org/10.1002/macp.202200046
the importance of considering a country-specific waste manage-
© 2022 The Authors. Macromolecular Chemistry and Physics published ment infrastructure.[4] Moreover, the recyclability, as well as the
by Wiley-VCH GmbH. This is an open access article under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, resulting quality of recyclates, could be already determined in the
which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original product design phase due to the choice of additives, combination
work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications of materials as well as possibilities for disassembly.[5,6] Therefore,
or adaptations are made. it is important to address the impacts of the production, use, and
DOI: 10.1002/macp.202200046 their EoL phases when designing plastic products.
Macromol. Chem. Phys. 2022, 223, 2200046 2200046 (1 of 26) © 2022 The Authors. Macromolecular Chemistry and Physics published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
15213935, 2022, 13, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/macp.202200046 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [09/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.mcp-journal.de
Figure 1. Overview of possible EoL options for plastics.
The concept of Design for Recycling (DfR) enables the inclu- ing the design phase and understand the usage (or disposal) and
sion of parameters of the product design in direct connection to the environmental impacts of their plastic products when used
its impact on the recycling potential and therefore tries to opti- across the world.
mize and increase the recyclability of the products already in the
design phase.[7] To enable a holistic DfR approach, not only the
technical aspects but also the environmental aspects have to be 1.1. Status Quo – Global Plastic Waste Management
quantified and included. A suitable methodology to assess the
environmental impacts of products and technologies is Life Cy- In 2020, it is estimated that 367 Mio t of plastics were pro-
cle Assessment (LCA) based on ISO 14040/44.[8,9] duced worldwide.[17] The main plastics producing countries are
LCAs quantify the environmental impacts of different prod- China (32%), countries of the North American Free Trade Agree-
ucts/technologies as well as allow a sound comparison between ment (NAFTA), that is, United States of America (USA), Canada,
them. The environmental performance of the EoL options can and Mexico, (19%), other countries of Asia (17%), and Eu-
be analyzed and quantified with the help of LCA. Using LCA, the rope (15%).[17] In 2010, the countries that generated the largest
environmental impacts of the product system across the value amount of plastic waste (which is an indication for plastics con-
chain can be evaluated and the factors that influence the type of sumption) were China, the USA, Germany, and Brazil.[18] It
EoL option chosen for different plastic products can be better un- should also be mentioned that oil—a non-renewable resource—
derstood. is consumed in the production of plastics as material feedstock
To allow for an environmental improvement of these technolo- and as fuel for the production process (in a ratio of approximately
gies as well as setting the focus on the most environmentally 1:1).[19] In 2014, approximately 6% of the global oil consumption
beneficial pathways, an overview of the current environmental was used for plastic production. As plastic production is increas-
impacts of EoL options for different plastic types is necessary. ing worldwide, the percentage of oil consumption will increase
Therefore, the current study aims to establish a comprehensive as well. However, this could be counterbalanced by increased use
overview of the impacts of different recovery options for plastics. of recycled plastics as material feedstock and renewable energy
Although some review studies on LCA and EoL options of plastics sources for plastics production.
have already been published in the past ten years, these reviews As described in Figure 1, a range of options exists for the
focused their research on certain plastic types, EoL options, ge- formal management of plastics at their EoL, that is, recycling
ographical regions, impact categories, or the methodological as- (including export for recycling), IC (with and without energy
pects of LCA.[10–16] This current study tries to analyze as many recovery), and landfill (LA). Unfortunately, mismanagement of
plastic types and their different EoL options across the world as plastic waste is prevalent in many parts of the world resulting in
possible along with the different impact categories. littering, illegal dumping, uncontrolled burning, and deposition
Based on the environmental impacts analyzed from this re- in LAs, which in turn contribute to marine plastic pollution and
view, a preliminary Circular Footprint (CF) for plastics in dif- landscape pollution with detrimental effects on the ecosystems.
ferent regions of the world corresponding to their recycling in- The availability of plastic waste management options strongly
frastructure is calculated. Using these results, DfR strategies are depends on the socio-economic status of the respective country.
identified, which will support the designers and manufacturers In general, the Global North (Including Western Europe, North
during the material selection for their products as early as dur- America, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, and
Singapore) has an efficient infrastructure for the management ond, segregation of plastic waste before (re-)processing is essen-
of plastic waste (under the assumption that LA and IC are con- tial, but often hampered by the use of different types of plastics
sidered efficient which reflects more of a linear than a circular in the same product or difficulties in identifying the type of plas-
economy). tic used. In addition, the additives used in plastic products can
In 2020 in the 27 EU countries, the United Kingdom, Norway, be challenging for the recycling process. Third, sufficient infras-
and Switzerland, 29.5 Mio t of post-consumer waste plastic was tructure for collection transport, segregation, and material pro-
collected. Of these 23.4% were landfilled, 42% were used for en- duction needs to be available. Finally, all these actions need to be
ergy recovery, and 34.6% were recycled.[17] In 2018, plastic waste performed in an economically viable and sustainable fashion.
generation in the USA resulted in 35.7 Mio t, of which 3 Mio t Policies, national laws, and international treaties are playing
were recycled (8.7% recycling rate), 5.6 Mio t were incinerated, an important role in addressing the mounting problem of plas-
and the majority (27 Mio t) was landfilled (75.6%).[20] tic consumption and waste. Johnson et al. analyzed the impor-
Australia generated 2.54 Mt of plastic waste in 2018–19, of tance of transnational regulation for the production, consump-
which almost 13% was recycled and a little less than 3% was tion, and disposal of plastics and identified three significant de-
incinerated with energy recovery. 85% of plastic waste was de- ficiencies, that is, failure to consider plastics in terms of envi-
posited in LA.[21] ronmental justice and human rights, insufficient plastics preven-
In the Global South, that is, low-to-middle-income countries, tion, as well as the role of law in reinforcing plastics production
adequate formal infrastructure for plastic waste is scarce and and consumption.[25] Nevertheless, more and more countries ban
plastic waste is often mismanaged. Jambeck et al. describe how or restrict the use of plastics, especially the use of single-use plas-
the lack of adequate plastic waste management systems in devel- tics (i.e., plastic bags, straws, stir sticks, cutlery, plates, …) and
oping countries contribute to plastic waste entering waterways microbeads in cosmetics and cleaning products.[26] Among the
and oceans in significant amounts leading to ocean pollution countries that have or are planning to ban single-use plastic items
by plastics and the creation of large marine garbage patches.[18] are Australia, Canada, China, Europe, India, Kenya, UK, some
Therefore, reducing the amount of mismanaged plastic waste states of the USA, and Zimbabwe.[27] China’s ban on plastic waste
by establishing formal waste management systems (ideally recy- imports had a significant effect on the global plastics market
cling systems) in developing countries and a reduction of the use shifting the waste exports to other countries—namely Malaysia,
of unnecessary single-use plastics is very important. However, displacing an estimated 111 Mio t of plastic waste by the year 2030
the impact of the informal waste recycling sector-which refers and triggering waste export bans, for example, Australia.[24 ,28]
to the waste recycling activities of scavengers and waste pickers- Therefore, these complexities across the value chain of plastics
in developing countries should not be underestimated and must and the fate of the plastic products after use must be considered
be accounted for when formal waste management systems are by the manufacturers at the design stage. Also, exporting the fin-
established.[22] ished plastic products or the plastic wastes to the countries, which
A report on plastic waste management published in 2019 esti- lack the basic infrastructure to collect and recover plastics after
mated the market size of plastic waste management at USD 33.1 use let alone recycle these materials comes with the high risk of
billion for 2019 and predicts a growing market on one side due losing the non-renewable resources from the value-chain. This
to rapid industrialization, rising urbanization, increased use of also results in a major decrease in the resource efficiency of the
plastics, and on the other side due to an increasing conscience whole product system. From the status quo, it can be seen that not
of the detrimental impacts of incorrect waste management of all the plastic wastes that are produced by the countries are recov-
plastics.[23] Especially, in the Asia Pacific region the plastic waste ered and recycled locally, but a part of these wastes are exported
management market is predicted to grow. to other countries. This situation makes it even more difficult
In addition, the export of plastic waste from developed coun- to quantify the environmental impacts of disposing these plastic
tries (with adequate waste management systems) to developing wastes as the manufacturers and users seldom acquire data from
countries (with often inadequate waste management systems) the countries to which wastes are exported.
significantly adds to the mismanagement of waste and ultimately
marine plastic pollution. For example, China will release approxi- 2. Experimental Section
mately 1.3 Mio to 3.5 Mio t. of plastic waste into the ocean per year
while developing an efficient waste management infrastructure. 2.1. Bibliometric Analysis
Brooks et al. report that nine of the top ten plastic waste exporting
countries (i.e., Hong Kong, USA, Japan, Germany, UK, Nether- A comprehensive literature review was performed as a part of the
lands, France, Belgium, and Canada) are high-income countries, current study to identify the DfR strategies and quantify the envi-
except for Mexico which is an upper-middle-income country and ronmental impacts of the different EoL options of plastic wastes.
ranked 5th .[24] Some of these high-income countries also import This review mainly analyzed the LCA studies of different EoL op-
plastic waste, however on a much lower percentage. tions of plastic wastes that were conducted by researchers across
Therefore, recycling plastics, that is, the recovery of plastics af- the world. The time frame of the literature review was set from
ter their use so that the material does not leave the economy, is 2010 to 2021 keeping in mind factors like the improvement in col-
one of the important components in the transition from a linear lection, sorting, and mechanical recycling (MR) of plastic wastes,
to a circular economy. However, recycling plastics faces a couple emergence of new plastic types, new EoL options in treating the
of challenges. First, there is the issue of collecting plastic waste in plastic wastes, increase in the rate of consumption of plastic ma-
a simple but sufficient way that keeps contamination and trans- terials, and generation of plastics wastes across the world over the
port costs (including the carbon footprint of transport) low. Sec- past decade.
Figure 2. Co-occurrence of keywords for a set time period (2010–2021) by a bibliometric analysis based on the title and abstract search from 416 studies
using VOSViewer.
Before conducting the literature review on LCA of the different In total, there were 60 co-occurring keywords linked to each
EoL options, bibliometric analysis on the co-occurrence of key- other with the threshold for each keyword set to occur at least
words for the set time frame was performed and visualized with more than 20 times. Due to the weak link strength of some of the
the help of VOSViewer.[29] For this visualization, a basic search keywords, not all the keywords could be displayed in Figure 2. For
with the keyword combination of “Plastics” AND “LCA” AND the sake of simplicity and better understanding, keywords like
“Recycling” for the timeframe 2010 to 2021 was done with the “journal” and “peer review” were not considered in this visual-
help of the search engine Scopus, which was the largest abstract ization despite having a large number of co-occurrences.
and citation database of peer-reviewed literature.[30] The terms From Figure 2, it can be seen that the terms relevant to LCA
“End of Life” or other EoL options like “Incineration” and “Land- like “environmental impact” (159 occurrences), “life cycle” (236),
fill” were not included in the search as most of the titles and ab- “life cycle analysis” (Some publications tend to use this term
stracts of the studies in the first screening did not have these key- instead of LCA) (131), and “life cycle assessment” (195) occu-
words. If all these studies discussed EoL options, it was more in pied the majority of co-occurrences among different publications
the direction of treatment or disposal of plastic wastes. In the along with the terms “waste disposal” (78), “waste treatment”
case of IC, the titles and abstract discussed the thermal recovery (52), and “waste management” (134) that were common to all
or recycling of plastic wastes. of these studies. Apart from the conventional “recycling” (219)
For the defined combination of search terms mentioned above, of plastics, LCA for other EoL options like “composting” (20),
416 results were found which were then exported along with the “anaerobic digestion” (important EoL options for bio-based plas-
year, title and abstract into VOSViewer. The VOSViewer software tics) (22), and pyrolysis (21) have also gained attention over the
helps in creating maps on the co-occurrence of the keywords, past few years. To understand the environmental impacts of prod-
authorship, and citations based on the bibliographic data pro- ucts from different materials, comparative LCAs have also been
vided to the software. For this study, the possible co-occurrence done between plastics and other materials like “glass” (22). Many
(refers to the occurrence of the same keyword in other publi- LCA studies focus on specific types of plastic products (“plastic
cations) between the different keywords over the time period bottles” (20)), sector (“electronic wastes” (25), “packaging” (34),
was counted and the links between the keywords (co-occurrence) material type (“Polyethylene Terephthalate” (21), “Polymers” (25)
were visualized in the form of a map. Increase in the occurrence “Elastomers” (49)), impacts (“Gas emissions” (27), “Greenhouse
of the same keyword in different studies increases the relevance gases” (38), “carbon dioxide” (27)). There was also an increase in
of these keywords (thereby the link strength between the key- the presence of terms like “circular economy” (coincides with the
words), which were then linked to the other keywords with a sim- circular economy policy initiatives across the world to conserve
ilar number of co-occurrences in these studies. The visualization resources thereby mitigating climate change (39)),[31–33] “sustain-
of the co-occurrence of keywords in the abstracts and titles for able development” (coincides with the introduction of SDGs)[34]
the given search combination over the time frame is shown in (53), and most likely the potential or the relevance of it in the
Figure 2: “plastics industry” (21) in the last few years.
Table 1. Search categories and terms used for the literature review.
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
End-of-life Options Plastics Mechanical Recycling

