Reviews

ChemSusChem doi.org/10.1002/cssc.202002044

1
2
3 Biodegradable Plastics: Standards, Policies, and Impacts
4
5 Layla Filiciotto[a] and Gadi Rothenberg*[a]
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57

ChemSusChem 2020, 13, 1 – 18 1 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH GmbH

These are not the final page numbers! ��

 Reviews
ChemSusChem doi.org/10.1002/cssc.202002044

1 Plastics are ubiquitous in our society. They are in our phones, and require further efforts in research and commercialization.
2 clothes, bottles, and cars. Yet having improved our lives Here, a critical overview of the state of the art of biodegradable
3 considerably, they now threaten our environment and our plastics is given. Using a material flow analysis, the challenges
4 health. The associated carbon emissions and persistency of of the plastic market are highlighted, and with it the large
5 plastics challenge the fragile balance of many ecosystems. One market potential of biodegradable plastics. The environmental
6 solution is using biodegradable plastics. Ideally, such plastics and socio-economic impact of plastics, government policies,
7 are easily assimilated by microorganisms and disappear from standards and certifications, physico-chemical properties, and
8 our environment. This can help reduce the problems of climate analytical techniques are covered. The Review concludes with a
9 change, microplastics, and littering. However, biodegradable personal outlook on the future of bioplastics, based on our own
10 plastics are still only a tiny portion of the global plastics market experience with their development and commercialization.
11
12
1. Introduction come by. This Review will try and put things in the right
13
perspective. We will examine various aspects of biodegradable
14
Discrete historical and economic events trigger innovations.[1] In plastics, ranging from socio-economic and environmental
15
the 19th century, the demand for ivory skyrocketed in Europe impacts to hands-on approaches on assessing biodegradability
16
and America, driving up both price and exclusivity.[2] To including certifications and policies. Hopefully, these facts,
17
substitute this, a semi-synthetic plastic, Parkesine, was invented definitions, and figures will help people make better-informed
18
in 1862.[3] In the following decades, synthetic plastics were decisions about plastics in the future.
19
researched intensively, culminating with the invention of Nylon
20
in 1938. Together with other synthetic fibers, Nylon influenced
21
the outcome of World War II,[4] marking the dawn of the new 1.1. (Bio)degradability of Plastics in the Environment
22
plastic age. In 1950, each person used on average 1.7 kg of
23
plastics.[5] By 2007, annual consumption per capita rose to Allegedly, the first plastic sample ever made has still not
24
100 kg. Today the figure is > 140 kg.[6] degraded.[9,10] Yet an end-of-life can be identified for products
25
Plastics have several advantages over metal and paper. even without degradation. Plastics can be recycled, landfilled,
26
Their low energy requirement in production, low maintenance, or end up in the environment with or without modification.[11]
27
corrosion resistance, lightness, and durability have made them In 2013, 32 % of the 78 million tonnes of plastics produced
28
ubiquitous. Polymer foam insulators, for example, have im- ended up in the environment.[12] The latest estimates[13] put the
