R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

A Review of the Environmental Impacts

of Biobased Materials
Martin Weiss, Juliane Haufe, Michael Carus, Miguel Brandão, Stefan Bringezu,
Barbara Hermann, and Martin K. Patel

Keywords:
Summary
biomass
environmental impact assessment Concerns over climate change and the security of industrial feedstock supplies have been
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions opening a growing market for biobased materials. This development, however, also presents
industrial ecology a challenge to scientists, policy makers, and industry because the production of biobased
life cycle assessment materials requires land and is typically associated with adverse environmental effects. This
meta-analysis
article addresses the environmental impacts of biobased materials in a meta-analysis of 44
life cycle assessment (LCA) studies. The reviewed literature suggests that one metric ton (t)
Supporting information is available of biobased materials saves, relative to conventional materials, 55 ± 34 gigajoules of primary
on the JIE Web site energy and 3 ± 1 t carbon dioxide equivalents of greenhouse gases. However, biobased
materials may increase eutrophication by 5 ± 7 kilograms (kg) phosphate equivalents/t and
stratospheric ozone depletion by 1.9 ± 1.8 kg nitrous oxide equivalents/t. Our findings are
inconclusive with regard to acidification (savings of 2 ± 20 kg sulfur dioxide equivalents/t)
and photochemical ozone formation (savings of 0.3 ± 2.4 kg ethene equivalents/t). The
variability in the results of life cycle assessment studies highlights the difficulties in drawing
general conclusions. Still, common to most biobased materials are impacts caused by the
application of fertilizers and pesticides during industrial biomass cultivation. Additional land
use impacts, such as the potential loss of biodiversity, soil carbon depletion, soil erosion,
deforestation, as well as greenhouse gas emissions from indirect land use change are not
quantified in this review. Clearly these impacts should be considered when evaluating the
environmental performance of biobased materials.

triggered relatively recent interest in also substituting biomass

Introduction
for conventional fossil fuel-based feedstock in the production
Biobased wood, paper, and textile materials have been pro- of synthetic materials (Deimling et al. 2007; Patel et al. 2006;
duced for centuries. Together, these materials account for 14% Shen et al. 2009a, 2009b). As a consequence, the production of
of global bulk materials production, whereas synthetic mate- biobased synthetic materials such as polymers, lubricants, and
rials, predominantly produced from fossil fuel-based feedstock, fibers has grown continuously in the past decade. As of 2008,
account for a 7% share (estimates based on the work of Deim- biomass already provided 10% of the feedstock of the European
ling et al. 2007; IAI 2010; Lasserre 2008; OGJ 2007; Saygın and chemical industry (Rothermel 2008). Biobased polymers, such
Patel 2010; UN 2008).1 Concerns about greenhouse gas (GHG) as alkyd resins or polylactic acid, accounted for 7% of the to-
emissions and the security of industrial feedstock supplies have tal polymer production (PlasticsEurope 2007), while biobased

Address correspondence to: Martin Weiss, European Commission – DG Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy and Transport – Sustainable Transport Unit, Via Enrico
Fermi 2749 – TP 230, 21010 Ispra, Italy. Email: [email protected]


c 2012 by Yale University
DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00468.x

Volume 16, Number S1

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jie Journal of Industrial Ecology S169

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

plastics (comprising polymers with a molecular mass greater ral fibers to fermentation and advanced enzymatic or catalytic
than 20,000 unified atomic mass units) are still in their in- conversions.
fancy: by the end of 2007 they accounted for only 0.3%, or The environmental impacts of biobased as well as con-
0.36 megatons (Mt) of the worldwide plastics production (Shen ventional fossil fuel-based or mineral-based materials are typi-
et al. 2009a, 2009b).2 Technological innovation will likely con- cally quantified through the internationally standardized LCA
tinue to open a wide range of new applications for biobased methodology (ISO 2006a, 2006b). Here we review the LCA
materials (Hermann et al. 2010; Shen and Patel 2008, 2009a). literature on biobased materials by applying (1) a standard In-
Breakthroughs can be expected in the coming years for inte- ternet search for peer-reviewed articles contained in the on-
grated biorefineries, which may optimize the use of biomass by line databases “Web of Science” and “Scopus,” as well as (2)
providing a whole range of materials and energy products from a Google-based search for scientific and governmental reports,
biobased feedstock. workshop documents, and working papers. We include LCA
However, the prospects for novel biobased materials present studies if they provide a minimum of methodological back-
scientists, policy makers, and industry with an environmental ground information, quantify the environmental impacts of
challenge: the benefits of replacing fossil fuel-based feedstock biobased materials in physical units for at least one impact cat-
and reducing GHG emissions may come at the cost of addi- egory, and are published in the English or German languages
tional land use and related environmental impacts. Strategic before December 2011. LCA results presented in flyers or oral
decision making thus requires a thorough analysis of all envi- presentations are excluded from this review. Likewise, we ex-
ronmental impacts of biobased materials in comparison with clude LCA studies that report environmental impacts in per-
their conventional fossil fuel-based or mineral-based counter- centages or indices only (e.g., Gironi and Piemonte 2011; Guo
parts. To this end, life cycle assessment (LCA) has been applied et al. 2011). This approach does not allow complete coverage of
to a large range of biobased materials, including starch-based all relevant LCA studies published to date; still, it is suitable for
polymers (e.g., Dinkel et al. 1996; Patel et al. 2006; Würdinger identifying the general pattern in the environmental impacts
et al. 2002), fiber composites (e.g., Müller-Sämann et al. 2002; of biobased materials.
Wötzel et al. 1999; Zah et al. 2007), and hydraulic oils and We include in our review a total of 44 LCA studies that
lubricants (e.g., Reinhardt et al. 2001). Detailed reviews of the cover about 60 individual biobased materials and 350 differ-
LCA literature revealed an initial focus on nonrenewable en- ent life cycle scenarios (see tables S1 and S3 in the supporting
ergy use and GHG emissions only (e.g., Dornburg et al. 2003; information available on the Journal’s Web site). Preliminary
Kaenzig et al. 2004) that grew to include additional environ- scanning through the literature reveals that most studies focus
mental impact categories such as eutrophication and acidifica- on biobased materials of European origin being manufactured by
tion (e.g., Deimling et al. 2007; Oertel 2007; Weiss et al. 2007). both small pilot installations and large-scale industrial plants.
A comprehensive quantification of the environmental impacts The reviewed LCA studies generally differ from each other in
associated with a large range of biobased materials, however, many, if not all, assumptions and choices made regarding, e.g.,
is still missing. Here we address this problem by presenting a system boundaries, functional units, life cycle scenarios, or allo-
meta-analysis that summarizes the results of the existing LCA cation procedures. They also differ in the detail of explanation
literature on biobased materials. We do not claim absolute com- of the methodology and results. We refrain from correcting for
pleteness with respect to all published LCA studies. Instead, we differences in choices and assumptions. This approach is jus-
seek to identify general patterns in the environmental impacts tified given the scope of this meta-analysis and the generally
of a wide range of biobased materials. This article excludes limited availability of necessary background information.
technical, economic, and social aspects (e.g., production costs Individual LCA studies may also differ from each other in the
or the impact of nonfood biomass farming on food prices and method chosen for aggregating inventory data into individual
the livelihood of smallholders in the tropics). These aspects environmental impact categories. The commonly used meth-
should be considered, however, in a comprehensive evaluation ods have been described by Heijungs and colleagues (1992),
of biobased materials. the German Federal Environment Agency (UBA 1995), and
Guinée (2001). Our review covers the environmental impacts
of biobased materials in six categories, which we characterize
Background Information and
and quantify as follows (Guinée 2001):
Methodology
Biobased materials comprise materials that are produced • nonrenewable energy use (NREU), quantified in giga-
partially or entirely from biomass, that is, from terrestrial joules (GJ);
and marine plants, parts thereof, as well as biogenic residues • climate change, quantified in metric tons of carbon diox-
and waste. Biobased materials include traditional wood, pa- ide equivalents (t CO2 -eq) by considering the global
per, and textile materials, as well as novel biobased plastics, warming potential of GHG emissions over a time hori-
resins, lubricants, composites, pharmaceuticals, and cosmet- zon of 100 years;
ics. The manufacturing processes of biobased materials range • eutrophication, quantified in kilograms of phosphate
from extraction and simple mechanical processing of natu- equivalents (kg PO4 -eq);