End-of-life Treatment Polypropylene Chemical Recycling
Life Cycle Analysis Low Density Polyethylene Direct Fuel substitution
Life Cycle Assessment High Density Polyethylene Pyrolysis/Hydrolysis/Gasification
Sustainability assessment Polyethylene terephthalate Waste to Energy
Waste management Polystyrene Incineration/Combustion
Disposal Polyvinylchloride Refuse Derived Fuel
Carbon footprint Polyamide Energy Recovery
Plastics and circular economy Mixed plastics wastes Landfill/Disposal
Environmental impact Municipal Solid Wastes Reuse
However, there were not many co-occurrences of terms like regarding LCA studies of EoL options of the plastic (both con-
“Product design”, “Ecodesign”, or “Design for recycling” among ventional and bio-based) wastes was conducted and the studies
the studies, which highlights how little to no importance was cited in those review studies were also screened as a part of this
given to the optimization and change of the environmental literature review. As many as 785 documents (including 35 ad-
performance of the plastic products in the conducted studies ditional documents from the parallel search and review studies)
through product or process (re)-design. This bibliometric anal- were found as a part of the initial literature search on Scopus.
ysis served as a basis for the literature review that was conducted However, there were some duplicates found among these two
on the LCA studies of different EoL options. searches, which were then excluded to result in 762 publications
that had to be screened. Some of the publications were also ex-
cluded because of the inaccessibility of these documents during
2.2. Literature Review the research period. The authors, then, based on their expert es-
timation excluded some of the records after reading their respec-
For the literature review of the LCA studies, three different cat- tive titles and abstracts. As many as 531 studies were excluded
egories of search terms have been created thereby including dif- at the end of this screening process, which then resulted in the
ferent aspects of treating the plastic wastes. The combination thorough screening (reading the complete paper) of 231 studies.
of keywords from all of these three categories was subsequently To include the essential LCA studies for the review and increase
used for the screening analysis of the literature. The first cate- the comparability of the results from the LCA, a set of screening
gory included the set of general search terms like “Waste Man- criteria was defined.
agement, ‘Disposal”, “Life Cycle Assessment”, “Sustainability As- For the LCA studies to be included in the final review, they
sessment”, and “Carbon Footprint”, which were then combined must comply with the following criteria: 1) Only LCA studies re-
with the second set of categories that consists of different types of porting the EoL options of conventional plastics were considered,
polymers and plastics wastes like Polypropylene (PP), Polyethy- that is, LCA studies involving the EoL options of composites and
lene (PE), mixed plastic wastes (MP), and municipal solid wastes fibers were not considered; 2) LCA studies must follow the attri-
(this search term becomes relevant in the countries where Sin- butional approach, that is, LCA studies with the consequential ap-
gle Stream Plastics (SSP) recycling were not prevalent due to the proach were not considered as the results from these approaches
inadequate infrastructure to sort the wastes into different frac- were not comparable with the attributional ones; 3) LCA studies
tions). reporting the mixed plastic blends (For example: PC-ABS blends)
These two sets of search categories were then combined with were not considered; 4) LCA studies should focus on the EoL op-
the third set of search term category, which deals exclusively with tions. If not, they should have atleast separately presented the
the different types of EoL options like MR, chemical recycling results for the respective EoL options they used for their product
(CR), IC, and LA. With these search term categories, it was eas- system; 5) EoL options in the LCA studies were considered sepa-
ier to find duplicates during the literature review thereby getting rately and mixed scenarios were not considered, that is, LCA stud-
specific literature, which will then be screened through a set of ies with the combination of treating the plastic wastes like 50%
assessment criteria. Table 1 shows an overview of the terms in Recycling, 35% IC, and 15% LA were not considered as it would
the three categories. Since the scientific publications on this topic be difficult to identify the individual contribution of the EoL op-
were mainly available in English, the search terms were also cho- tion towards the total impacts. The LCA studies should have pre-
sen in English and the literature results in other languages were sented their Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) results (also
not considered for this review. The timeframe for the literature known as environmental impacts) for 100% Recycling or 100%
review was the same one as for the bibliometric analysis, which IC or 100% LA. However, LCA studies that treat the residues of
was from the year 2010 to 2021. the plastic wastes with other EoL options were still included in
Apart from combining the search terms from different cate- the review; 6) absolute values of LCIA results should be avail-
gories, a parallel search on the already existing review studies able; 7) Only the midpoint indicators of the LCIA results were
Figure 3. Screening analysis for the literature review. Reproduced under terms of the CC-BY license.[35] Copyright 2009, the Author(s). Published by
PLoS Medicine.
considered; 8) Only the LCIA results from the studies that had from LCA studies are shown in Table S1, Supporting Informa-
either cut-off or avoided burden approach as the methodological tion. The complete list of all the 165 scenarios along with the
approach to quantify the impacts of the product system at the EoL extracted information are shown in Table S2, Supporting Infor-
were considered. mation. The screening analysis for the literature review of LCA
Based on these screening criteria, a full paper scan was per- studies of the EoL options of plastic wastes is shown in Figure 3:
formed and out of 231 studies, 41 LCA studies were taken for the Despite these 41 LCA studies having different functional units
calculation of average environmental impacts of different types of (the reference unit for quantifying the environmental impacts of
plastic wastes, which were then used for the calculation of CF and the product system, that is, environmental impacts of 1 plastic
subsequently for the identification of DfR strategies. The LCIA bottle, 1000 tons of municipal solid wastes, which describes the
results and the average impacts of different EoL options will be function of the product system with the physical dimensions for
discussed in detail in Section 3.1 and the information extracted the end product under study), the LCIA results were then calcu-
lated per kg of plastic waste and were then used for the calculation tem based on the quality, market mechanisms, and the recov-
of the CF. ery/disposal rate of the plastic wastes in the product system.
The EoL options considered for the literature review are: Reuse The average environmental impacts of the EoL options of plastic
(R), MR, CR, Direct fuel Substitution (DS), IC, LA, and LI. As wastes were analyzed separately for cut-off and avoided burden
mentioned in Section 1, EoL options like pyrolysis and gasifica- approaches, the two most common modeling approaches for ac-
tion were included as a part of CR. Also for the purpose of show- counting the environmental impacts of recovered materials dur-
ing the main EoL options in the literature review, there was no ing the EoL phase of plastics.
distinction made between IC with or without energy recovery and In the case of avoided burden approach, the environmental
LA with or without energy recovery in Table 2. However, during impacts were allocated in such a way that the primary system
the calculation of the average environmental impacts of different (that produces the plastic wastes for recovery) takes the credits
plastic types, distinction was made between the EoL options with for the wastes that were generated in their product system with
and without energy recovery. an assumption that these wastes (secondary materials) were re-
The type of polymers/plastic wastes that were considered for covered, recycled and substitute the primary (virgin) materials in
the literature review are: High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE), the second system. So the impacts of not producing a virgin ma-
Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE), PE, PP, Polyethylene Tereph- terial due to the substitution were allocated as credits for the first
thalate (PET), Polystyrene (PS), Polyurethane (PUR), Acryloni- system.
trile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), Poly In the case of cut-off approach, the product system (both the
(Methyl Methacrylate) (PMMA), Polyolefine (PO), and MP. The producer and receiver of wastes) never takes credits and only the
considered LCA studies along with the choice of EoL options and direct impacts caused by each system were calculated. In the case
the polymers studied in the respective studies are listed in Ta- of second system, the one that receives the recycled materials,
ble 2. The individual scenarios resulting from analyzing the EoL neither credits (for the secondary material) nor the burdens (im-
options of each plastic type across these 41 studies are shown in pacts of producing the products) were assigned and only the im-
Table S2, Supporting Information. pacts caused by treating these products were calculated and as-
Despite setting different criteria to ensure the quality of the signed to the system in the cut-off approach. The environmental
studies analyzed in this literature review, there were some limi- impacts from these approaches were then used in Circular Foot-
tations in the literature review, which must be considered when print Formula (CFF) and the CF of different product system was
interpreting the LCIA results and the subsequent calculation of calculated, which is discussed in detail in Section 3.3.
preliminary CF of different countries. The limitations of this lit- As this study not only involves the calculation of average envi-
erature review were: ronmental impacts of the EoL options, but also calculates prelim-
inary CF and identifies DfR strategies for these plastic wastes, a
• Almost all of the analyzed LCA studies used predominantly literature review was performed for the studies that have already
secondary data from LCA databases, previously conducted been published in the field of CFF and DfR. The CFF was in-
LCA studies, and literature. The data quality and the corre- troduced by the European Commission in order to account the
sponding results can be hugely improved with the availability burdens and credits associated with the recycling, energy recov-
of primary data in recycling plastic wastes across the world ery, and disposal processes as well the use of secondary (recy-
• Average environmental impacts were calculated from the liter- cled) materials while calculating the environmental footprint of
ature review for treating every plastic-type with different EoL the product system.[76,77]
options. However, between the countries where the LCA stud- As the CFF was introduced recently as a part of the Prod-
ies were conducted, the recycling or the IC infrastructure was uct Environmental Footprint (PEF) methodology, literature re-
never the same and therefore the substitution potential of the lated to this formula and the publications that dealt with this for-
recyclates to the virgin plastic differs from region to region. mula were also identified. As it was a relatively new approach
The use of recovered energy and steam by burning the plastic to model the recycling of the product system, not many publi-
wastes and their heating value also differed from city to city. cations were identified. Schrijvers et al. evaluated how CFF has
The current methodological approach of calculating the pre- the potential to follow the consequential LCA approach as CFF
liminary CF for treating specific plastic wastes can be applied also considers the market mechanisms of the secondary material
in future studies for specific regions across the world (Region (recycled material), which was consistent with the consequential
specific LCA of EoL options of plastics wastes along with the LCA perspective.[78] Ekvall et al. analyzed the pros and cons of
corresponding data on their use, recovery, and disposal) using CFF among other modeling approaches for recycling in
• Even though PE as a plastic type was considered for the liter- LCA.[79] Ekvall et al. also discussed the effects of energy recovery
ature review, the preliminary CF was calculated based on the on the calculation of CFF by using a case study of waste man-
HDPE, LDPE share of plastic production and environmental agement of bio-based LDPE.[80] Bach et al. discussed the short-
impacts of disposing them in different countries comings related to the CFF among other aspects in the Product
Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) guide.[81] Eber-
The results of the literature review along with the average en- hardt et al. used a set of different allocation procedures includ-
vironmental impacts of EoL options of different plastics from ing CFF on circular building component examples to develop a
the review are discussed in detail in Section 3.1. These average new modeling approach from the results based on the existing
environmental impacts calculated from the literature review for approaches.[82] Mirzaie et al. also used CFF as one of the EoL
different EoL options were then used for the calculation of CF, modeling approaches for buildings, to achieve circular economy
which quantifies the environmental impacts of the product sys- targets.[83]
Table 2. Overview of the 41 LCA studies, selected for the literature review.
Source EoL Options Polymers studied