29
proved the energy efficiency of buildings by a factor of 200.[7] In number of plastic micro-pieces in the oceans at 5 × 1012. Such
30
the food sector, plastic packaging increased the shelf life of particles are categorized as either primary (1°) or secondary (2°).
31
products without using preservatives.[8] Yet it looks like Primary microplastics denote as-synthesized products (e. g.,
32
mankind‘s long-term romance with plastics is starting to plastic microbeads added to cosmetic products). Secondary
33
decline. Today, traditional plastics face public scrutiny because ones are microplastics formed by the degradation of the plastic
34
of their effects on human health and on the environment. To product. Major sources of microplastics are the wear and tear of
35
keep this multi-billion-dollar market rolling, the industry is automotive wheels (60–140 ktpa, 2°), followed by industrial loss
36
looking to develop plastics with new properties or raw of plastic pellets during transport (5–80 ktpa, 1°) and the wash
37
materials. The magic terms in this context are “bio-based” and of synthetic clothing (10–25 ktpa, 2°). Intentionally-added
38
“biodegradable”. Such new plastics are set to substitute the microplastics range between 50–500 tpa (1°).[14] Still, the
39
current persistent ones in the packaging, single-use, agricul- compounded weight of these microplastics is infinitesimal
40
tural, and fishing sectors. compared to the annual global production (see below). The
41
Yet moving from traditional plastics to eco-friendly ones is a high amount of mismanaged plastic waste, however, will
42
tricky challenge. The very definitions of “bio-based” and eventually form microplastics that will build up in the
43
“biodegradable” are unclear. Adjectives such as “green”, “circu- environment.[15] The dynamic character of our environment also
44
lar”, or indeed “eco-friendly” are even vaguer. Producers, causes each ecosystem to be contaminated by plastics and
45
consumers, and policy-makers are faced with a plethora of become part of human/animal food chains.[16,17] Thus, reducing
46
choices and approaches, where relevant information is hard to any type of microplastics will bring large benefits.
47
All plastics undergo some degradation, either physicochem-
48
[a] Dr. L. Filiciotto, Prof. Dr. G. Rothenberg ical and/or biological. Physicochemical processes include
49
Van’t Hoff Institute for Molecular Sciences weathering (degradation due to sunlight, wind, or waves) and
50 University of Amsterdam hydrolysis/oxidation. These processes affect all plastics and are
51 Science Park 904, 1098XH Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
E-mail: [email protected] the primary cause of microplastics.[18] Plastics that are designed
52
Homepage: http://hims.uva.nl/hcsc to degrade by oxidation or hydrolysis processes are called oxo-
53
© 2020 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH GmbH. This is an open access degradable and hydro-degradable plastics, respectively.[19] They
54 article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Com- are usually non-biodegradable as-is and require modification.
55 mercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for Oxo-degradable plastics are commonly fossil-carbon-derived
56
commercial purposes. plastics (e. g., polyolefins) with a mixture of additives. These
57