S170 Journal of Industrial Ecology

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

• acidification, quantified in kilograms of sulfate equivalents This approach ensures a relatively complete coverage of pub-
(kg SO2 -eq); lished LCA studies.
• stratospheric ozone depletion, quantified in kilograms of We estimate stratospheric ozone depletion based on N2 O
nitrous oxide equivalents (kg N2 O-eq); and emissions only and exclude chlorofluorocarbons that are of mi-
• photochemical ozone formation, quantified in kilograms nor importance since their banning by the Montreal Protocol
of ethene equivalents (kg ethene-eq).3 in 1994 (Müller-Sämann et al. 2002; Würdinger et al. 2002).
We present the results in each impact category disaggregated
We express the relative environmental impacts of biobased for nine individual groups of biobased materials and as a total
materials in comparison to the environmental impacts of con- over all materials. We report the arithmetic mean and the stan-
ventional materials as dard deviation of the environmental impacts for each group
of biobased materials. The standard deviation can be regarded
Di j = E Ibi oba s ed ,i j − E Iconventi onal ,i j , as indicative of the uncertainty interval in our results and re-
flects, to some extent, the diversity of life cycle scenarios and
methodological choices made in the reviewed LCA studies.
where We calculate the overall average impact of biobased materials
Dij = the difference in the environmental impact of the biobased in each impact category based on the mean environmental im-
and conventional material; pacts of the individual groups of biobased materials (see table
EIbiobased,ij = the environmental impact of the biobased S1 in the supporting information on the Web). This approach
material; ensures an equal representation of all nine groups of materials
EIconventional,ij = the environmental impact of the conventional in the overall result.
material; We put our findings in perspective by normalizing the over-
i = the specific material; and all average environmental impacts of biobased materials based
j = the specific environmental impact category. on the worldwide average inhabitant-equivalent values for the
year 2000 with regards to primary energy consumption (EIA
This approach follows the methodology applied in most of 2011) and the five environmental impact categories (Sleeswijk
the reviewed LCA studies and results in negative values if et al. 2008) covered here. We discuss additional environmental
biobased materials exert lower impacts on the environment impacts and secondary effects of biobased materials alongside
than their conventional counterparts. We quantify the relative the uncertainties of our review in semiquantitative terms after
environmental impacts of biobased materials per metric ton of presenting the results.
product and per hectare of agricultural land and year (ha∗ a).4
The latter metric allows us to obtain insight into the land use
efficiency of biobased materials. Several LCA studies report Results
impacts for other functional units (e.g., Hermann et al. 2010;
Nonrenewable Energy Use and Climate Change
Madival et al. 2009). We include these studies in our meta-
analysis and recalculate the environmental impacts based on We find that biobased materials save, on average, 55 ± 34
the background information provided in each respective study. GJ/t and 127 ± 79 GJ/(ha∗ a) of nonrenewable energy. These
If the information in the respective LCA studies is insufficient savings exceed the worldwide average per capita primary energy
for estimating the relative environmental impacts of biobased consumption in the year 2000 by a factor 8 ± 5 and 18 ± 11,
materials, we use information from additional literature sources respectively. Furthermore, biobased materials save, on average,
in the following manner (see also table S1 in the supporting 3 ± 1 t CO2 -eq/t and 8 ± 5 t CO2 -eq/(ha∗ a) of GHG emissions
information on the Web): relative to conventional materials (figure 1 and table S2 in
the supporting information on the Web). This is equivalent
• A few LCA studies on plastics present the environmen- to, respectively, 37 ± 21% and 111 ± 79% of the worldwide
tal impacts of the biobased materials only (e.g., Vink average per capita GHG emissions in the year 2000.
et al. 2007). In these cases, we calculate the difference The results vary across large ranges. This makes it infeasi-
in the impacts of biobased and fossil conventional mate- ble to identify individual groups of biobased materials that are
rials based on data provided by Boustead (2005a, 2005b, environmentally superior with respect to nonrenewable energy
2005c, 2005d; see table S1 in the supporting information use and climate change.
on the Web). Special attention has been paid in recent years to the pro-
• The reviewed LCA studies typically express the environ- duction of biobased chemicals. Patel and colleagues (2006) con-
mental impacts of biobased and conventional materials by ducted an extensive cradle-to-factory gate (C-FG) analysis on
using product-based functional units (e.g., 1 t or 1 square the nonrenewable primary energy use and the GHG emissions
meter [m2 ] of material). To express the findings of part of a wide range of biobased chemicals (figure 2 and table S3
of these studies also in terms of per hectare and year, we in the supporting information on the Web). Their findings are
include in our meta-analysis the review results of Haufe in line with our results for a larger range of biobased materi-
(2010) and Weiss and Patel (2007). als, indicating that the production of biobased chemicals saves,

Weiss et al., Environmental Impacts of Biobased Materials S171

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Figure 1 Average product-specific environmental impacts of biobased materials in comparison to conventional materials (Dij ). Uncertainty
intervals represent the standard deviation of data. Numbers in parentheses indicate the sample size for the functional units of per metric
ton and per hectare and year, respectively.

Figure 2 Average nonrenewable primary energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of biobased chemicals in comparison to
conventional chemicals (Dij ). Uncertainty intervals represent the standard deviation of data. Numbers in parentheses indicate the sample
size for the biobased and conventional chemicals, respectively. Source of data: Patel and colleagues 2006.