Reuse Mechanical Chemical Direct Fuel Incineration Landfill Litter High Density Low Density Polyethylene Polypropylene Polyethylene Polystyrene Polyurethane Mixed Polyolefine Acrylonitrile Polyvinyl Poly Methyl
(R) Recycling Recycling Substitution (IC) (LA) (LI) Polyethylene Polyethylene (PE) (PP) Terephtha- (PS) (PUR) Plastics (PO) Butadiene Chloride Methacrylate
(MR) (CR) (DS) (HDPE) (LDPE) late (MP) Styrene (PVC) (PMMA)
(PET) (ABS)
Accorsi et al.[ 36 ] MR IC LA PP
Al-Maaded MR IC LA MP
et al.[37]
Al-Salem et al.[38] MR CR MP
Arafat et al.[39] CR IC MP
www.advancedsciencenews.com
Aryan et al.[40] MR IC LA PE PET
Macromol. Chem. Phys. 2022, 223, 2200046

Bataineh[ 41 ] MR HDPE PET
Belboom et al.[42] IC HDPE
Campolina MR PS ABS
et al.[43]
Changwichan IC PP PET
et al.[44]
Chen et al.[11] MR PE PP PET PS ABS PVC
Choi et al.[45] MR IC LA LDPE
Choudhary MR PET
et al.[46]
2200046 (8 of 26)
Civancik-Uslu MR CR IC LDPE PP PS PO
et al.[47]
Clauzade et al.[ 48 ] R MR DS PUR
Demetrious CR IC LA MP
et al.[49]
Dong et al.[50] IC LA MP
Franklin MR HDPE PP PET
Associates
et al.[51]
Galve et al.[52] MR PP
Gear et al.[ 53 ] IC LA
Gironi et al.[54] MR IC LA PET
Horodytska MR IC LDPE
et al.[55]
Hossain et al.[56] R MR DS IC LA MP
Hottle et al.[57] MR LA HDPE LDPE PET
Iribarren et al.[58] CR IC LA PE
Jeswani et al.[59] IC LA MP
Jeswani et al.[60] CR DS IC MP
Khan et al.[61] IC MP
Khoo et al.[62] IC LA PP
Khoo et al.[63] MR CR IC MP
Kikuchi et al.[64] CR IC PMMA
Lim et al.[65] IC LA PS
Martin et al.[66] MR IC LA PET
Nakatani et al.[67] MR CR IC LA PET
Papong et al.[68] MR IC LA PET
Sangwan et al.[69] LA HDPE
Santos et al.[70] MR MP
Simon et al.[71] MR IC LA PET
Tratzi et al.[72] MR PP
Wang et al.[73] CR MP
Zaman et al.[74] CR MP
Zhou et al.[75] IC LA MP
www.mcp-journal.de
© 2022 The Authors. Macromolecular Chemistry and Physics published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
Table 3. Literature review on DfR. takes into account the market mechanisms and quality of the re-
cycled materials not only used in the production processes but
Source Design aspect discussed also at the EoL of the product system to understand the upcy-
Huang et al.[ 84 ] Impact factors of sustainable design and
cling/downcycling effects of the recycled materials. The different
development of plastic molds components of the CFF are:
Almeida et al.[ 85 ] Material selection for beverage packaging
• Primary production – Environmental impacts in the produc-
Foschi et al.[ 86 ] Integrated decision-making process in packaging
tion of the primary (virgin) input
redesign
• Secondary production – Environmental impacts of the sec-
Alpizar et al.[ 87 ] Policy instruments for decision-making to curb
ondary (recycled) material input
marine litter
• Recycling at the EoL – Environmental impacts of the recycling
Sherwood et al.[ 88 ] Recirculation and sustainable product design for
process
bio-based products
• IC – Environmental impacts of the IC process with energy re-
Vogt et al.[ 89 ] Redesign polymers and key challenges for
covery
advancement of plastic recycling
• Landfilling/Disposal – Environmental impacts of the disposal
Leal et al.[ 90 ] Indicator based product design approach to
process without material/energy recovery
improve circular economy
Antonopoulos et al.[ 91 ] Factors affecting the recycling of post-consumer CFF was divided into three types that include all the above
plastic packaging waste
components: Material (Primary and secondary production, recy-
Löw et al.[ 92 ] Guidelines and implementation of DfR in plastics cling at the EoL), Energy (IC), and Disposal (LA/Disposal). The
Mendes da Luz et al.[ 93 ] Methodology to integrate LCA in the product sum of all the three components provides the total impact of the
development process product system including its EoL options. The CF of a product
Civancik Uslu et al.[ 94 ] Applying LCA and eco-design strategies to system can be calculated based on Equations (1)–(4).[76]
understand the environmental profile Equation (1). Material component of the CFF which includes
Lewis et al.[ 95 ] Strategies for sustainable packaging design the environmental impacts of virgin material production, MR,
Sampaio et al.[ 96 ] Redesign of products based on user needs and the recycling at the EoL along with the allocation factor, re-
Vanegas et al.[ 97 ] Metric to quantify ease of disassembly of products cycling share, and quality ratios of the recyclates to the primary
Navajas et al.[ 98 ] Eco-design and LCA to reduce the environmental product
impacts of an industrial product ( )
Flizikowski et al.[ 99 ] Design requirements for the shredding process in ( ) Q
Material : 1 − R1 Ev + R1 × AErecyled + (1 − A) Ev × sin
recycling polymers Qp
Berwald et al.[ 100] Design for circularity guidelines for electrical and ( )
electronic equipments Qsout
+ (1 − A) R2 × ErecEOL − Ev ∗ × (1)
Du Bois et al.[ 101] Attributes of recycled plastics influencing Qp
customer’s perception of sustainable product
Equation (2). Energy component of the CFF which includes the
environmental impacts of IC processes along with the IC share,
In the case of DfR, search terms like “Ecodesign”, “Design for heating value and efficiency of steam, and energy recovery
Sustainability”, “Design for Recycling”, and “Design for environ- (
ment” were given in order to find the relevant publications in this Energy : (1 − B) R3 × EER − LHV × XER,heat
theme for the defined timeframe. Even though there were more )
than 1400 results for the given search combination, only some ×ESE,heat − LHV × XER,elec × ESE,elec (2)
of the studies were relevant to the design or redesign approaches
for plastics/polymers and plastic wastes to increase the circular- Equation (3). Disposal component of the CFF which includes the
ity. Although some of these studies did not explicitly mention that environmental impacts of disposal/LA and disposal share
these strategies were for ecodesign or DfR, they were still consid- ( )
ered as they strive towards the increase in the resource efficiency Disposal : 1 − R2 − R3 × ED (3)
and circularity of the product system, which was one of the strate-
Equation (4). CFF developed as a part of PEF methodology of the
gies of ecodesign/DfR. The review of all these studies was not
European Commission
within the scope of this paper. The studies that were considered
for identifying DfR strategies in this paper and the aspects they
CircularFootprint = Material + Energy + Disposal (4)
have considered to increase the resource efficiency/circularity of
the plastic products are shown in Table 3.
A – Allocation factor of burdens and credits between supplier
(primary producer) and the user of recycled materials
2.3. Method to Calculate the Circular Footprint on Global Scale B – Allocation factor of energy recovery processes.
QSin – Quality of the ingoing secondary material, that is, the qual-
To calculate the environmental impacts of the recycling, IC, and ity of the recycled material at the point of substitution.
disposal of plastic products after manufacture along with the pro- QSout – Quality of the outgoing secondary material, that is, the
duction of virgin materials, CFF was used in this study. CFF also quality of the recycled material at the point of substitution.
QP – Quality of the virgin material. world and that was why it was assumed that the recycled prod-
R1 – Proportion of material in the input to the production but uct will not be used as a secondary material input into the prod-
recycled from a previous system. uct system, that is, R1 = 0
R2 – Proportion of the material in the product that will be recycled • Quality ratios of the incoming and the outgoing recycled ma-
(or reused) in a subsequent system. terials, QSin /QP , QSout /QP to the product were taken from the
R3 – Proportion of the material in the product that was used for literature for different plastic types.[102–104] If these ratios were
energy recovery at EoL. not available for some plastic types, then the average quality
Erecycled – Specific emissions and resources consumed (per func- ratios of all the available plastic types were taken into account
tional unit) arising from the recycling process • The environmental impacts of the virgin plastics (per kg),
ErecEoL – Specific emissions and resources consumed (per func- Ev were taken from the literature review. Only the indicator
tional unit) arising from the recycling process at EoL Global Warming Potential (GWP) (which was one of the many
Ev – Specific emissions and resources consumed (per functional impact indicators that quantifies the environmental impact
unit) arising from the production of virgin material. “Climate Change”) values were available widely in the litera-
Ev * – Specific emissions and resources consumed (per functional ture for different plastic types and therefore was used for this
unit) arising from the production of virgin material assumed to study. The GWP in the production of 1 kg of different virgin
be substituted by recyclable materials. plastics are shown in Table S3, Supporting Information
EER – Specific emissions and resources consumed (per functional • Emissions and resources consumed in the recycling processes
unit) arising from the energy recovery process Erecycled were taken from the results of the LCA studies of differ-
ESE,heat and ESE,elec – Specific emissions and resources consumed ent plastics (the plastic types as mentioned above) in the review
(per functional unit) that would have arisen from the specific which have modeled their recycling processes with a cut-off
substituted energy source, heat, and electricity respectively. approach. It was assumed that the Erecycled = ErecEoL (emissions
XER,heat and XER,elec – The efficiency of the energy recovery process and resources from the recycling process at the EoL). The av-
for both heat and electricity. erage environmental impacts of recycling processes of differ-
LHV – Lower heating value of the material in the product that ent plastic types using cut-off approach are shown in Table S4,
was used for energy recovery. Supporting Information
ED – Specific emissions and resources consumed (per functional • Emissions and resources consumed during the production of
unit) arising from the disposal of waste material at the EoL virgin material, assumed to be substituted by the recyclable
material, Ev * were taken from the results of the LCA studies of
In the current study, the components of the above formula different plastics (the plastic types as mentioned above) in the
were applied to the treatment of plastic wastes and subsequently, review which have modeled their processes with an avoided
the CF of plastic waste management of different countries was burden approach. The average environmental impacts, Ev * are
calculated. The factors that were considered for the calculating shown in Table S7, Supporting Information
the CF of different countries are: 1) Plastic demand in each coun- • The emissions and resources of IC and LA were taken from the
try per year (which was used as the functional unit for calculating results of the LCA studies of different plastics (the plastic types
CF; 2) Market/consumption share of different plastics and the as mentioned above) for the EoL options IC with energy recov-
contribution of each of them in every country (For example: PE – ery and LA without energy recovery respectively. The allocation
30%, PP – 25%, PET – 15%, PS – 5%, PVC – 5% Others – 20%); factor, B was assumed to have the default value of zero.[77] The
3) How the plastic wastes were recovered/disposed (For example: average environmental impacts of IC and landfilling processes
35% Recycling, 40% IC, 25% LA). Based on the literature review, of different plastic types are shown in Tables S5 and S6, Sup-
average environmental impacts were calculated for different plas- porting Information
tic types for the virgin material, recycling process with and with- • The share of recycling, R2 and IC, R3 were calculated based on
out credits (avoided burden and cut-off approaches respectively), each country’s share of recycling and incinerating their plastic
IC with and without energy recovery (different types of EoL op- wastes. The heating value LHV, along with the emissions and
tions), and the landfilling of plastic wastes (it was assumed that efficiency of the energy recovery processes were assumed to be
the majority of LCA studies considering LA had calculated en- integrated with the LCIA results as most of the studies sourced
vironmental impacts for their disposal processes without energy their background data from the different commercial Life Cy-
recovery). Some of the assumptions that were used for the calcu- cle Inventory (LCI) data providers and therefore not calculated
lation of CF for the plastic waste management in different coun- separately[77]
tries were as follows: • The CF of each country was calculated based on the share
of HDPE, LDPE, PP, PET, and PS in its production demand
• The allocation factor A was based on the market situation and (which was taken as a functional unit) and their respective plas-
demand for the recycled materials. If the market for recycled tic waste management. The average impacts of all the plastic
plastics was balanced (between production and supply) or un- types from the review were used for the plastics type “Oth-
known, it was assumed to be 0.5.[77] For this study, as the de- ers”, which includes PVC, PUR, ABS, and other thermoplas-
mand for recycled materials and its applications in different tics. Plastic composition/market share was assumed for coun-
countries were unknown, it was assumed to be 0.5 tries, where data was not available
• Even though some of the recycled plastics were reused for the • If the production demand data were not available for a coun-
same applications in some countries, there has always been try, annual plastic consumption or the plastic waste generation
widespread downcycling of recycled plastic wastes all over the data were taken as functional unit
Figure 4. Methodological approach to identify the DfR strategies.
