TY - JOUR
T1 - To compost or not to compost: carbon and energy footprints of biodegradable materials’ waste treatment
AU - Hermann, B.G.
AU - DeBeer, L.
AU - De Wilde, B.
AU - Blok, K.
AU - Patel, M.K.
PY - 2011
Y1 - 2011
N2 - Many life cycle assessments of bio-based and biodegradable materials neglect the post-consumer waste
treatment phase because of a lack of consistent data, even though this stage of the life cycle may strongly
influence the conclusions. The aim of this paper is to approximate carbon and energy footprints of the
waste treatment phase and to find out what the best waste treatment option for biodegradable materials
is by modelling home and industrial composting, anaerobic digestion and incineration. We have
compiled data-sets for the following biodegradable materials: paper, cellulose, starch, polylactic acid
(PLA), starch/polycaprolactone (MaterBi), polybutyrate-adipate-terephthalate (PBAT, Ecoflex) and polyhydroxyalkanoates
(PHA) on the basis of an extensive literature search, experiments and analogies with
materials for which significant experience has been made. During biological waste treatment, the
materials are metabolised so a part of their embodied carbon is emitted into air and the remainder is
stored as compost or digestate. The compost or digestate can replace soil conditioners supporting humus
formation, which is a benefit that cannot be achieved artificially. Experimental data on biodegradable
materials shows a range across the amount of carbon stored of these materials, and more trials will be
required in the future to reduce these uncertainties. Experimental data has also shown that home and
industrial composting differ in their emissions of nitrous oxide and methane, but it should be noted that
data availability on home composting is limited. The results show that anaerobic digestion has the lowest
footprint for the current level of technology, but incineration may become better in the future if energy
efficiency in waste incineration plants improves significantly. Home composting is roughly equal to
incineration with energy recovery in terms of carbon and energy footprint when carbon credits are
considered. The same applies to industrial composting if carbon credits are assigned for compost to
replace straw. Carbon credits can therefore considerably affect the results, but there are significant
uncertainties in how they are calculated. Incineration may become better than home composting in the
future if the average energy efficiency in waste incineration plants improves significantly. However,
biological waste treatment options should be chosen when soil carbon is a limiting factor.
AB - Many life cycle assessments of bio-based and biodegradable materials neglect the post-consumer waste
treatment phase because of a lack of consistent data, even though this stage of the life cycle may strongly
influence the conclusions. The aim of this paper is to approximate carbon and energy footprints of the
waste treatment phase and to find out what the best waste treatment option for biodegradable materials
is by modelling home and industrial composting, anaerobic digestion and incineration. We have
compiled data-sets for the following biodegradable materials: paper, cellulose, starch, polylactic acid
(PLA), starch/polycaprolactone (MaterBi), polybutyrate-adipate-terephthalate (PBAT, Ecoflex) and polyhydroxyalkanoates
(PHA) on the basis of an extensive literature search, experiments and analogies with
materials for which significant experience has been made. During biological waste treatment, the
materials are metabolised so a part of their embodied carbon is emitted into air and the remainder is
stored as compost or digestate. The compost or digestate can replace soil conditioners supporting humus
formation, which is a benefit that cannot be achieved artificially. Experimental data on biodegradable
materials shows a range across the amount of carbon stored of these materials, and more trials will be
required in the future to reduce these uncertainties. Experimental data has also shown that home and
industrial composting differ in their emissions of nitrous oxide and methane, but it should be noted that
data availability on home composting is limited. The results show that anaerobic digestion has the lowest
footprint for the current level of technology, but incineration may become better in the future if energy
efficiency in waste incineration plants improves significantly. Home composting is roughly equal to
incineration with energy recovery in terms of carbon and energy footprint when carbon credits are
considered. The same applies to industrial composting if carbon credits are assigned for compost to
replace straw. Carbon credits can therefore considerably affect the results, but there are significant
uncertainties in how they are calculated. Incineration may become better than home composting in the
future if the average energy efficiency in waste incineration plants improves significantly. However,
biological waste treatment options should be chosen when soil carbon is a limiting factor.
U2 - 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2010.12.026
DO - 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2010.12.026
M3 - Article
SN - 0141-3910
VL - 96
SP - 1159
EP - 1171
JO - Polymer Degradation and Stability
JF - Polymer Degradation and Stability
ER -