S172 Journal of Industrial Ecology

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

on average, 43 ± 27 GJ/t and reduces the GHG emissions by ing used for growing biomass, high stratospheric ozone deple-
3 ± 2 t CO2 -eq/t in comparison to conventional fossil fuel- tion potentials may be found for a wide range of biobased
based chemicals. The variability in the results for individual materials.
biobased chemicals partially stems from differing assumptions Our findings are largely inconclusive with respect to photo-
regarding the type of biomass feedstock and the applied produc- chemical ozone formation, indicating that biobased materials
tion technology. The GHG emission savings identified so far, may save, on average, 0.3 ± 2.4 kg ethene-eq/t and 62 ± 20
however, disregard the potentially substantial effects of indirect kg ethene-eq/(ha∗ a) as compared with conventional materials
land use change (see the Discussion section). (figure 1). These savings account, respectively, for 5 ± 35%
and a factor of 9 ± 3 of the worldwide average ozone formation
potential in the year 2000. The large uncertainty intervals war-
Eutrophication and Acidification
rant caution and suggest that impacts in this category are case
Biobased materials may induce, on average, 5 ± 7 kg PO4 - specific. Substantial parts of the uncertainty stem from LCA
eq/t and 6 ± 11 kg PO4 -eq/(ha∗ a) higher eutrophication poten- studies on wood floor boarding, which typically show a high
tials on the environment than conventional materials (figure 1). ozone formation potential in comparison with both conven-
These additional impacts account, respectively, for 66 ± 98% tional floor boarding and other biobased materials. The impacts
and 79 ± 157% of the worldwide average per capita freshwater stem from volatile organic compounds that are emitted from
eutrophication caused in the year 2000. The high eutrophi- solvents contained in the glues and surface finishing of parquet
cation potentials mainly result from biomass production with floors (Nebel et al. 2006). Parquet floors are included in the
industrial farming practices that causes nitrate and phosphate analysis of the product-specific photochemical ozone formation
leaching from the applied nitrogen fertilizers, as well as ammo- potentials, but not in the analysis of the land use-specific po-
nia emissions from manure applications (e.g., Cherubini and tentials. This causes relatively large uncertainty intervals in the
Jungmeier 2010; Deimling et al. 2007; Würdinger et al. 2002). first analysis but not in the second one.
Our findings are inconclusive with respect to acidification,
indicating that biobased materials relative to conventional ma-
Additional Environmental Impacts
terials may save 2 ± 20 kg SO2 -eq/t and 39 ± 61 kg SO2 -
eq/(ha∗ a). This result translates, respectively, into a factor of In addition to these results, biobased materials exert a large
0.3 ± 2.9 and 5.7 ± 8.9 of the worldwide average per capita variety of environmental impacts that are not quantified by
acidification potential in the year 2000. The relatively large most LCA studies, and thus by this review. Several LCA studies
uncertainty intervals indicate that acidification is case specific. suggest that biobased materials may
Biobased plastics and composites, for example, seem to decrease
acidification, whereas biobased lubricants are likely to increase • exert lower human and terrestrial ecotoxicity as well as
acidification relative to their conventional counterparts (e.g., carcinogenic potentials than conventional materials (e.g.,
Müller-Sämann et al. 2002; Reinhardt et al. 2001). Acidifi- Corbière-Nicollier et al. 2001; Harding et al. 2007; Shen
cation is mainly caused by emissions from the application of and Patel 2010; Wötzel et al. 1999; Würdinger et al. 2002),
manure and mineral fertilizers in agriculture, as well as from and
combustion processes. The first source is relevant for biomass • exert higher aquatic ecotoxicity than conventional mate-
production in general, the second is predominantly for lubri- rials (Shen and Patel 2010).
cants. Even if, e.g. biobased composites are incinerated after
use, the resulting emissions may constitute only a minor por- Additional land use-related impacts, such as water consump-
tion of the total acidifying emissions along their relatively long tion for biomass cultivation, soil erosion, soil carbon losses, and
product life cycle. changes in biodiversity, have received recent attention (e.g.,
Geyer et al. 2010a, 2010b). These impacts are predominantly
relevant at the local and regional scales, but are difficult to
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion and Photochemical
quantify and are therefore excluded from both the majority of
Ozone Formation
LCA studies and this review.
A limited number of seven LCA studies indicates that
biobased materials may increase stratospheric ozone deple-
Discussion
tion by, on average, 1.9 ± 1.8 kg N2 O-eq/t and 2.4 ± 1.3
kg N2 O-eq/(ha∗ a) relative to their conventional counterparts Our findings confirm the results of previous LCA reviews
(figure 1). The additional impacts thereby account, respec- that cover a smaller group of biobased materials and fewer en-
tively, for 28 ± 26% and 35 ± 18% of the worldwide av- vironmental impact categories (Dornburg et al. 2003; Kaen-
erage per capita ozone depletion potential in the year 2000. zig et al. 2004; Patel et al. 2003; Weiss et al. 2007). Further-
The impacts in this category largely result from N2 O emis- more, biobased materials show a similar tendency to bioenergy
sions that originate from fertilizer application in agriculture and biofuels in their relative environmental impacts (e.g., Lar-
(Müller-Sämann et al. 2002; Würdinger et al. 2002). Be- son 2006; Quirin et al. 2004; Reinhardt et al. 2000; Schmitz
cause fertilizer application is characteristic for industrial farm- et al. 2009; von Blottnitz and Curran 2007; WBGU 2008).

Weiss et al., Environmental Impacts of Biobased Materials S173

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

However, our findings scatter over a wide range, spanning Dinkel and colleagues (1996) quantify error ranges of inven-
both negative and positive values for several impact cate- tory data of 40% and deviations resulting from differences in
gories (figure 1 and table S1 in the supporting information allocation methods of up to 90% of the final result. Miller and
on the Web). Decision making should account for this vari- colleagues (2007) emphasize the considerable variability and
ability by considering individual cases, potentially weighing uncertainty in the emission profiles of agricultural systems due
global environmental concerns (e.g., climate change, strato- to differences in geography, climate, and farming practices. The
spheric ozone depletion) against local and regional concerns aggregate volatile organic compound and N2 O emissions, for ex-
(e.g., eutrophication, photochemical ozone formation, land use ample, vary in their study of soybean-based lubricants by more
change). than 300% due to variability in agricultural processes, cropland
characteristics, and soybean oil extraction. Furthermore, the re-
viewed LCA studies often vary from each other in the number
Discussion of Uncertainties
of pollutants included in their inventory analysis as well as in
The results of our review are subject to uncertainties and the method used for aggregating inventory data into individ-
limitations that arise from (1) the method used for analyzing ual environmental impact categories (compare, e.g., Corbière-
the LCA studies and (2) the uncertainty in the inventory data, Nicollier et al. 2001; Dreyer et al. 2003; Müller-Sämann et al.
as well as the diversity of methodological choices applied in the 2002; Turunen and van der Werf 2006; Wötzel et al. 1999).
individual LCA studies. The latter inconsistency, however, led to a small and random
Addressing the first source of uncertainty, our review only error in our analysis and can thus be regarded as negligible.
quantifies the environmental impact of biobased materials in six
categories. These categories are typically the most prominent
Discussion of Critical Aspects in the Life Cycle
ones addressed in the LCA literature. Still, they enable only a
Assessment of Biobased Materials
partial evaluation of biobased materials because of insufficient
accounting for (1) other relevant land use-related impacts as The large range of results for biobased materials stems from
well as (2) the potential risks resulting from the use of geneti- the diversity of product systems, methodological choices, and
cally modified crops and microorganisms. plausible assumptions made in the reviewed LCAs (e.g., Pa-
Our approach to refrain from harmonizing the reviewed LCA tel et al. 2006). Usually it is a combination of choices that
studies with respect to differences in methodological choices leads to substantial differences in the outcome of individ-
and inventory data may limit the reliability and accuracy of ual LCA studies, even if similar product scenarios are ana-
our results. Methodological differences are likely to result in lyzed. We now discuss five choices and aspects, which may
a random error for impact categories of sufficiently large data be particularly critical in the life cycle assessment of biobased
samples (e.g., nonrenewable energy use or GHG emissions). materials.
However, caution is required when interpreting the results for
impact categories in which only a few data points are available Secondary Effects—The Case of Indirect Land Use
(e.g., acidification, photochemical ozone formation) because Change
methodological inconsistencies may lead to systematic errors. Indirect land use change, that is, the unintended expan-
In these cases, the data samples are often highly skewed, mak- sion of farmland elsewhere due to the rededication of existing
ing the mean a less reliable estimator of the general tendency farmland, may add substantially to the overall environmental
of the sample. To analyze whether the skewness of data samples impacts of biobased materials. The effects of indirect land use
affects the interpretation of our results, we calculate the median change are excluded from the reviewed LCA studies but have
environmental impacts (see table S2 in the supporting infor- been studied in the context of biofuels. Plevin and colleagues
mation on the Web). The deviations between the arithmetic (2010) suggest that the GHG emissions from indirect land use
mean and median are typically negligible for the totals of all change of corn ethanol production in the United States span
biobased materials as well as for impact categories and groups between 10 and 340 kg CO2 -eq/GJ ethanol, thereby ranging
of materials for which large data samples are analyzed (e.g., as is from small to several times greater than the life cycle emis-
the case of nonrenewable energy use and GHG emissions). The sions of gasoline. Substantial indirect land use change effects
deviations, however, become larger for cases in which small data of biofuels production in the United States and in Brazil have
samples span large value ranges. Such a case appears, for exam- been identified by Arima and colleagues (2011), Lapola and
ple, in the acidification potential of floor boarding, where the colleagues (2010), and Searchinger and colleagues (2010).
mean and median values may lead to different conclusions (see Direct land use change due to the production of biobased
table S2 in the supporting information on the Web). Caution plastics has been analyzed by Piemonte and Gironi (2011),
is therefore necessary before drawing conclusions solely based who find that land use emissions have a substantial and largely
on one indicator for the central tendency of data samples. negative impact on the GHG emissions savings unless waste
Addressing the second source of uncertainty in all rigidity is biomass or biomass grown on degraded or abandoned land is
beyond the scope of this article. used as feedstock. Wicke and colleagues (2008) found that di-
The data used for the inventory analysis in the respective rect land use change is the most decisive factor in the GHG
LCA studies are typically subject to substantial uncertainties. emissions of palm oil energy chains. Hoefnagels and colleagues