• The plastic production and consumption data were mostly as- calculated, which will help to understand the impacts of export-
sumed to be devoid of imports but in countries where imports ing plastic products and plastic wastes to other countries with
exceed their own production, these were included in the an- a different recovery infrastructure when disposed. Based on not
nual plastic consumption only these findings, but also the results of the literature review
• As the CFF mainly deals with the accounting of the environ- and the environmental impacts of EoL options of different plas-
mental impacts during the production and disposal of the tics wastes (shown in dashed arrows), DfR strategies were iden-
product, impacts related to the processing and use phase of tified for the production of plastic products.
the plastic products were not considered in the calculation
• Discussion about the limitations, derivation, or the approach
3. Results and Discussion
of this formula was not within the scope of this paper
3.1. Literature Review
Using the LCIA results of virgin plastics and different EoL op-
tions identified from the literature review, preliminary CF was As mentioned in Section 2, for the calculation of CF and identi-
calculated for treating plastic wastes in different countries. Based fying the DfR strategies for plastic wastes across the world, the
on these results, different DfR strategies were identified across average environmental impacts of different EoL options of differ-
different levels of the value chain. In order to better understand ent plastic wastes were calculated based on a comprehensive lit-
the relationship between the literature review and the DfR strate- erature review. The environmental impacts of these EoL options
gies, a calculation approach is visualized in Figure 4. The average are expressed as LCIA results, that is, the potential environmen-
environmental impacts of different plastics for the different EoL tal impacts of the product system per functional unit. Based on
options were calculated with the data from the literature review different screening criteria, 41 studies were selected for the lit-
and using these impacts and other assumptions, the CF for the erature review of LCA studies of EoL options. However, there
plastic waste management systems in different countries can be have been many instances of studies having multiple scenarios
addressing different EoL options for the same plastic-type or dif- state of recycling infrastructure to recover and treat these func-
ferent plastic-type for a particular EoL option. As each scenario tional plastics. These aspects must be kept in mind during the
produces an LCIA result, as many as 165 scenarios were found material selection while designing plastics for recycling.
from the total of 41 studies and the LCIA results from all of these
scenarios were analyzed and the average environmental impacts
for each plastic type for the corresponding EoL options recycling 3.1.3. Type of End-Of-Life Option
(MR), IC with energy recovery and LA without energy recovery
were used for the calculation of the CF for different countries. As mentioned in Section 2.1, there were many EoL options, con-
As the methodological aspects in the LCA are subjective and ventional and emerging technologies that were considered for
always dependent upon the decision context and the defined sys- this review, to gain an insight into the data quality and the en-
tem boundaries of the product system, it is important to analyze vironmental performance of these EoL options. It was assumed
the different aspects of the LCA studies used in this literature that the EoL options pyrolysis, gasification, and other forms of
review, which highlights the fact that the average LCIA results feedstock recycling were considered together as CR (apart from
between different EoL options of plastics can only be cautiously the CR wherever explicitly mentioned), wherein the plastic is
used and might not always be the reflection of the real environ- converted back to the monomers, feedstocks, and other valuable
mental performance of the assessed product system. materials.[105] The EoL options IC and LA with and without en-
However, these results will provide an overview of the system ergy recovery were separately considered as EoL options to under-
boundaries, data quality, and value chains of the product systems. stand the difference in their environmental impacts across the
An overview of different aspect of the LCA studies in the review LCA studies and the environmental impacts (LCIA results) of IC
are discussed below and the detailed analysis of the different as- with energy recovery and LA without energy recovery were used
pects of the literature review is shown in Tables S1 and S2, Sup- for the calculation of the CF, apart from the MR. If the LCA stud-
porting Information. The methodology to analyze the different ies involve plastic wastes being used as a substitute in cement or
scenarios of the LCA studies was based on Spierling et al., where other building applications, the impacts of it were grouped under
the LCA studies of different EoL options of bio-based plastics the EoL option “Reuse”. Under the EoL option “Direct fuel sub-
were analyzed.[14] stitution”, scenarios that involve using plastic wastes as refuse-
derived fuel (RDF) or solid recovered fuel (SRF) in waste to en-
ergy plants were covered.
3.1.1. Year of Publication No scenario was found for the EoL option “Litter” as there is
not yet a scientifically established methodology to quantify envi-
The timeframe for the review of LCA studies was set between ronmental impacts of LI or leakage in LCA, which is one of the
2010 and 2020. A significant increase in the number of pub- limitations of LCA although there have already been steps in the
lications from 2016 could be observed, which could be owing LCA community to develop littering indicators and quantify the
to the factors like introduction of different policy initiatives to environmental impacts of marine LI.[106,107]
curb single-use plastics on the national and international level, From the analyzed scenarios, it was found that MR contributed
China’s policy to ban the import of plastic wastes and the em- to the majority of the analyzed scenarios (59 scenarios), followed
phasis on the sustainable development and circular economy at by IC with energy recovery (34 scenarios) and LA without energy
the national and international level in the past few years. Nearly recovery (21 scenarios). The average LCIA results of these three
83% of the LCA studies used for this review were published af- EoL options were then used for the calculation of CF depending
ter 2013. However, the inventory data which were used for con- on the plastic share in each country and the percentage share
ducting these LCA studies did not correspond to this timeframe of recovering/disposing plastic wastes in each country consid-
and therefore a change in the environmental impacts over the ered for this study. It was also found that only these EoL options
time should not be attributed to the year of publication because are prevalent among all the countries for the disposal of plastic
most of the publications use inventory data from other literature wastes and these were subsequently considered for the calcula-
sources, which were published as early as 2004. tion of CF.
3.1.2. Types of Plastic 3.1.4. Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods and Impact Indicators
Though different plastic types were considered for this literature The emissions resulting from the consumption of resources in
review (as mentioned in Section 2.2), only two types of plastic the production and disposal of plastic products contribute to dif-
types contribute majorly to the total number of scenarios ana- ferent environmental impacts, which are then classified as differ-
lyzed in this review and they were PET (46 scenarios) contribut- ent impact categories like climate change, acidification, eutroph-
ing to nearly 28% of the total scenarios, followed by the MP (45 ication, toxicity, and resource depletion. Each impact category
scenarios) contributing to nearly 27% of the total scenarios. Other is subsequently quantified as an impact indicator based on the
major plastic types that were discussed as scenarios in this re- choice of impact assessment method. For example: GWP is an
view were PP (20 scenarios), PE (11 scenarios), LDPE (11 scenar- impact indicator, which is used to quantify the potential impact
ios), PUR (9 scenarios), and HDPE (7 scenarios). From the plastic of Climate Change and all these impact indicators are also known
types, it can be seen how other plastic types like ABS, PVC, and as LCIA results, which quantify the potential environmental im-
PMMA were seldom analyzed in the LCA studies showing the pacts of the product system per functional unit.
Even though as many as 16 impact indicators were analyzed in and 3) EoL. However, only LCIA results focusing on the EoL
this review (list of indicators considered for this study is shown in phase were taken from these studies so as to be consistent in
Figure S1, Supporting Information), due to the limited availabil- comparing the results with each other.
ity of most of the impact indicators among different studies and
scenarios, only six impact indicators were considered to indicate
the environmental performance of the EoL options of different 3.1.8. Functional Unit
plastic types. They were: GWP – 165 scenarios, Acidification Po-
tential (AP) – 75 scenarios, Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) – Functional unit quantifies the function of a product system and is
51 scenarios, Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP) – defined according to the goal and scope of an LCA study. All LCIA
51 scenarios, Eutrophication Potential (EP) – 44 scenarios, Cu- results of the LCA study are then quantified based on the defined
mulative Energy Demand (CED) – 44 scenarios. functional unit. In the case of this review, functional units were
However, for the calculation of preliminary CF for treating defined mostly on a mass basis, for example, 1 ton of plastic waste
plastics in different countries, only GWP was considered for this or 1 kg of waste PET bottle. If the studies would use different
study, due to the lack of availability of indicator results for the EoL functional units, it would be difficult to compare the LCIA re-
options of some of the plastic types. In the case of impact assess- sults/environmental impacts of different EoL options with each
ment method which characterizes the emissions of the product other. Therefore, for the sake of comparability and consistency,
system in each process steps into respective impacts, as many all functional units were converted to 1 kg so that all the corre-
as 9 different kinds of impact assessment methods were used, sponding LCIA results obtained from the review were used for
out of which CML (impact assessment method developed by the the calculation of CF and the CF was then expressed as the im-
Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University)[108] was pacts of the treatment of 1 kg plastic waste after use in different
the widely used impact assessment method to characterize the countries.
emissions into environmental impacts for the product system per
functional unit.
3.1.9. Credits
3.1.5. Regional Scope & Geographical Representativeness of the Credits are usually given to the product system if the end product
Studies resulting from the EoL is recovered in the form of a material or
energy and is reused in the same/other product systems. Even
To understand the geographical representativeness of the stud- though there exist different approaches to modeling recycling in
ies, the countries/continents where the EoL studies were con- LCA, for this review, two modeling approaches namely avoided
ducted, were analyzed. It was found that the majority of studies burden and cut-off approaches were considered for the calcula-
come from Asia and Europe and it was interesting to see the lim- tion of environmental impacts of the EoL options of plastics.[79]
ited number of LCA studies on the EoL options of plastics from For the calculation of CF, results from both these approaches
Americas, Australia, and Africa. As many Asian countries like were needed and therefore the scenarios were separately identi-
Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia are the recipient of exported fied and the corresponding results were used for the calculation
plastic wastes from the Global North and have an inadequate re- of the CF.
cycling infrastructure to recover these plastic wastes, the higher
number of publications on this topic from these countries in Asia
becomes relevant. 3.1.10. Type of Plastic Waste
To understand how the examined plastics product was treated

3.1.6. Technological (Laboratory/Industrial) Representativeness of and the properties of the wastes, it is essential to know the type
the Studies/Scenarios of products that were analyzed in the LCA studies. From the LCA
studies in the review, it was found that all plastic wastes that were
Out of 165 scenarios, only 10 of them discussed the EoL options treated were post-consumer plastic wastes, that is, the wastes ob-
of plastic wastes on a pilot scale and the rest of them were con- tained after the plastic products were used by the consumers and
ducted at an industrial scale. The range of the LCIA results and there was no study that involved the recycling/disposal of the pre-
the comparability of the results between the EoL options for dif- consumer plastic wastes. It was also assumed that no closed-loop
ferent plastic types are influenced by the technological scale of recycling was done across the studies but only open-loop recy-
the studies. cling, wherein the products from one system are recycled and are
used for the same/different applications in the second system.
3.1.7. System Boundaries