ChemSusChem 2020, 13, 1 – 18 www.chemsuschem.org 2 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH GmbH

These are not the final page numbers! ��

 Reviews
ChemSusChem doi.org/10.1002/cssc.202002044

additives are both prooxidants and antioxidants, the combina- hand, including chemical structure and crystallinity (see below).
1
tion of which induces time-controlled oxidation. Prooxidants Similarly, some petro-based plastics are also biodegradable. Bio-
2
are often metal stearates (e. g., iron stearate) and are balanced based plastics can be considered green as they are made from
3
by phenolic or phosphite antioxidants.[20,21] Photodegradable renewable resources.[29] At the waste management step, a
4
plastics are a sub-category of oxo-degradable plastics, where plastic is termed circular if its components are reused or
5
the oxidation process is induced by UV light ( � 4 % of natural recycled. Inasmuch as that plants use CO2 for growth and CO2 is
6
sunlight).[22] Hydro-degradable plastics are often a blend of emitted in aerobic degradation, bio-based and biodegradable
7
petro-based plastic with a natural polymer, such as starch.[23] plastics are circular.
8
Polyacrylamide (PA) is also considered as a hydro-degradable Bio-based but not biodegradable plastics often structurally
9
plastic given its water-holding capacity and eventual degrada- mimic petro-based plastics. These plastics are considered drop-
10
tion into biomass.[24–27] These plastics rely on the hydrophilic in solutions as they possess the same properties as their petro-
11
nature of the polymer for their decomposition into smaller based counterparts. Some examples include bio-polyethylene
12
oligomers. However, both oxo- and hydro-degradable plastics terephthalate (bio-PET), bio-polyethylene (bio-PE), or bio-poly-
13
are considered to cause microplastics in their end-life. amides (bio-PA or nylon). However, these plastics often have
14
Conversely, the degradation of biodegradable plastics is low feedstock efficiency or still include petro-based
15
caused by microorganisms (bacteria; fungal enzymes).[28] Biode- monomers.[30] For instance, current bio-PET production only
16
gradability may vary depending on humidity, temperature, and includes 32 % of bio-derived monoethylene glycol (MEG) while
17
other conditions. Ideally, plastics can degrade by aerobic and the remaining 68 % is fossil-carbon-derived terephthalic acid.
18
anaerobic organisms all the way to CO2, methane, water, and These low efficiencies are given by the inherently different
19
edible biomass/compost. Most commercial biodegradable plas- chemical structures of fossil-carbon- and plant-derived feed-
20
tics are converted into compost rather than gaseous products. stocks. In fact, the highly oxygenated nature of biomass will
21
For a plastic to be compostable, the organic matter formed hinder the synthesis of linear alkyl plastics (e. g., bio-PE). The
22
should be harmless to animal or plants. The compost can form development of polyethylene furanoate (PEF) by the Dutch
23
either at room temperature with food waste or, more company Avantium gives another approach for high-perform-
24
commonly, in industrial facilities at controlled temperatures ing bio-plastics.[31] PEF is analogous to PET, with the aromatic
25
(typically 58 °C). This is known as industrial compost and ring substituted by a furan ring. In this way, less oxygen is
26
requires appropriate collection and sorting of the plastic waste. removed from the original feedstock, allowing better yields. The
27
Consumers often confuse biodegradable plastics with bio- use of CO2 as feedstock can also be seen as “bio-based”. In fact,
28
based plastics (see overview in Table 1). The latter are plastics CO2 is both a renewable material and industrial waste. However,
29
made from biomass, generally related to the use of plants as current productions of CO2-based plastics are still reliant on
30
feedstock. Given their natural origin, one could erroneously petro-based co-polymers or only use CO2 as foaming agent.[32]
31
assume that these plastics are also biodegradable. However, Polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT) and polyvinyl
32
biodegradability depends on the properties of the plastic at alcohol (PVA) are examples of commercial petro-based biode-
33
34
35
Layla Filiciotto is a sustainability enthusiast Gadi Rothenberg was born in Jerusalem in
36 from a small town in Sicily with 50 % Swedish 1967, and immediately (well, 26 years later)
37 DNA. After learning chemistry in the U.S., she was awarded a BSc in chemistry cum laude
38 studied Industrial Chemistry at the University from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
39 of Messina (BSc) and Catalysis at Cardiff Instead of getting a real job, he continued for
40 University (MSc). She was then awarded a a PhD in Applied Chemistry, also cum laude,
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellowship in a Euro- and decided to become an academic. Since
41
pean Industrial PhD project (HUGS) between 2008 he is Professor and Chair of Heteroge-
42 the University of Córdoba and the Dutch neous Catalysis and Sustainable Chemistry at
43 company Avantium. Currently, she works on a the University of Amsterdam. Rothenberg
44 multi-industry project (BRECSIT) at the Univer- teaches courses on catalysis and workshops
45 sity of Amsterdam. Her research interests on scientific writing and innovation. He has
include air pollution, natural pesticides, bio- published three books and over 200 papers in
46
materials and plant-based chemicals, as well peer-reviewed journals, invented 16 patents
47 as the recycling and biodegradation of new and co-founded the companies Sorbisense,
48 chemical products. Yellow Diesel, and Plantics. The Chinese trans-
49 lation of his textbook Catalysis: Concepts and
50 Green Application was recently published by
51 the Chinese Ministry of Education. His current
research interests include porous materials for
52
clean energy, biomass conversion, and creat-
53 ing value from waste. Since 2020 he is also
54 the Technical Director CO2 and Circular Econo-
55 my of the Shanghai Institute for Cleantech
56 Innovation.
57

ChemSusChem 2020, 13, 1 – 18 www.chemsuschem.org 3 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH GmbH