S174 Journal of Industrial Ecology

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

(2010) show that the GHG emissions directly associated with 70%. Würdinger and colleagues (2002) have demonstrated that
the production of biodiesel from palm oil quadruple if planta- extensive farming practices, which differ from conventional
tions are located on former peat lands and rainforests instead of farming in that they apply no synthetic pesticides and nitro-
on degraded land or logged-over forests. Based on these consid- gen fertilizers, substantially reduce the eutrophication, acidifi-
erations it is reasonable to assume that indirect land use change cation, and stratospheric ozone depletion potential of starch-
is likely to increase the GHG emissions of biobased materials; based loose-fill packaging materials (figure 3).
the extent to which this is happening remains, however, uncer- Since the restriction of ozone-depleting substances under the
tain. In general, the impacts of land use change can be reduced Montreal Protocol (UNEP 2000), fertilizer induced N2 O emis-
by sions constitute the single most important driver of stratospheric
ozone depletion on a global scale (Ravishankara et al. 2009).
• producing nonfood biomass on degraded lands that need N2 O is also a potent GHG that might not always be appropri-
to be restored; ately accounted for in the assessment of GHG emissions from
• producing biobased materials from crops that provide high farming (Bringezu et al. 2009). Smeets and colleagues (2009)
yields in feedstock and useful coproducts (Patel et al. suggest that N2 O emissions might contribute 10% to 80% to
2006); the total GHG emissions of biofuels, depending on crop type,
• achieving yield and productivity increases in regions with climate conditions, and reference land use scenario. Results for
lagging yield developments, such as sub-Saharan Africa biofuels indicate that altogether 3% to 5% of the provided nitro-
(Bruinsma 2009; Hubert et al. 2010; Nellemann et al. gen might be converted to N2 O (Crutzen et al. 2007). Although
2009); contested (see, e.g., Ogle et al. 2008; Smeets et al. 2009), this
• more intensive use of farmland by planting so-called agri- finding suggests that the commonly used average emission factor
cultural intercrops between main cropping periods, which of 1% (IPCC 2006) may substantially underestimate the actual
serve energy or material purposes (Karpenstein-Machan N2 O emissions. Optimized farming practices and crop manage-
2001); ment, which includes avoiding stagnant anaerobic soil condi-
• introducing comprehensive land use management guide- tions, may substantially reduce N2 O emissions (Komatsuzaki
lines; and and Ohta 2007; Scheer et al. 2008; Sehy et al. 2003; Würdinger
• establishing programs and policies of sustainable resource et al. 2002). However, as changes in farming practices are gen-
management that also consider and limit the consumption erally constrained by prevailing economic and social factors, it
of global resources, including global land use (Bringezu remains doubtful as to whether substantial reductions in the en-
and Bleischwitz 2009). vironmental impacts of biomass production are achievable on
a large scale. Furthermore, the expansion of extensive farming
Treatment of Agricultural Residues may come at the cost of decreasing yields, and thus higher land
LCA studies generally assume that residues remain on the requirements for biomass production (Würdinger et al. 2002).
field as a substitute for mineral fertilizers (e.g., Würdinger This complexity requires a thorough evaluation of biobased
et al. 2002) or they simply exclude residues from the product materials on regional, national, and global scales.
system (e.g., Corbiére-Nicollier et al. 2001). The environmen-
tal impacts of biobased materials may, however, substantially Treatment of Temporary Carbon Storage
decline if the part of residues that is nonessential for main- When assessing the GHG emissions of biobased materials,
taining soil organic matter is used for producing materials or there are three ways of addressing biobased carbon:
energy. Dornburg and colleagues (2003) identified reductions
in the nonrenewable energy use and GHG emissions of biobased • ignoring it by considering biobased carbon as neutral be-
polymers of up to 190 GJ and 15 t CO2 -eq/(ha∗ a), respectively, cause it has been withdrawn from the atmosphere and
if agricultural residues are used for energy. Similar effects can be will be returned to the atmosphere within a limited time
expected if agricultural and forestry residues or biogenic wastes period; this approach implies that allocation issues are
are utilized for the production of biobased materials and second- implicitly treated through the relative carbon content of
generation biofuels in integrated biorefineries (Cherubini and coproducts (Guinée et al. 2009);
Jungmeier 2010; Williams et al. 2009). • regarding it as neutral but, as opposed to the previous
option, allocating biobased carbon consistently with the
allocation of other environmental burdens,
Farming Practices • crediting it by considering biobased carbon to be se-
The high environmental impacts of biobased materials in questered in biobased materials; this approach is more
the categories of eutrophication and stratospheric ozone de- relevant for consequential LCAs, where the consideration
pletion (along with a substantial share of their nonrenewable of reference land uses is critical (Brandão and Levasseur
energy use and GHG emissions) arise from biomass production 2011).
with industrial farming practices. Kim and Dale (2008) found
that no-tillage farming and the cultivation of winter crops can Crediting additional carbon storage implies that both the
decrease the environmental impacts of corn production by up to uptake of carbon as well as its release during use or waste

Weiss et al., Environmental Impacts of Biobased Materials S175

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Figure 3 The relative environmental impacts of a defined volume of loose-fill packaging materials produced from conventional and
extensively grown wheat starch. Source of data: Würdinger and colleagues 2002.