3.1.11. Data Quality
The system boundaries refer to the process steps that are in-
cluded in the calculation of the environmental impacts of the The inventory data used for LCA of different studies, considered
product system. In the case of the analyzed studies for the review, for this review were mostly secondary data, that is, data that are
three different types of system boundaries were found among dif- obtained from the literature, databases, and expert estimation
ferent scenarios. They are: 1) Cradle to Grave, 2) Gate to Grave, rather than primary data, which are usually measured at the site
Figure 5. Average GWP of different plastic types treated by different EoL options using the avoided-burden approach. The error indicators refer to the
range of GWP values that exist for treating the plastics in different EoL options. Negative values of GWP due to the accounting of credits in this modeling
approach.
of the waste treatment plants. Apart from collecting data from The EoL options mentioned in Figures 5 and 6 are: MR, CR,
literature sources, LCA studies also obtained their secondary in- Reuse (Re), Direct Fuel Substitution (DS), IC with Energy Recov-
ventory data in the form of datasets from different databases like ery (IwER), Incineration without Energy Recovery (InoER), LA
GaBi, ecoinvent.[109,110] Even though it might be difficult to ob- without Energy Recovery (LFnoER), and LA with Energy Recov-
tain the primary inventory data in each step of the value chain ery (LFwER). The plastic types that were considered for this re-
when recycling, data quality (primary data is always better than view were already mentioned in Section 2.2. All LCIA results dis-
secondary data) does have an influence on the environmental per- cussed in this study are expressed per kg of plastic wastes unless
formance of the EoL options. The higher the quality of inventory specified otherwise.
data sourced from the recyclers and sorting companies, the better From Figure 5, it can be seen that the GWP of the MR of 1 kg
it is for the designers to optimize the production of plastic prod- of different plastic types (except HDPE, which is around 0.34 kg
ucts. The aspect of data availability should be integrated within CO2 eq.) have negative values, as in the avoided burden approach,
the product system as early as during the design phase. the product system avails “credits” with an assumption that the
secondary materials recovered from the system will substitute the
production of virgin materials when recycled. The impacts of dif-
3.2. Impact Assessment – Results and Interpretation ferent plastic types for MR (apart from HDPE) are in the range of
−0.06 to −5.14 kg CO2 eq. Moreover, MR is the only EoL option
After analyzing 165 scenarios from 41 LCA studies, the LCIA re- where almost all of the considered plastic types were covered, fol-
sults were calculated for treating 1 kg of different plastic wastes lowed by IC with energy recovery and LA without energy recovery.
for different EoL options. only six impact indicators were consid- For CR, GWP was in the range of 0.04 to 2.74 kg CO2 eq. except
ered and the LCIA results were then calculated for both avoided- for PS, wherein the GWP had a negative value of −1.58 kg CO2 eq.
burden and cut-off approaches for all the possible EoL options. CR is one of the emerging technologies in the recovery of feed-
The GWP of treating 1 kg of different plastic wastes by different stocks from plastic wastes. Most of the GWP results of the plastic
EoL options for avoided burden is shown in Figure 5. The re- types in CR have a positive value due to the fact that the environ-
sults of other impact indicators for both approaches are shown mental impacts of treating the plastic by CR outweighed the cred-
in Supporting Information (From Figures S2–S14, Supporting its of the recovered materials which might substitute the primary
Information). feedstocks (virgin monomers).
Figure 6. Average GWP of different plastic wastes treated by different EoL options using cut-off approach.
In the case of Reuse, GWP values were available only for Mixed plastics once landfilled will stay inert and they would not degrade
plastics and PUR and in these studies, Reuse was more of a sub- within the time horizon of 100 years, which is the time horizon
stitution of plastic wastes in different applications like synthetic in which GWP impacts were calculated. Inability to quantify the
turfs. However, the impacts of transporting and processing them plastic wastes that are landfilled/dumped is one of the major lim-
were taken into the total environmental impacts. Similar to reuse, itations in the LCA methodology and also plays an influential part
for Direct Fuel Substitution, GWP was available for studies that in the calculation of CF, wherein if the country disposes or dumps
considered Mixed and PUR plastic wastes and were in the nega- most or all of their plastic wastes in LAs, the impacts, and the CF
tive range of −0.28 and −1.15 kg CO2 eq. respectively. are still lower than the countries that recover most of their plastic
Not many plastic types considered IC without energy recovery wastes in the form of recycling and IC.
as most of the EoL studies in the review made the assumption For the other impact indicators, results were available only for
that the energy is recovered in the form of electricity/and steam the plastic types PE, PET, PUR, and mixed plastics wastes. There-
when incinerating the plastic wastes. For the EoL option IC with fore, they were not considered for the calculation of the CF. How-
Energy recovery, except for LDPE (negative GWP of −2.86 kg CO2 ever, the LCIA results of these plastic types are shown in Figures
eq.), most of the plastic types showed a high GWP in treating S2–S6, Supporting Information. The GWP of treating 1 kg of dif-
1 kg of different plastics, ranging from 0.76 to 9.16 kg CO2 eq. ferent plastic wastes by different EoL options for cut-off approach
despite the assumption that the environmental impacts of gener- is shown in Figure 6.
ating electricity and steam were credited in most of the studies. As mentioned earlier, the cut-off approach refers to the ac-
This GWP value of 9.16 kg CO2 eq. for the IC of PET played a sig- counting of impacts directly caused by the system without tak-
nificant part in the calculation of CF, where the countries with a ing any credits for reusing the recovered products. Therefore, the
higher share of PET in their plastic composition and a high IC environmental impacts calculated using the cut-off approach are
share in their plastic waste management resulted in a higher CF the impacts caused directly by the respective EoL options, that
(Italy for example). is, environmental impacts from the resources consumed during
For the EoL option LA with energy recovery, even though LCIA the collection, transportation, sorting, and recycling of the plastic
results for many plastic types were not available, GWP values wastes in an MR processes. From Figure 6, it can be found that
for the mixed plastics and PET were 0.35 and 11.93 respectively. all GWP values of the plastic wastes across the EoL options are
However, this EoL option was seldom considered in the LCA positive and no credits were assigned to the system to make their
studies due to the assumption that the conventional plastics do GWP values negative. In the case of MR, the GWP ranges from
not release any emissions when landfilled, unlike organic wastes 0.03 to 0.92 kg CO2 -eq. per kg of plastic waste.
and no energy can be recovered from it. In the case of LA with- For CR, the GWP values were similar to that of their GWP
out energy recovery, the GWP values were in the range of 0.07 to values with avoided burden approach, which could be owing to
1.95 kg CO2 eq. the fact that the impacts outweighed the credits that might have
The GWP of LA without energy recovery for all the plastic types been accounted for in the avoided burden approach. The GWP of
were lesser than the ones with IC with energy recovery as there is IC without energy recovery for all plastic types is higher than all
neither a methodology nor a scientific consensus to quantify the of the EoL options except for PP which had a GWP of 0.64 kg CO2 -
environmental impacts and the loss of resources when plastics eq. In the case of other impact indicators, plastic types PET, PE,
are landfilled. It was always assumed in the LCA studies that the and MP contributes to the majority of the impact. The results of
Figure 7. Heat map of CF of different countries per kg of plastic produced (kg CO2 eq. kg−1 of plastic produced).
other impact indicators are shown in Figures S7–S11, Supporting pects: 1) Export and import of plastic wastes and plastic scrap in
Information. the world[111] and 2) Countries that have a high share of plastics
For the calculation of preliminary CF for selected countries, production or dispose most of the used plastic products. By tak-
only GWP values were used in the study due to the unavail- ing the annual plastic production data from different countries as
ability of other impact indicators for all of the plastic types con- their respective functional units with the respective share of plas-
sidered in the literature review. The GWP values of the MR by tic types (only major plastic types like LDPE, HDPE, PP, PET, and
avoided-burden and cut-off approach along with the IC with en- PS were considered and the rest were grouped into “Other plas-
ergy recovery (avoided-burden) and LA without energy recovery tics”) and the GWP values of the virgin plastic resins (obtained
(avoided-burden) were used for the calculation of the CF. One of from the literature), the GWP of the primary production per func-
the main limitations of using these results for the calculation of tional unit was calculated.
CF was that most of the LCIA results were calculated in these Based on the calculated average impacts of recycling, IC, and
LCA studies with the help of secondary data (literature, generic disposal from the review along with the individual share of re-
LCA databases) and therefore will not reflect the reality of the en- covery and disposal of plastic wastes in each country, the GWP
vironmental performance of the plastic waste treatments across of the recycling, IC, and landfilling of the total plastic wastes in
the world even though the LCA studies were performed in dif- each country per year was calculated. All of the above parame-
ferent regions. This is another aspect that has to be considered ters along with the quality ratios were used in the CFF to calcu-
when identifying the DfR strategies for the plastic products and late the total environmental impacts of treating the plastic wastes
also justifies the case of local recycling which would definitely in- in the respective countries. As the CFs of the countries are as-
crease the quality of data thereby integrating them in calculating sociated with the respective functional units (shown in Figure 8
the environmental impacts of the recovery processes. Apart from and Table S9, Supporting Information), which is the annual pro-
the results, the choice of modeling approach (cut-off or avoided duction/consumption/generation of plastic materials, in order to
burden or any other approach) is also important when compar- compare between the countries, the CFs were then converted to
ing the results of two different product systems. The GWP results 1 kg of plastic produced and are then presented in the form of
of the recycling, IC, and LA processes with avoided burden and the heat map in Figure 7.
cut-off approach are shown in Figures S12–S14, Supporting In- The heat map shows the CF of different countries per kg of
formation. plastic produced/treated in the respective countries which was
calculated based on the composition of the plastic demand and
the ways in which the plastic wastes are treated in different
3.3. Preliminary Circular Footprint of Plastic Wastes of Different countries. The heat map was done with the help of an add-in
Countries in Microsoft Excel, where the CF values per kg of plastic pro-
duced/treated were entered for respective countries and were
Using the literature review and average environmental impacts of then visualized in a world map with different color schemes as
the EoL options of different plastics, the CF of treating/disposing shown in Figure 7.
of the plastic wastes across different countries was calculated. From Figure 7, it can be seen that countries in the Global
The countries/regions were selected based on two different as- North like Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands United Kingdom,
USA along with the countries like China and Japan have a higher cles nearly 33% of their plastic wastes. The difference in the CF
CF per kg of plastic produced/treated (3.34–3.72 kg CO2 -eq. for lies in the fact that Australia incinerates only 2% of their plastic
China and Netherlands respectively) in comparison to the other wastes, whereas the EU-27 incinerates nearly 43% of their plastic
countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America (ranging from 2.36 wastes, which translates to the accounting of the environmental
to 2.99 kg CO2 -eq.). This higher CF for these countries can be impacts of the IC of these plastics. Moreover, the environmental
attributed to different reasons like: impacts of disposing the plastic wastes to LAs, due to the inability
of quantifying them in LCA, result in a lower environmental im-
• The share of “Other plastics” (All the plastic types apart from pact irrespective of how much of waste getting disposed of (Aus-
HDPE, LDPE, PP, PET, and PS) is higher in these countries tralia disposing nearly 84% of their plastic wastes to LAs which
(nearly 25 to 56%) compared to the countries in Africa, South also includes exporting some of them to other Asian countries
America, and Asia (except China and Japan). As the GWP for in comparison to the EU-27, which LAs only 25% of their total
the primary production, recycling, IC, and landfilling of these plastic wastes). Also, a material flow analysis of plastics between
other plastics were assumed to be the average GWP of all the countries along with the LCA results of treating every type of ma-
virgin plastic types considered in the review along with the im- jor plastics (plastics like PVC, ABS, PC, PA) after use should be
pacts of recycling, IC, and LA, the corresponding GWP values performed to develop a comprehensive overview of the flow of
were higher in comparison to the GWP of the main plastic plastics all over the world.
types (the GWP values used for the “Other plastics” are shown Due to the challenges of comparing the CF of different coun-
in Table S8, Supporting Information) tries per kg of plastic produced/treated, the absolute values of the
• CF quantifies the environmental impacts of recycling and CF for countries per functional unit are shown in Figures 8–11
IC with energy recovery, but due to the lack of standardized and Table S9, Supporting Information. The absolute values of the
methodology (as explained in Section 3.1) in quantifying the CF for different countries were not calculated per kg (unlike the
loss of resources due to landfilling/open dumping the plastic results shown in the heat map). The functional unit here refers
wastes, the countries that usually recycle and incinerate their to the annual production/consumption/treatment of plastics (de-
plastic wastes have a higher CF in comparison to those coun- pending on whichever data was available) expressed in Million
tries which have a very low percentage of recycling and IC but tons and they are country-specific.
dispose (open dumping/LA) most of their plastic wastes. This The difference between the GWP of the virgin plastic mixtures
is one of the major limitations in applying CF to understand and the calculated preliminary CF (per annual plastic consump-
the environmental impacts of the plastic waste in different tion) for different countries that were considered for this study
countries can be better understood by classifying them into four different
• The data quality and the availability of data on plastic con- geographical regions. They are:
sumption, plastic share, and their disposal in many countries
were not consistent and transparent. There have been many • Europe (including Turkey and Russia)
discrepancies between the values that are presented in the re- • Asia and Oceania (middle eastern countries, India, Asian and
ports from plastic associations of the respective countries and southeast Asian countries)
the reports published by the independent organizations on • Americas (North + South America)
the plastic consumption and recovery of the same. Therefore, • Africa
more transparency and completeness in the data will result in
a higher CF for those countries with a higher rate of disposal Due to the unavailability of information on the disposal and re-
• In the case of countries in the middle east, southeast Asia, covery of plastic wastes in most of the countries across the world,
Latin America, and Africa, limited information was available only a few countries were considered for this study. In Figure 8,
regarding the recycling and disposal of other plastic types. In it can be seen that there is more than a 45% increase in the GWP
addition, the recycling quote in these countries was mostly at- of disposing the plastic wastes (calculated as preliminary CF) in
tributed to the informal recycling and therefore the market sit- comparison to the average GWP of the virgin plastic mixture in
uation and quality ratios of the recyclates to the input virgin different countries in Europe. In the case of Turkey and Russia,
plastic materials might be lower than what was assumed for there is just a 14% increase in the environmental impact (per-
the calculation of CF (the quality ratios were assumed to be centage difference between the GWP of the virgin plastic mixture
same for the plastics all over the world) and the calculated preliminary CF) due to the limitation in LCA
and CCF in quantifying the environmental impacts of disposing
All these aspects play an important and significant role in the plastic wastes in LAs and both these countries dispose as much
resulting lower CF for the countries in the Global South. Another as 95% of their total plastic wastes to LAs.
limitation in the calculation of CF in this study was the inabil- From Figure 9, it can be seen that China, being the largest pro-
ity to account for the impacts of plastic wastes exported to other ducer/consumer of plastics in Asia has the largest GWP for their
countries which might be downcycled or disposed even though virgin plastic mixture and the corresponding preliminary CF. It
the producer of plastic waste might have a better recycling infras- can also be found that countries like Thailand, India, and Saudi
tructure in their own countries. Arabia, which produce more plastics than the countries in Eu-
For example, Australia which recycles only 13% of their plas- rope have a higher GWP of their virgin plastic mixture and sub-
tics has a CF of 2.78 kg CO2 -eq. kg−1 of plastic produced/treated sequently their CF in comparison to other countries in the middle
in comparison to EU-27 (refers to the European region) which east and southeast Asia. But the percentage increase in the envi-
has a CF of 3.43 kg CO2 -eq. kg−1 of plastic although EU-27 recy- ronmental impact in these countries is in the range of 17% due
Figure 8. Comparison of GWP between virgin plastic mixture and preliminary CF in Europe + Turkey + Russia.
Figure 9. Comparison of GWP between virgin plastic mixture and preliminary CF in Asia and Oceania.
to their lesser share in the production of “Other plastics”, lower are comparable due to the similar plastic production capacities.
recycling quote, and an increased share of disposing the plastic However, Brazil despite producing nearly 8.3 Million tons of plas-
wastes to LA. tic every year, recycles a meager 2% of the total plastic waste.
In the region Americas, which includes countries from North Landfilling the rest of the plastic wastes is a cause of concern,
and South America as shown in Figure 10, USA has the high- especially for the ecosystems.
est GWP of the virgin plastic mixture and the corresponding CF In the case of countries in Africa, as shown in Figure 11, not
for treating their plastic wastes. The USA produces the largest much information was available either on the LCA studies on dif-
share of “other plastics” in the Americas, which also contributes ferent EoL options or on the production/consumption/disposal
to the high environmental impacts. The CF of Mexico and Brazil of plastics. From Figure 11, it can be seen that countries like
Figure 10. Comparison of GWP between virgin plastic mixture and preliminary CF in Americas.
Figure 11. Comparison of GWP between virgin plastic mixture and preliminary CF in Africa.
Egypt, Nigeria, and South Africa contribute to the majority of the cludes the environmental impacts of the virgin plastics, but also
plastic production in the continent and apart from the domestic environmental credits/burdens due to the recycling, loss of qual-
consumption, these countries also export the produced plastics ity of the recycled materials (quality ratio), IC, and disposal, which
to different countries in the world. will be higher in comparison to the environmental impacts of the
From Figures 8–11 and Table S9, Supporting Information, it virgin plastic mixture per functional unit.
can be seen that there is atleast a 14% increase in the environ- In the case of European countries, Japan and China there
mental impacts (i.e., CF) of the plastic product system in compar- is an increase of 34–57% in the total environmental impacts
ison to the environmental impacts of the virgin plastic mixture in comparison to the environmental impacts of the virgin
across different countries. This is because the CF not only in- plastic mixture in the respective countries. Also, the CF of
USA (1.78E+11 kg CO2 -eq./annual plastic production), China quentially, that is, before the production of the plastic products,
(3.81E+11 kg CO2 -eq.), and EU-27 (1.98E+11 kg CO2 -eq.) are emphasis should be made not only on the material selection but
higher compared to other regions of the world due to their higher also on the availability of sufficient infrastructure to recycle these
annual consumption of plastics, production of different plastic materials after use. The levels and the associated strategies are
types (higher share of “other plastics”) and generation of plastic explained further in this section.
wastes.
From the absolute values of the preliminary CF per annual
plastic production of different countries, it can be observed that 3.4.1. Material Level
the consumption of plastics in the Global South is quite low com-
pared to the Global North. But the mismanagement of the plastic For a comprehensive material selection framework and to im-
wastes due to the lack of awareness, inadequate infrastructure to prove the recyclability of the products after use, it is important to
treat the wastes, and lack of stringent policy and regulatory frame- consider the industrial sector (Automotive, Construction, Pack-
works to stop the import of plastic wastes from the Global North, aging) where the plastic product will be used. Once the sector is
affect the potential of plastics to have a transition from a linear identified, it is easier to identify their market share and availabil-
to a circular economy. Therefore, these aspects and the complex- ity of recycling infrastructure to recycle the products. Apart from
ities in the value chain of plastics have to be taken into account the application, the functionality of these materials should also
while identifying the DfR strategies. be taken into account which involves the analysis of the technical
Despite the methodological challenges in the calculation of a and environmental properties of the materials.
preliminary CF for plastic wastes for different countries using
CFF, especially when it comes to the disposal of plastic wastes,
CF is a good starting point to quantify the environmental perfor- 3.4.2. Process Level
mance of the plastics beyond cradle to gate, that is, beyond the
raw material acquisition and production of the plastics. It does On the process level, it is important to identify the choice of pro-
so by accounting for not only the environmental impacts of the cess, their environmental impacts, resource efficiency (reuse of
production of virgin plastics but also the credits/burdens of the the pre-consumer wastes, chemicals), use of additives, use of re-
recovery (recycling and IC) and disposal process of the plastic newable energy, product composition (monomaterials or a com-
wastes along with the market value and quality of the recyclates, bination of different polymers/metals) and most importantly the
when used in another product system. From the CF, change in ease of disassembly of different components of the product af-
the environmental impacts of the plastic product due to its recy- ter use. From the literature review, it was found that the recovery
clability and quality of the recovered products, could be better un- of plastics from municipal solid wastes becomes difficult if their
derstood. This, in turn, will help the manufacturers and countries components are difficult to disassemble.
to identify the DfR strategies during the design phase thereby in-
creasing the recyclability of these plastic products after use.
3.4.3. Product Level
3.4. Design for Recycling Strategies Based on the Environmental After identifying the DfR strategies on the material and process
Impacts level, the processing, distribution, and use of the products should
be studied in the design phase. The aspects that have to be con-
Apart from the environmental impacts, there are many aspects sidered are extended service life of the products (product as a
that influence the decision-making in designing products and service, take back schemes, reparability, and availability of spare
plastics are no exception. With the increase in the consumption parts), understanding the logistics and the stakeholders/supplier
of plastics all over the world and the mounting pressure on coun- involved in the distribution and use of products to track the place
tries to reduce the same have placed the design of plastic products where the products are being used and communication about the
in an important yet difficult position. To increase the circularity product to the customers and distributors (instruction manual,
of plastics and to keep the resources as much as possible in use, it information on the repair of the products and information on
is important to not only measure the impacts of the products but how the products can be safely sent to the collection center after
to also understand the use and design of the plastic products even use where they can be reused or recycled)
before the products were manufactured. Therefore, based on the
literature review on the LCA studies, design strategies, and sta-
tus quo of recycling/disposal of plastics all over the world, DfR 3.4.4. Waste Level
strategies were developed in this study. These strategies are di-