treatment must be accounted for as positive or negative emis- Conclusions and Outlook
sions. As a consequence, there may be systematically lower
The findings of this meta-analysis allow us to draw the fol-
GHG emissions for a cradle-to-factory gate analysis than for a
lowing conclusions:
cradle-to-factory gate analysis.
• Biobased materials save nonrenewable energy; they en-
End-of-Life Waste Treatment able the manufacturing industry to substitute renewable
Covering end-of-life waste treatment allows investigating feedstock for part of its fossil fuel-based or mineral-based
a wide range of waste treatment scenarios and specifically ad- feedstock.
dresses the question of whether biodegradability is an environ- • Biobased materials generally exert lower environmental
mentally favorable property of biobased materials. Hermann impacts than conventional materials in the category of
and colleagues (2011) show for polylactic acid that the product- climate change (if GHG emissions from indirect land use
specific GHG emissions might vary by approximately 20% de- change are neglected).
pending on whether or not energy is recovered during waste • Biobased materials may exert higher environmental im-
incineration. In the LCA study of loose fills, Würdinger and pacts than their conventional counterparts in the cate-
colleagues (2002) suggest that the differences in GHG emis- gories of eutrophication and stratospheric ozone deple-
sions between various waste treatment scenarios are similar to tion; our results are inconclusive with regard to acidifica-
the differences between biobased and fossil fuel-based loose-fills. tion and photochemical ozone formation.
These findings call for a detailed assessment of all major waste • Normalizing our results with worldwide average
management options, including landfilling, composting, waste- inhabitant-equivalent values suggests that biobased mate-
to-energy conversions, municipal waste incineration, digestion, rials can contribute more to nonrenewable energy savings
and recycling (Amlinger et al. 2008; Edelmann and Schleiss than to a decrease or increase of impacts in the five ana-
2001). Carbon cascading by using biomass first for material pur- lyzed environmental impact categories.
poses and then recovering energy through incineration at the • The environmental impacts of biobased materials span a
end of the product life cycle can maximize the GHG emissions wide range, partly due to the diversity of plausible method-
savings of biobased materials (Bringezu et al. 2009; Dornburg ological choices and assumptions made in the reviewed
et al. 2003; Oertel 2007). However, recent LCA studies have LCA studies. Thus caution must be taken when inter-
shown that composting can be more attractive than inciner- preting the outcome of this meta-analysis.
ation (thus carbon cascading) if compost is used to replenish • Our analysis only quantifies part of the environmen-
carbon stocks in agricultural soils (Hermann et al. 2011; Khoo tal impacts of biobased materials. More comprehensive
et al. 2010). quantitative analyses should address, in particular, land

S176 Journal of Industrial Ecology

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

use-related impacts (such as effects on biodiversity and This meta-analysis has highlighted the environmental po-
soil organic matter, soil erosion) as well as the risks tentials and challenges of biomaterials. Addressing persisting
related to the use of genetically modified crops and challenges may enable biobased materials to substantially de-
microorganisms. crease the environmental impacts from the production, use, and
• Biomass cultivation with conventional farming practices disposal of industrially manufactured materials.
is the key contributor to the high eutrophication and
stratospheric ozone depletion potentials of biobased mate-
rials. These impacts can be reduced by improving fertilizer Acknowledgements
management and employing extensive farming practices. The views expressed in this article are purely those of the
However, it should be considered that agricultural exten- authors and may not, under any circumstances, be regarded as
sification by, for example, decreasing the application of an official position of the European Commission. We thank
agrochemicals, may result in lower crop yields, thus in- Garvin A. Heath, Alexandra M. Newman, Juliana Stropp, and
creasing land requirements for biomass production. three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on
• The GHG emissions savings identified here are uncertain earlier drafts of this article.
because the reviewed LCA studies (1) may only insuf-
ficiently account for N2 O emissions from biomass culti-
vation and (2) exclude the effects of indirect land use Notes
change. Depending on product scenarios and time hori-
1. The total global production of bulk materials reached approxi-
zons, especially the latter factor may substantially lower
mately 6,500 megatonnes (Mt) in 2009. This figure comprises
the established GHG emissions savings. Further research the production of cement, iron and steel, bricks, glass, polymers
is needed. and other petrochemicals, lubricants, bitumen, aluminum, textiles,
wood, and paper (estimate based on Deimling et al. 2007; Lasserre
The entire life cycle of biobased materials offers the potential 2008; OGJ 2007; IAI 2010; Saygın and Patel 2010; UN 2008).
for decreasing environmental impacts. However, the reduction 2. One megatonne (Mt) = 106 tonnes (t) = one teragram (Tg,
of land use and its impacts on GHG emissions, eutrophica- SI) ≈ 1.102 × 106 short tons.
tion, and stratospheric ozone depletion might be most critical. 3. One gigajoule (GJ) = 109 joules (J, SI) ≈ 2.39 × 105 kilocalories
Three strategies could be pursued: (1) expanding the feedstock (kcal) ≈ 9.48 × 105 British thermal units (BTU). One metric ton
base by utilizing organic wastes as well as forest and agricul- (t) = 103 kilograms (kg, SI) ≈ 1.102 short tons. One kilogram (kg,
SI) ≈ 2.204 pounds (lb). Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 -eq) is
tural residues; (2) deploying integrated biorefineries that allow
a measure for describing the climate-forcing strength of a quantity
a more complete use of the biomass for producing biobased
of greenhouse gases using the functionally equivalent amount of
materials, energy, fuels, and heat; and (3) carbon cascading by carbon dioxide as the reference. Ethene is C2 H4 , commonly known
using biomass first for material purposes and second for energy as ethylene.
at the end of product life cycles. In developing countries, in- 4. One hectare (ha) = 0.01 square kilometers (km2 , SI) ≈ 0.00386
creasing yields and optimizing agricultural production are of square miles ≈ 2.47 acres.
paramount importance. A comprehensive accounting of global
land use for both food and nonfood biomass production would
allow assessing the overall effect on direct and indirect land use References
change as a basis for policy adjustments (Bringezu et al. 2012). Amlinger, F., S. Peyr, and C. Cuhls. 2008. Greenhouse gas emissions
To date, biobased materials are produced largely by small- from composting and mechanical biological treatment. Waste
scale pilot plants. Progress in biotechnology, technological Management & Research 26(1): 47–60.
learning, up-scaling of production facilities, and process inte- Arima, E. Y., P. Richards, R. Walker, and M. M. Caldas. 2011. Sta-
gration will likely reduce both the environmental impacts and tistical confirmation of indirect land use change in the Brazilian
the costs of biobased materials (Hermann et al. 2010; Vink et Amazon. Environmental Research Letters 6: 1–7.
al. 2010). To quantify existing possibilities, LCA results can Boustead, I. 2005a. Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry – High
be combined with assessments of the technical and economic density polyethylene (HDPE). Brussels, Belgium: PlasticsEurope.
potential of biobased materials (e.g., Saygın and Patel 2010). In Boustead, I. 2005b. Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry –
Low density polyethylene (LDPE). Brussels, Belgium: Plastics-
spite of current growth rates, biobased materials will require at
Europe.
least a decade to reach substantial market shares, even at high
Boustead, I. 2005c. Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry
fossil fuel prices (Saygın and Patel 2010; Shen et al. 2009b). – Polyethylene terephthalate (PET, amorphous grade). Brussels,
The economy-wide impact of biobased materials on nonrenew- Belgium: PlasticsEurope.
able energy use and GHG emissions will remain limited in the Boustead, I. 2005d. Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry –
long-term because feedstocks for synthetic materials production Polypropylene (PP). Brussels, Belgium: PlasticsEurope.
accounts for only 6% in the global fossil fuel supply. The vast Brandão M. and A. Levasseur. 2011. Assessing temporary carbon storage
majority of fossil fuel use and related GHG emissions can be at- in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting: Outcomes of an expert
tributed to energy conversions elsewhere in the economy (IEA workshop. ISBN 978-92-79-20350-3. Luxembourg: Publications
2009). Office of the European Union.

Weiss et al., Environmental Impacts of Biobased Materials S177

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Bringezu, S., M. O’Brien, and H. Schütz. 2012. Beyond biofuels: As- Gironi, F. and V. Piemonte. 2011. Bioplastics and petroleum-based
sessing global land use for domestic consumption of biomass. A plastics: Strengths and weaknesses. Energy Sources, Part A 33:
conceptual and empirical contribution to sustainable manage- 1949–1959.
ment of global resources. Land Use Policy 29(1): 24–232. Guinée, J. B. (ed.). 2001. LCA – An operational guide to the ISO stan-
Bringezu, S. and R. Bleischwitz (eds.). 2009. Sustainable resource man- dards, Part 1, 2, 3. Leiden, the Netherlands: Institute of Environ-
agement: Global trends, visions and policies. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf mental Science (CML), Leiden University.
Publishing. Guinée, J. B., R. Heijungs, and E. van der Voet. 2009. A greenhouse
Bringezu, S., H. Schütz, M. O’Brien, L. Kauppi, R. W. Howarth, and gas indicator for bioenergy: some theoretical issues with practical
J. McNeely. 2009. Towards sustainable production and consump- implications. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 14(4):
tion of resources: Assessing biofuels. Geneva, Switzerland: United 328–339.
Nations Environment Programme. Guo, M., A. P. Trzcinski, D. C. Stuckey, and R. J. Murphy. 2011.
Bruinsma, J. 2009. The resource outlook to 2050: By how much do land, Anaerobic digestion of starch-polyvinyl alcohol biopolymer pack-
water, and crop yields need to increase by 2050? Paper presented aging: Biodegradability and environmental impact assessment.
at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Bioresource Technology 102(24): 11137–11146.
expert meeting, 24–26 June, Rome, Italy. Harding, K. G., J. S. Dennis, H. von Blottnitz, and S. T. L. Har-
Cherubini, F. and G. Jungmeier. 2010. LCA of a biorefinery concept rison. 2007. Environmental analysis of plastic production pro-
producing bioethanol, bioenergy, and chemicals from switchgrass. cesses: Comparing petroleum-based polypropylene and polyethy-
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 15(1): 53–66. lene with biologically-based poly-β-hydroxybutyric acid using life
Corbière-Nicollier, T., B. Gfeller-Laban, L., Lundquist, J.-A. E. Leter- cycle analysis. Journal of Biotechnology 130(1): 57–66.
rier, Y., Månson, and O. Jolliet. 2001. Life cycle assessment of bio Haufe, J. 2010. Energie- und Treibhausgas-Einsparungen durch die
fibres replacing glass fibres as re-inforcement in plastics. Resources, Nutzung nachwachsender Rohstoffe (Langfassung) [Energy and
Conservation and Recycling 33(4): 267–287. greenhouse gas emission savings from biomass use]. In Entwicklung
Crutzen, P.J., A. R. Mosier, K. A. Smith, and W. Winiwarter. 2007. von Förderinstrumenten für die stoffliche Nutzung von Nachwach-
N2 O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warm- senden Rohstoffen in Deutschland – Volumen, Struktur, Substitu-
ing reduction by replacing fossil fuels. Atmospheric Chemistry and tionspotenziale, Konkurrenzsituation und Besonderheiten der stof-
Physics Discussions 7(4): 11191–11205. flichen Nutzung sowie Entwicklung von Förderinstrumenten [The de-
Deimling, S., M. Goymann, M. Baitz, and T. Rehl. 2007. Auswer- velopment of instruments to support the material use of renewable
tung von Studien zur ökologischen Betrachtung von nachwach- raw materials in Germany], edited by M. Carus, A. Raschka, and
senden Rohstoffen bei einer stofflichen Nutzung [Analyzing studies S. Piotrowski. Report-FKZ: 22003908. Hürth, Germany: Nova-
on the ecological evaluation of biomass use for materials]. FKZ 114- Institut.
50.10.0236/06-E. Leinfelden-Echterdingen, Germany: PE Inter- Heijungs, R., J. B. Guinée, G. Huppes, R. M. Lankreijer, H. A.
national. Udo de Haes, A. Wegener, A. Sleeswijk, A. M. M. Ansems,
Dinkel, F., C. Pohl, M. Ros, and B. Waldeck. 1996. Ökobilanz P. G. Eggels, R. van Duin, H. P. de Goede. 1992. Environmental
stärkehaltiger Kunststoffe [Life cycle assessment of starch-based poly- life cycle assessment of products – background and guide. NL-2300
mers]. Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr. 271/I-II. Bern, Switzerland: RA. Leiden, the Netherlands: Centre of Environmental Science
Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL). (CML).
Dornburg, V., I. Lewandowski, and M. K. Patel. 2003. Comparing the Hermann, B. G., K. Blok, and M. K. Patel. 2010. Twisting bio-based
land requirements, energy savings, and greenhouse gas emissions materials around your little finger: Environmental impacts of bio-
reduction of bio-based polymers and bioenergy. Journal of Industrial based wrappings. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
Ecology. 7(3–4): 93–116. 15(4) 346–458.
Dreyer, L. C., A. L. Niemann, M. Z. Hauschild 2003. Comparison Hermann, B. G., L. Debeer, B. de Wilde, K. Blok, and M. K. Patel. 2011.
of three different LCIA methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco- To compost or not to compost: LCA of biodegradable materials’
indicator 99. Does it matter which one you choose. International waste treatment. Polymer Degradation and Stability 96(6): 1159–
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 8(4): 191–200. 1171.
Edelmann, W. and K. Schleiss. 2001. Ökologischer, energetischer und Hoefnagels, R., E. M. W. Smeets, and A. Faaij. 2010. Greenhouse gas
ökonomischer Vergleich von Vergärung, Kompostierung und Verbren- footprints of different production systems. Renewable and Sustain-
nung fester biogener Abfallstoffe [Ecological, energetic, and economic able Energy Reviews 14(7): 1661–1694.
comparison of fermentation, composting, and incineration of solid bio- Hubert, B., M. Rosegrant, M. A. J. S. van Boekel, and R. Ortiz. 2010.
genic waste]. Bern, Switzerland: Bundesamt für Energie (BFE) and The future of food: Scenarios for 2050. Crop Science 50(2): 33–
Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL). 50.
EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2011. International en- IAI (International Aluminium Institute). 2010. Historic IAI
ergy outlook 2011. DOE/EIA-0484. Washington, DC, USA: statistics. London, UK: IAI. https://stats.world-aluminium.org/
EIA. iai/stats_new/index.asp. Accessed 3 August 2010.
Geyer, R., J. P. Lindner, D. M. Stoms, F. W. Davis, and B. Wittstock. IEA (International Energy Agency). 2009. Energy balances of non-
2010a. Coupling GIS and LCA for biodiversity assessments of OECD countries. Paris, France: IEA, Organization for Economic
land use; Part 1: Inventory modeling. International Journal of Life Cooperation and Development.
Cycle Assessment 15(5): 454–467. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006. 2006
Geyer, R., J. P. Lindner, D. M. Stoms, F. W. Davis, and B. Wittstock. IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Volume
2010b. Coupling GIS and LCA for biodiversity assessments of 4, Chapter 11. Geneva, Switzerland. www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/
land use; Part 2: Impact assessment. International Journal of Life public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_11_Ch11_N2O&CO2.pdf.
Cycle Assessment 15(7): 692–703. Accessed 4 November 2010.