vided into four different levels across the value chain of the plas- After the use of plastic products by the customers, they are most
tic product system and individual strategies in each level were likely to end up as waste, which should ideally be collected,
identified and shown in Figure 12. sorted, and recycled for further use. However, due to the dif-
The levels were defined considering all the life cycle phases ferences in the collection, sorting, and infrastructure within the
of a plastic product system. The decision making and the devel- same country and across different countries, care must be taken
opment of new concepts to increase the recyclability of the plas- in tracking where the products are usually used and the fate of
tic products during the design phase must identify strategies at these products after use must be identified as early as design
all levels equally and at the same time should not be done se- phase. Even in an ideal scenario, not all the components can be
Figure 12. DfR strategies for plastic products.
completely collected and reused for the next cycle. However, care economic and social performances and to guide decision-makers
must be taken to recover as many resources as possible. To in- in order to reduce the impacts and increase positive contributions
crease the resource recovery at the end of the life cycle, it is im- to sustainable development.[8,9]
portant to consider the infrastructure and policy frameworks of In recent years, researchers have tried to combine all three
different regions and countries, where plastic products are being methods into a so-called Life Cycle Sustainability Assessments
used. Apart from this, measures like investing in the recycling (LCSA) to enable a more realistic overview of impacts. However,
infrastructure, ease of sorting and collection can be supported the combination of approaches lacks methodological firmness,
by the industries, and recycling associations so as to include as which is greatly influenced by the unsound status quo of S-LCA.
many resources as possible once again in the value chain. As Pollok et al. summarize, S-LCA is the youngest of the three
Apart from these different levels, aspects like costs and benefits methods and lacks standardization despite guiding documents
for implementing the DfR strategy, feasibility of implementing like the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and
the process, product, or policy development, a proper data man- the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)
agement to collect the data in order to quantify the environmental guidelines for S-LCA of products[112,113] and their methodological
impacts of the product system and most importantly acceptance sheets or the Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessments
among all the stakeholders of the value chain must be considered (PSIA).[114,115] As a result, existing S-LCA studies are highly in-
across the different levels of the plastic product system. dividualized and contain various different methodological com-
ponents. As a result, no uniform and transparent approach exist
4. Sustainability of End of Life Options: Beyond and studies are rarely comparable.[112,116,117]
LCA Nevertheless, further development and standardization of S-
LCA and its application to EoL options for plastic waste would
Even though LCA is a standardized tool to assess environmental provide valuable insights into the sustainability of such waste
impacts of the product system, for a general estimation about the treatments. Especially the comparison of LCA and S-LCA results
sustainability of the EoL options, it is also important to look be- allows depicting which EoL option contributes the most to sus-
yond environmental impacts. In fact, such an estimation is only tainable development or even contradicts existing political targets
possible if the economic and social performances of EoL options like the SDGs. For instance, the previously discussed LCAs have
are analyzed as well. Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Social Life Cy- outlined the GWP of MR compared to other EoL options like IC.
cle Assessment (S-LCA) are methods developed to display such From an LCA perspective, it is argued that the preferable option
is the one that causes the least impact to the environment. From Acknowledgements
a social perspective, both options could be compared based on
the factors like the generation of employment, education, health The authors would like to thank the editor team of this special issue for
the ongoing support and the review team for their critical feedback and
risks for employees and the society as well as technology develop- support.
ment and transfer caused by the physical existence of the waste Open access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
processing plant.[117,118] In addition, details on employment con-
ditions can change the social performance of EoL options greatly
and thus, affects their overall sustainability. Conflict of Interest
As a result, the most sustainable EoL option would be the one
with very little environmental impact while contributing posi- The authors declare no conflict of interest.
tively to society. Although the results of such a comparison might
not always be as straightforward, it would generate greater in-
sights and offer the potential for companies and policymakers to Keywords
make well-informed decisions and define strategies that are in circular economy, end-of-life, life cycle assessment, plastics, recycling
line with international targets. At the current state, no such com-
parison exists because EoL options of plastic waste have never Received: February 7, 2022
been analyzed using S-LCA methodologies before. The further Revised: March 16, 2022
development and testing of S-LCA approaches allow for tackling Published online: May 3, 2022
this research gap and can—if standardized—allow for a holistic
Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment covering all the three di-
mensions of sustainability.
[1] R. Geyer, J. R. Jambeck, K. L. Law, Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1700782.
[2] J. Völker, F. Ashcroft, Å. Vedøy, L. Zimmermann, M. Wagner, Environ.
5. Conclusion Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 2487.
[3] F. R. Wurm, S. Spierling, H. -J. Endres, L. Barner, S. Spierling, H.-J.
Even if a plastic product has been manufactured with low en- Endres, L. Barner, Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2020, 41, 2000351.
vironmental impacts and high resource efficiency, the environ- [4] Plastics Europe, Plastics – the Facts 2020, https://plasticseurope.
mental impacts caused by the use and disposal of these plastic org/knowledge-hub/plastics-the-facts-2020/ (accessed: January
products are not the same across the world. The communication 2022).
on the environmental performance of the plastic products ends [5] V. Venkatachalam, S. Spierling, R. Horn, H.-J. Endres, Proc. CIRP
with the factory gate for many product manufacturers citing the 2018, 69, 579.
lack of data on the use and disposal of their products. To address [6] S. Spierling, C. Röttger, V. Venkatachalam, M. Mudersbach, C. Her-
rmann, H.-J. Endres, Proc. CIRP 2018, 69, 573.
this problem and to quantify the environmental impacts of recov-
[7] E. Dostatni, J. Diakun, D. Grajewski, R. Wichniarek, A. Karwasz, Soft
ery and disposal of plastic wastes, a comprehensive literature re-
Comput. 2016, 20, 4347.
view on the LCA studies of different EoL options was performed. [8] ISO, ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management—Life cycle
Subsequently using the environmental impacts analyzed from assessment—Principles and framework, https://www.iso.org/
the study, a preliminary CF was calculated for selected countries standard/37456.html (accessed: December 2021).
taking into account their plastic production and disposal routes. [9] ISO, ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management—Life cycle
Despite some of the methodological challenges, lack of data, assessment—Requirements and guidelines, https://www.iso.org/
and limitations, product designer must still consider their EoL standard/38498.html (accessed: December 2021).
options and corresponding CF while calculating the environmen- [10] C. A. Bernardo, C. L. Simões, L. M. C. Pinto, AIP Conf. Proc. 2016,
tal impacts of their products after use. Moreover, the product de- 1779, 140001.
[11] Y. Chen, Z. Cui, X. Cui, W. Liu, X. Wang, X. Li, S. Li, Resour., Conserv.
signer must also consider the fate of their plastic products when
Recycl. 2019, 146, 348.
used in other countries, where there is inadequate infrastructure
[12] T. S. Gomes, L. L. Y. Visconte, E. B. A. V. Pacheco, J. Polym. Environ.
to recover these products after use. From the literature review 2019, 27, 533.
and CF for different countries, DfR strategies were also proposed [13] D. Lazarevic, E. Aoustin, N. Buclet, N. Brandt, Resour., Conserv. Re-
across different levels, which can guide the product manufactur- cycl. 2010, 55, 246.
ers to identify complexities in the value chain and most impor- [14] S. Spierling, V. Venkatachalam, M. Mudersbach, N. Becker, C. Her-
tantly the environmental impacts of their new products during rmann, H.-J. Endres, Resources 2020, 9, 90.
the EoL phase, when exported/manufactured across the world. [15] T. M. Kousemaker, G. H. Jonker, A. I. Vakis, Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3305.
DfR strategies, when integrated with the product and process de- [16] H. Alhazmi, F. H. Almansour, Z. Aldhafeeri, Sustainability 2021, 13,
velopment along with the different aspects of sustainability as- 5340.
[17] Plastics Europe, Plastics – the Facts 2021, https://plasticseurope.
sessment like LCA, Life Cycle Costing, and Social LCA will defi-
org/knowledge-hub/plastics-the-facts-2021/ (accessed: January
nitely support the plastic industry transitioning from a linear to
2022).
a circular economy. [18] J. R. Jambeck, R. Geyer, C. Wilcox, T. R. Siegler, M. Perryman, A.
Andrady, R. Narayan, K. L. Law, Science 2015, 347, 768.
Supporting Information [19] World Economic Forum, The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking
the future of plastics, https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-new-
Supporting Information is available from the Wiley Online Library or from plastics-economy-rethinking-the-future-of-plastics (accessed: Jan-
the author. uary 2022).
[20] US, EPA, Plastics: Material-Specific Data, https://www.epa.gov/ [50] J. Dong, Y. Chi, D. Zou, C. Fu, Q. Huang, M. Ni, Waste Manage. Res.
facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/plastics- 2014, 32, 13.
material-specific-data (accessed: January 2022). [51] Franklin Associates, Life Cycle Impacts for postconsumer recycled
[21] J. Pickin, C. Wardle, K. O’Farrell, P. Nyunt, S. Donovan, Natl. Waste resins: PET, HDPE, and PP, https://plasticsrecycling.org/images/
Rep. 2020, https://www.awe.gov.au/sites/default/files/env/pages/ library/2018-APR-LCI-report.pdf (accessed: January 2022).
5a160ae2-d3a9-480e-9344-4eac42ef9001/files/national-waste- [52] J. E. Galve, D. Elduque, C. Pina, C. Javierre, Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf.-
report-2020.pdf Green Technol. 2021, 9, 919.
[22] D. C. Wilson, C. Velis, C. Cheeseman, Habitat Int. 2006, 30, 797. [53] M. Gear, J. Sadhukhan, R. Thorpe, R. Clift, J. Seville, M. Keast, J.
[23] G. research, Global Plastic Waste Management Market Size Re- Cleaner Prod. 2018, 180, 735.
port, 2020–2027, https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry- [54] F. Gironi, V. Piemonte, Environ. Prog. Sustainable Energy 2011, 30,
analysis/plastic-waste-management-market (accessed: January 459.
2022). [55] O. Horodytska, D. Kiritsis, A. Fullana, J. Cleaner Prod. 2020, 268,
[24] A. L. Brooks, S. Wang, J. R. Jambeck, Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaat0131. 122138.
[25] H. Johnson, Z. Nay, R. Maguire, L. Barner, A. Payne, M. Taboada, [56] M.d. U. Hossain, S. T. Ng, Y. Dong, B. Amor, Y. Dong, B. Amor, Waste
TEL 2021, https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102521000261 Manage. 2021, 131, 412.
[26] D. Xanthos, T. R. Walker, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 118, 17. [57] T. A. Hottle, M. M. Bilec, A. E. Landis, Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 2017,
[27] World Economic Forum, As Canada bans bags and more, 122, 295.
this is what’s happening with single-use plastics today, [58] D. Iribarren, J. Dufour, D. P. Serrano, J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/canada-bans-single- 2012, 14, 301.
use-plastics/ (accessed: January 2022). [59] H. K. Jeswani, A. Azapagic, A. Azapagic, Waste Manage. 2016, 50,
[28] H. L. Chen, T. K. Nath, S. Chong, V. Foo, C. Gibbins, A. M. Lechner, 346.
SN Appl. Sci. 2021, 3. [60] H. Jeswani, C. Krüger, M. Russ, M. Horlacher, F. Antony, S. Hann,
[29] N. J. Van Eck, L. Waltman, L. Waltman, Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523. A. Azapagic, Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 769, 144483.
[30] Elsevier, Scopus – The largest database of peer-reviewed litera- [61] M.d.M. H. Khan, V. Laitinen, J. Havukainen, M. Horttanainen, V.
ture, https://www.elsevier.com/en-in/solutions/scopus (accessed: Laitinen, J. Havukainen, M. Horttanainen, Waste Manage. 2021, 136,
December 2021). 93.
[31] Environment, Circular economy action plan, https://ec.europa. [62] H. H. Khoo, R. B. H. Tan, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2010, 15, 338.
eu/environment/strategy/circular-economy-action-plan_de (ac- [63] H. H. Khoo, Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 145, 67.