S178 Journal of Industrial Ecology

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 2006a. Environ- food crisis: The environment’s role in averting future food crises – A
mental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and frame- UNEP rapid response assessment. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations
work. ISO 14040. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO. Environment Programme.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 2006b. Envi- OGJ. 2007. 2007 Worldwide refinery survey. Oil and Gas Journal. Tulsa:
ronmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and PennWell Corporation.
guidelines. ISO/FDIS 14044. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO. Ogle, S. M., S. J. Del Grosso, P. R. Adler and W. J. Parton. 2008. Soil ni-
Kaenzig, J., G. Houillon, M. Rocher, H. Bewa, L. Bodineau, M. Orphe- trous oxide emissions with crop production for biofuel: Implications for
lin, E. Poitrat, and O. Jolliet. 2004. Comparison of the environ- greenhouse gas mitigation. Oak Brook, IL, USA: Farm Foundation.
mental impacts of bio-based products. Proceedings of the 2nd world www.farmfoundation.info/news/articlefiles/371-the_lifecycle_
conference and technology exhibition on biomass for energy, industry carbon_footprint_of_biofuels.pdf#page=20. Accessed 15 Septem-
and climate protection, 10–14 May, Rome, Italy. ber 2011.
Karpenstein-Machan, M. 2001. Sustainable cultivation concepts for Oertel, D. 2007. Industrielle stoffliche Nutzung nachwachsender Rohstoffe.
domestic energy production from biomass. Critical Reviews in Plant Sachstandsbericht zum Monitoring “Nachwachsende Rohstoffe” [The
Sciences 20(1): 1–14. industrial use of biomass. Report on the monitoring of biogenic
Kim, S., and B. E. Dale. 2008. Energy and greenhouse gas profiles resources]. Berlin, Germany: Arbeitsbericht. www.tab.fzk.de/de/
of polyhydroxybutyrates derived from corn grain: A life cycle projekt/zusammenfassung/ab114.pdf. Accessed 13 April 2010.
perspective. Environmental Science & Technology 42(20): 7690– Patel, M. K., C. Bastioli, L. Marini, and E. Würdinger. 2003. Life-
7695. cycle assessment of bio-based polymers and natural fiber com-
Khoo, H. H., R. B. H. Tan, and K. W. L. Chng. 2010. Environmental posites. In General aspects and special applications. Biopolymers,
impacts of conventional plastic and bio-based carrier bags – Part 1: vol. 10, edited by A. Steinbüchel. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley
Life cycle production. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment -VCH.
15(3): 284–293. Patel, M. K., M. Crank, V. Dornburg, B. G. Hermann, L. Roes, B.
Komatsuzaki, M. and H. Ohta. 2007. Soil management practices Hüsing, L. Overbeek, F. Teraggni, and E. Recchia. 2006. Medium-
for sustainable agro-ecosystems. Sustainability Science 2(1): 103– and long-term opportunities and risks of the biotechnological production
120. of bulk chemicals from renewable resources – The potential of white
Lapola, D. M., R. Schaldach, J. Alcamo, A. Bondeau, J. Kocha, K. biotechnology. The BREW Project – Final Report. Utrecht, the
Koelking, and J. A. Priess. 2010. Indirect land use changes can Netherlands: Utrecht University.
overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil. Proceedings of the PlasticsEurope. 2007. Business data and charts 2006. Brussels, Belgium:
National Academy of Sciences 107(49): 3388–3393. PlasticsEurope Market Research Group (PEMRG).
Larson, E. D. 2006. A review of life-cycle analysis studies on liquid Plevin, R. J., M. O’Hare, A. D. Jones, M. S. Torn, and H. K. Gibbs.
biofuel systems for the transport sector. Energy for Sustainable 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels’ indirect land use
Development 10(2): 109–126. change are uncertain but may be much greater than previously
Lasserre, P. 2008. Global strategic management – The global estimated. Environmental Science and Technology 44(21): 8015–
cement industry. http://philippelasserre.net/contenu/Download/ 8021.
Global_Cement_industry.pdf. Accessed 3 August 2010. Piemonte, V. and F. Gironi. 2011. Land use change emissions: How
Le Duigou, A., J.-M. Deux, P. Davies, and C. Baley. 2011. PLLA/flax green are the bioplastics? Environmental Progress and Sustainable
mat/balsa bio-sandwich – environmental impact and simplified Energy 30(4): 685–691.
life cycle analysis. Applied Composite Materials 18: 421–438. Quirin, M., S. O. Gärtner, M. Pehnt, and G. A. Reinhardt. 2004.
Madival, S., R. Auras, S. P. Singh, and R. Narayan. 2009. Assessment CO2 -neutrale Wege zukünftiger Mobilität durch Biokraftstoffe: Eine
of the environmental profile of PLA, PET and PS clamshell con- Bestandsaufnahme [CO2 -neutral pathways towards future mobil-
tainers using LCA methodology. Journal of Cleaner Production 17: ity: The current situation of biofuels]. Heidelberg, Germany: In-
1183–1194. stitut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH
Miller, S. A., A. E. Landis, T. L. Theis, and R. A. Reich. 2007. A (IFEU). www.ufop.de/downloads/Co2_neutrale_Wege.pdf. Ac-
comparative life cycle assessment of petroleum and soybean-based cessed 2 May 2010.
lubricants. Environmental Science and Technology 41(11): 4143– Ravishankara, A. R., J. S. Daniel, and R. W. Portmann. 2009. Nitrous
4149. oxide (N2 O): The dominant ozone-depleting substance emitted
Müller-Sämann, K. M., G. A. Reinhardt, R. Vetter, and S. O. Gärtner. in the 21st century. Science 326(5949): 123–125.
2002. Nachwachsende Rohstoffe in Baden-Württemberg. Iden- Reinhardt, G. A., R. Herbener, and S. O. Gärtner. 2001. Life-cycle
tifizierung vorteilhafter Produktlinien zur stofflichen Nutzung unter analysis of lubricants from rape seed oil in comparison to conven-
Berücksichtigung umweltgerechter Anbauverfahren [Biomass re- tional lubricants. Heidelberg, Germany: Institut für Energie- und
sources in Baden-Württemberg: Identifying environmentally favor- Umweltforschung Heidelberg (IFEU). www.brdisolutions.com/
able bio-based products]. Report FZKA-BWPLUS, BWA 20002. pdfs/bcota/abstracts/13/z312.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2010.
Mühlheim, Germany: Institut für umweltgerechte Landbe- Reinhardt, G. A., A. Patyk, J. Calzoni, N. Caspersen, N. Dercas, G.
wirtschaftung (IfuL) and Heidelberg: Institut für Energie- und Gaillard, G. Gosse, M. Hanegraaf, L. Heinzer, N. Jungk, A. Kool,
Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH (IFEU). G. Korsuize, M. Lechner, B. Leviel, R. Neumayr, A. M. Nielsen,
Nebel, B., B. Zimmer, and G. Wegener. 2006. Life cycle assessment P. H. Nielsen, A. Nikolaou, C. Panoutsou, A. Panvini, J. Rath-
of wood floor coverings: A representative study for the German bauer, G. Riva, E. Smedile, C. Stettler, B. Pedersen Weidema,
flooring industry. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment M. Wrgetter, H. van Zeijts. 2000. Bioenergy for Europe: Which one
11(3): 172–182. fits best? – A comparative analysis for the community. Final Report
Nellemann, C., M. MacDevette, T. Manders, B. Eickhout, B. Svihus, FAIR V CT 98 3832. Heidelberg, Germany: Institut für Energie
A. Gerdien-Prins, and B. P. Kaltenborn. 2009. The environmental und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH.

Weiss et al., Environmental Impacts of Biobased Materials S179

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Rothermel, J. 2008. Raw material change in the chemical industry – The Vink, E. T. H., D. A. Glassner, J. J. Kolstad, R. J. Wooley, and R.
general picture. HLG Chemicals – Working Group Feedstock, En- P. O’Connor. 2007. The eco-profiles for current and near-future
ergy & Logistics. Presentation given on 7 February 2008 in Brus- NatureWorks R
polylactide (PLA) production. Industrial Biotech-
sels, Belgium, for the German Chemical Industry Association nology 3(1): 58–81.
(VCI). von Blottnitz, H., and M. A. Curran. 2007. A review of assessments
Saygın, D. and M. K. Patel. 2010. Renewables for industry: An overview conducted on bio-ethanol as a transportation fuel from a net
of the opportunities for biomass use. Prepared for the United Na- energy, greenhouse gas, and environmental life cycle perspective.
tions Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), Energy Journal of Cleaner Production 15(7): 607–619.
and Climate Change Branch. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Utrecht WBGU (Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung für Globale
University. Umweltveränderungen). 2008. Welt im Wandel: Zukunftsfähige
Scheer, C., R. Wassmann, K. Kienzler, N. Ibragimov, and R. Eschanov. Bioenergie und nachhaltige Landnutzung [A changing world: Sustain-
2008. Nitrous oxide emissions from fertilized, irrigated cotton able bioenergy and land use]. Berlin, Germany: WBGU.
(Gossypium hirsutum L.) in the Aral Sea Basin, Uzbekistan: Influ- Weiss, M. and M. K. Patel. 2007. On the environmental performance of
ence of nitrogen applications and irrigation practices. Soil Biology bio-based energy, fuels, and materials: A comparative analysis of
& Biochemistry 40(2): 290–301. life cycle assessment studies. In Renewable resources and renewable
Schmitz, N., J. Henke, and G. Klepper. 2009. Biokraftstoffe – Eine energy: A global challenge, edited by M. Graziani and P. Fornasiero.
vergleichende Analyse [Biofuels – A comparative analysis]. Gülzow, New York, NY, USA: Taylor & Francis.
Germany: Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe. Weiss, M., M. K. Patel, H. Heilmeier, and S. Bringezu. 2007. Applying
Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, R. A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, distance-to-target weighing methodology to evaluate the envi-
J. Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes, and T.-H. Yu. 2010. Use of U.S. ronmental performance of bio-based energy, fuels, and materials.
cropland for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions Resources, Conservation and Recycling 50(3): 260–281.
from land use change. Science 319(5867): 1238–1240. Williams, P. R. D., D. Inman, A. Aden, and G. A. Heath. 2009.
Sehy, U., R. Ruser, and J. C. Munch. 2003. Nitrous oxide fluxes from Environmental and sustainability factors associated with next-
maize fields: Relationship to yield, site-specific fertilization, and generation biofuels in the U.S.: What do we really know? Envi-
soil conditions. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 99(1–3): ronmental Science and Technology 43(13): 4763–4775.
97–111. Wicke, B., V. Dornburg, H. M. Junginger, and A. Faaij. 2008. Different
Shen, L., J. Haufe, and M. K. Patel. 2009a. Product overview and market palm oil production systems for energy purposes and their green-
projection of emerging bio-based plastics. PRO-BIP 2009. Utrecht, house gas implications. Biomass and Bioenergy 32(12): 1322–1337.
the Netherlands: Utrecht University. Wötzel, K., R. Wirth, and M. Flake. 1999. Life cycle studies on hemp
Shen, L. and M. K. Patel. 2010. Life cycle assessment of man-made fiber reinforced components and ABS for automotive sections.
cellulose fibres. Lenzinger Berichte 88: 1–59. Die Angewandte Makromolekulare Chemie 272(1): 121–127.
Shen, L. and M. K. Patel. 2008. Life cycle assessment of polysaccharide Würdinger, E., U. Roth, A. Wegener, R. Peche, W. Rommel, S. Kreibe,
materials: A review. Journal of Polymers and the Environment 16(2): A. Nikolakis, et al. 2002. Kunststoffe aus nachwachsenden Rohstof-
154–167. fen: Vergleichende Ökobilanz für Loose-fill-Packmittel aus Stärke bzw.
Shen, L., E. Worrell, and M. K. Patel. 2009b. Present and future devel- Polystyrol [Polymers from starch: A comparative life cycle assessment
opment in plastics from biomass. Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining for loose-fill packaging materials from starch and polystyrene]. Projekt-
4(1): 25–40. gemeinschaft BIfA / IFEU / Flo-Pak. DBU-Az. 04763. Heidelberg,
Sleeswijk, A. W., L. F. C. M. van Oers, J. B. Guinée, J. Struijs, and M. Germany: Institut für Energie und Umweltforschung Heidelberg
A. J. Huijbregts. 2008. Normalisation in product life cycle assess- GmbH.
ment: An LCA of the global and European economic systems in Zah, R., R. Hischier, A. L., Leão, and I. Braun. 2007. Curauá fibers in
the year 2000. Science of the Total Environment 390(1): 227–240. the automobile industry – A sustainability assessment. Journal of
Smeets, E. M. W., L. F. Bouwman, E. Stehfest, D. P. van Vuuren, and Cleaner Production 15(11–12): 1032–1040.
A. Posthuma. 2009. Contribution of N2 O to the greenhouse gas
balance of first-generation biofuels. Global Change Biology 15(1):
1–23. About the Authors
Turunen, L. and H. M. G. van der Werf. 2006. Life cycle assessment of
hemp textile yarn – Comparison of three hemp fiber processing scenarios Martin Weiss is a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute for
and a flax scenario. Paris, France: Institut National de la Recherche Energy and Transport and Miguel Brandão is a PhD researcher
Acronomique. at the Institute for Environment and Sustainability, both at
UBA (German Federal Environment Agency). 1995. Methodik der pro- the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Ispra,
duktbezogenen Ökobilanzen – Wirkungsbilanz und Bewertung [Meth- Italy. Juliane Haufe is a junior researcher on a freelance basis
ods for life cycle assessment – impact assessment]. UBA-Texte 23/95. and Michael Carus is managing director at the nova-Institut
Berlin, Germany: UBA.
GmbH, Hürth, Germany. Stefan Bringezu is director of the Re-
UN (United Nations). 2008. Industry commodity production data 1950–
search Group on Material Flows and Resource Management at
2005. CD-ROM. New York, NY, USA: UN Statistics Division.
UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme). 2000. The Mon- the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy,
treal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. Nairobi, Wuppertal, Germany. Barbara Hermann is a project manager
Kenya: UNEP. for the life cycle assessment of packaging at PepsiCo Inter-
Vink, E. T. H., S. Davies, and J. J. Kolstad. 2010. The eco-profile for national Limited R&D, Leicester, UK. Martin K. Patel is an
current Ingeo R
polylactide production. Industrial Biotechnology assistant professor of science, technology and society (STS) at
6(4): 212–224. Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

S180 Journal of Industrial Ecology

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Supporting Information
Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article.
Supporting Information S1: This supporting information lists the reviewed LCA studies and provides an overview of the
environmental impact categories covered in each individual study. It also presents a detailed overview of the average impacts,
expressed as differences between biobased and conventional materials, for six environmental impact categories and nine
groups of materials.
Please note: Wiley-Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by
the authors. Any queries (other than missing material) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

Weiss et al., Environmental Impacts of Biobased Materials S181