cessed: January 2022). [64] Y. Kikuchi, M. Hirao, T. Ookubo, A. Sasaki, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
[32] World Economic Forum, Circular Economy, https://www.weforum. 2014, 19, 120.
org/projects/circular-economy (accessed: January 2022). [65] Y. S. Lim, T. N. T. Izhar, I. A. Zakarya, S. Y. Yusuf, S. K. Zaaba,
[33] Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Plastics and a circular economy, M. A. Mohamad, IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 920,
https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/plastics/overview 012030.
(accessed: January 2022). [66] E. J. P. Martin, D. S. B. L. Oliveira, L. S. B. L. Oliveira, B. S. Bezerra,
[34] UNDP, Sustainable Development Goals | United Nations De- Waste Manage. 2021, 119, 226.
velopment Programme, https://www.undp.org/sustainable- [67] J. Nakatani, M. Fujii, Y. Moriguchi, M. Hirao, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
development-goals (accessed: January 2022). 2010, 15, 590.
[35] D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D. G. Altman, PLoS Med. 2009, 6, [68] S. Papong, P. Malakul, R. Trungkavashirakun, P. Wenunun, T. Chom-
e1000097. in, M. Nithitanakul, E. Sarobol, J. Cleaner Prod. 2014, 65, 539.
[36] R. Accorsi, A. Cascini, S. Cholette, R. Manzini, C. Mora, Int. J. Prod. [69] K. S. Sangwan, V. Bhakar, V. Bhakar, Procedia CIRP 2017, 61, 738.
Econ. 2014, 152, 88. [70] J. Santos, A. Pham, P. Stasinopoulos, F. Giustozzi, Sci. Total Environ.
[37] M. Al-Maaded, N. K. Madi, R. Kahraman, A. Hodzic, N. G. Ozerkan, 2021, 751, 141842.
J. Polym. Environ. 2012, 20, 186. [71] B. Simon, M. B. Amor, R. Földényi, J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 238.
[38] S. M. Al-Salem, S. Evangelisti, P. Lettieri, S. Evangelisti, P. Lettieri, [72] P. Tratzi, C. Giuliani, M. Torre, L. Tomassetti, R. Petrucci, A. Iannoni,
Chem. Eng. J. 2014, 244, 391. L. Torre, S. Genova, V. Paolini, F. Petracchini, G. Di Carlo, Recycling
[39] H. A. Arafat, K. Jijakli, A. Ahsan, K. Jijakli, A. Ahsan, J. Cleaner Prod. 2021, 6, 58.
2015, 105, 233. [73] H. Wang, L. Wang, A. Shahbazi, J. Cleaner Prod. 2015, 87, 511.
[40] Y. Aryan, P. Yadav, S. R. Samadder, J. Cleaner Prod. 2019, 211, 1268. [74] A. U. Zaman, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 10, 1029.
[41] K. M. Bataineh, Adv. Civ. Eng. 2020, 2020, 8905431. [75] Z. Zhou, Y. Tang, J. Dong, Y. Chi, M. Ni, N. Li, Y. Zhang, J. Environ.
[42] S. Belboom, A. Léonard, Biomass Bioenergy 2016, 85, 159. Manage. 2018, 227, 23.
[43] J. Mendes Campolina, C. São Leandro Sigrist, J. M. Faulstich De [76] L. Zampori, R. Pant, Suggestions for updating the Product Envi-
Paiva, A. Oliveira Nunes, V. A. Da Silva Moris, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. ronmental Footprint (PEF) method, https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
2017, 22, 1957. permalink/PEF_method.pdf (accessed: November 2021).
[44] K. Changwichan, S. H. Gheewala, Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2020, 22, [77] European Commission, Circular Footprint Formula. We-
34. binar; Environmental Footprint (EF) transition phase,
[45] B. Choi, S. Yoo, S.-I. Park, Sustainability 2018, 10, 2369. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/Webinar%20CFF%
[46] K. Choudhary, K. S. Sangwan, D. Goyal, Procedia CIRP 2019, 80, 422. 20Circular%20Footprint%20Formula_final-shown_8Oct2019.pdf
[47] D. Civancik-Uslu, T. T. Nhu, B. Van Gorp, U. Kresovic, M. Larrain, (accessed: November 2021).
P. Billen, K. Ragaert, S. De Meester, J. Dewulf, S. Huysveld, Resour., [78] D. L. Schrijvers, P. Loubet, B. P. Weidema, J. Cleaner Prod. 2021, 320,
Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 171, 105633. 128800.
[48] C. Clauzade, P. Osset, C. Hugrel, A. Chappert, M. Durande, M. Pal- [79] T. Ekvall, A. Björklund, G. Sandin, K. Jelse, Modeling recycling in life
luau, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2010, 15, 883. cycle assessment, 2020.
[49] A. Demetrious, E. Crossin, J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage. 2019, 21, [80] T. Ekvall, M. Gottfridsson, M. Nellström, J. Nilsson, M. Rydberg, T.
850. Rydberg, Waste Manage. 2021, 136, 153.
[81] V. Bach, A. Lehmann, M. Görmer, M. Finkbeiner, Sustainability 2018, [103] L. Rigamonti, M. Grosso, M. Giugliano, Waste Manage. 2009, 29,
10, 2898. 934.
[82] L. C. Malabi Eberhardt, A. van Stijn, F. Nygaard Rasmussen, M. [104] E. van Eygen, D. Laner, J. Fellner, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52,
Birkved, H. Birgisdottir, Sustainability 2020, 12, 9579. 10934.
[83] S. Mirzaie, M. Thuring, K. Allacker, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, [105] A. E. Schwarz, T. N. Ligthart, D. Godoi Bizarro, P. De Wild, B. Vreug-
2122. denhil, T. Van Harmelen, D. Godoi Bizarro, P. de Wild, B. Vreugden-
[84] Y.-C. Huang, J.-C. Tu, K.-P. Kuo, Adv. Mech. Eng. 2017, 9, hil, T. van Harmelen, Waste Manage. 2021, 121, 331.
168781401770969. [106] D. Civancik-Uslu, R. Puig, M. Hauschild, P. Fullana-i-Palmer, Sci. To-
[85] C. M. V. B. Almeida, A. J. M. Rodrigues, S. H. Bonilla, B. F. Giannetti, tal Environ. 2019, 685, 621.
J. Cleaner Prod. 2010, 18, 32. [107] J. S. Woods, F. Verones, O. Jolliet, I. Vázquez-Rowe, A.-M. Boulay, F.
[86] E. Foschi, S. Zanni, A. Bonoli, Sustainability 2020, 12, 9738. Verones, O. Jolliet, I. Vázquez-Rowe, A.-M. Boulay, Ecol. Indic. 2021,
[87] F. Alpizar, F. Carlsson, G. Lanza, B. Carney, R. C. Daniels, M. Jaime, 129, 107918.
T. Ho, Z. Nie, C. Salazar, B. Tibesigwa, S. Wahdera, Environ. Sci. Pol. [108] Leiden University, CML-IA Characterization Factors,
2020, 109, 25. https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/research/research-
[88] J. Sherwood, J. H. Clark, T. J. Farmer, L. Herrero-Davila, L. Moity, output/science/cml-ia-characterisation-factors (accessed: Jan-
Molecules 2016, 22. uary 2022).
[89] B. D. Vogt, K. K. Stokes, S. K. Kumar, ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. 2021, [109] sphera, GaBi Databases, https://gabi.sphera.com/databases/gabi-
3, 4325. databases/ (accessed: January 2022).
[90] J. Martínez Leal, S. Pompidou, C. Charbuillet, N. Perry, Sustainability [110] G. Wernet, C. Bauer, B. Steubing, J. Reinhard, E. Moreno-Ruiz, B.
2020, 12, 9861. Weidema, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 1218.
[91] I. Antonopoulos, G. Faraca, D. Tonini, Waste Manage. 2021, 126, [111] K. Buchholz, Which Countries Export & Import Plastic Waste?,
694. https://www.statista.com/chart/18229/biggest-exporters-of-
[92] C. Löw, A. Manhart, S. Prakash, M. Michalscheck, Design-for- plastic-waste-and-scrap/ (accessed: January 2022).
recycling (D4R) – State of play, https://www.giz.de/de/downloads/ [112] L. Pollok, S. Spierling, H.-J. Endres, U. Grote, Sustainability 2021, 13,
2021-06%20Design%20for%20recycling_barrierefrei.pdf (ac- 10286.
cessed: February 2021). [113] Life Cycle Initiative Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assess-
[93] L. M. D. Luz, A. C. D. Francisco, C. M. Piekarski, R. Salvador, J. ment of Products and Organizations 2020, https://www.
Cleaner Prod. 2018, 193, 28. lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Guidelines-
[94] D. Civancik-Uslu, R. Puig, S. Voigt, D. Walter, P. Fullana-i-Palmer, for-Social-Life-Cycle-Assessment-of-Products-and-Organizations-
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 151, 104475. 2020-22.1.21sml.pdf (accessed: December 2021).
[95] H. Lewis, K. Verghese, L. Fitzpatrick, Packag. Technol. Sci. 2010, 23, [114] Life Cycle Initiative Methodological Sheets for subcat-
145. egories in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) 2021,
[96] Á. M. Sampaio, A. M. Sousa, P. Simões, A. J. Pontes, Polym. Eng. https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/
Sci. 2018, 58, 535. 12/Methodological-Sheets_2021_final.pdf (accessed: December
[97] P. Vanegas, J. R. Peeters, D. Cattrysse, P. Tecchio, F. Ardente, F. Math- 2021).
ieux, W. Dewulf, J. R. Duflou, Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 135, 323. [115] Product Social Impact Assessment, Handbook – Product Social Im-
[98] A. Navajas, L. Uriarte, L. Gandía, Sustainability 2017, 9, 1724. pact Assessment, https://product-social-impact-assessment.com/
[99] J. Flizikowski, W. Kruszelnicka, M. Macko, Polymers 2021, 13. handbook/ (accessed: January 2022).
[100] A. Berwald, G. Dimitrova, T. Feenstra, J. Onnekink, H. Peters, G. [116] M. Kühnen, R. Hahn, J. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, 1547.
Vyncke, K. Ragaert, Sustainability 2021, 13, 3923. [117] B. B. T. do Carmo, M. Margni, P. Baptiste, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
[101] E. Du Bois, L. Veelaert, E. Tormans, I. Moons, Proc. Des. Soc. 2021, 2017, 22, 2007.
1, 1765. [118] Product Social Impact Assessment, Handbook - Product Social Im-
[102] European Commission, Developer Environmental Footprint, (EF) – pact Assessment, https://product-social-impact-assessment.com/
Annex C, https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/LCDN/developerEF.xhtml handbook/#implement (accessed: January 2022).
(accessed: January 2022).
Venkateshwaran Venkatachalam is a research associate and a Ph.D. candidate at the Institute of Plas-
tics and Circular Economy (IKK), Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Leibniz University of Hannover,
Germany. He received his Master’s in environmental and process engineering from the University
of Stuttgart, Germany, and has been working in the field of life cycle assessment (LCA) over the past
seven years. His research interests are in the integration of sustainability assessment and design for
recycling for a circular economy of plastics and composites.
Merlin Pohler was a student researcher at the Leibniz University Hannover (LUH), Germany, and part
of the sustainability team of the Institute of Plastics and Circular Economy (IKK). He received his M.Sc.
in 2020 from the LUH in Hannover, Germany. His research interests are in the area of circular economy
and life cycle assessment with a focus on recycling options and processes for plastics.
Sebastian Spierling is a research associate at the Leibniz University Hannover, Faculty of Mechanical
Engineering, and head of the sustainability department of the Institute of Plastics and Circular Econ-
omy (IKK). He received a M.Eng. in 2013 from HAWK Göttingen, Germany, and is currently conducting
his Ph.D. at the Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany. His research interest is the area of
sustainability assessment (in particular life cycle assessment) in connection with (bio-)plastics, (bio-
)composites as well as end-of-life management and circular economy.
Louisa Nickel is a Ph.D. candidate at the Leibniz University Hannover, Institute for Environmental
Economics and World Trade (IUW) at the Faculty of Economics and Management and the Institute
of Plastics and Circular Economy (IKK). She received her M.A. in sustainability economics and man-
agement in 2020 from Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg. Her research interest is in the field of
sustainability assessment with focus on social life cycle assessments (S-LCA) connected to plastics for
automotive applications.
Leonie Barner is the inaugural director of the Centre for a Waste-Free World at the Queensland Uni-
versity of Technology (QUT, Brisbane, Australia). She received her Ph.D. in physical chemistry in 1998
(Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany). During her career, she has worked in industry,
German research institutes (Fraunhofer, Helmholtz), and Australian universities (University of New
South Wales, QUT). Besides her research interest in macromolecular synthesis and characterization,
she leads a transdisciplinary research center that follows a holistic approach to develop technologies
and processes to reduce waste, while using social science knowledge to catalyze change and reduce
barriers to participation and adoption.
Hans-Josef Endres is a professor at the Leibniz University Hannover, Faculty of Mechanical Engineer-
ing, and director of the Institute of Plastics and Circular Economy (IKK). He received his Ph.D. in me-
chanical engineering from the Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany, in 1995. During his career, he has
worked in industry (BUCK Werke, ThyssenKrupp) and research institutions (Fraunhofer WKI and
Hochschule Hannover). His research areas are (bio-)plastics, (bio-)composites, plastic technology,
plastic testing, circular economy, and sustainability assessment.

Macro Chemistry Physics - 2022 - Venkatachalam - Design for Recycling Strategies Based on the Life Cycle Assessment And

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Macro Chemistry Physics - 2022 - Venkatachalam - Design for Recycling Strategies Based on the Life Cycle Assessment And

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Macro Chemistry Physics - 2022 - Venkatachalam - Design for Recycling Strategies Based on the Life Cycle Assessment And

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PERSPECTIVE

Design for Recycling Strategies Based on the Life Cycle

Figure 1. Overview of possible EoL options for plastics.

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3

End-of-life Options Plastics Mechanical Recycling

Source EoL Options Polymers studied

Aryan et al.[40] MR IC LA PE PET

Macromol. Chem. Phys. 2022, 223, 2200046

Figure 4. Methodological approach to identify the DfR strategies.

To understand how the examined plastics product was treated

3.1.7. System Boundaries

Figure 12. DfR strategies for plastic products.

You might also like