These are not the final page numbers! ��

 Reviews
ChemSusChem doi.org/10.1002/cssc.202002044

1 Table 1. Definitions, examples, and chemical structures of bio-based, biodegradable, and oxo- and hydro-degradable plastics.
2 Plastic Definition Example[a] Chemical structure Ref.
3
a plastic made from
4 bio-based renewable resources, PEF [31]
5 namely biomass or waste
6 PHB
[30]
7 a plastic that can be (bio-based)
8 assimilated by bacteria
bio-degradable and/or fungi to give
9 environmentally PBAT
[30]
10 friendly products (fossil-carbon-based)
11
12
a plastic whose
13 degradability is induced
oxo-degradable Oxo-PP [20, 21]
14 by additives that initiate
15 oxidation reactions
16
a plastic whose degradability
17 hydro-degradable is induced by the polar groups PA [24–27]
18 susceptible to hydrolysis
19
[a] PEF = polyethylene furanoate; PHB = poly-4-hydroxybutyrate; PBAT = polybutylene adipate terephthalate; Oxo-PP = oxo-degradable polypropylene; PA =
20
polyacrylamide.
21
22
23
gradable plastics.[30] These products are used as mulch films or sugar processes will increase the sustainability of these plastics
24
dishwasher tablet packaging. Given the high water-solubility, (and might also impact the food sector, see below).
25
PVA could be also considered a hydro-degradable plastic. Both Figure 1 gives an overview of the life cycles of plastics. In
26
of these plastics can be potentially produced by bio-routes if the best-case scenario, a plastic will degrade independently of
27
monomers are developed industrially. For instance, Novamont the environment at hand. However, biodegradability is strictly
28
developed in collaboration with Genomatica a fermentation related to the biochemical interaction between materials and
29
route to bio-1,4-butanediol, one of the monomers of PBAT.[33] microorganisms. Furthermore, lab degradation studies often
30
Notable bio-based and biodegradable plastics are polyhy- overestimate natural biodegradability rates. Colder environ-
31
droxyalkanoates (PHAs) and polylactic acid (PLA).[30] Out of the ments, ecosystem dynamics, and mobility between eco-com-
32
PHAs, poly-3-hydroxyvalerate (PHV) and poly-4-hydroxybutyrate partments can hinder biodegradation. Microplastics could thus
33
(PHB) are the most known. The hydrophilic nature of these form with partial biodegradation.
34
polymers enables also hydro-degradation. PHAs and PLA are All things considered, biodegradability is the most appeal-
35
produced by bacterial fermentation of sugars. This process runs ing property of new materials when tackling (micro)plastics
36
at ambient temperature and pressure, using water as solvent. pollution. It can partially make up for littering and waste
37
However, the sugars are still derived from crops that compete management problems. Moreover, carbon emissions can be
38
with food sources.[34] Future development of lignocellulosic reduced if plants are used as feedstock.[35,36] Today, bio-based
39
and biodegradable plastics are predominantly used in food
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56 Figure 1. Various fates for petro-based and bio-based plastics, including landfill, recycling, and environmental degradation.
57

ChemSusChem 2020, 13, 1 – 18 www.chemsuschem.org 4 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH GmbH

These are not the final page numbers! ��

 Reviews
ChemSusChem doi.org/10.1002/cssc.202002044

packaging.[37] Regardless of whether they stem from petrol or reflects also population growth, which is projected to increase
1
biomass, the clear end-of-life of biodegradable plastics gives an even further until 2050.[52,53]
2
environmental advantage, especially in microbeads and pack- The use of waste products to make biodegradable plastics
3
aging materials. might offer a so-called cushion solution that has zero impact on
4
land use. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organ-
5
ization (FAO), one-third of all food resources worldwide were
6
2. The Environmental Impact of Plastics wasted in 2011.[54,55] A recent study in our group for the city of
7
Amsterdam shows how the major source of organic waste is
8
From an environmental point of view, the implementation of households, even more than food industries, services, and
9
biodegradable plastics should be analyzed very carefully. Of the production combined.[56] Even facing this dramatic datum, food
10
various indicators, the major contributing factor is the so-called waste continues, particularly in developed countries. In fact, EU
11
global warming potential (GWP). This looks at the CO2 footprint citizens produce approximately 70 kg of waste per capita[36]
12
of the process at every stage. (albeit that the leading waste management system in the EU is
13
Plant-based biodegradable plastics are often considered a energy recovery from waste[57–60]). Converting waste into plastics
14
priori with a zero or negative carbon footprint. However, when creates product value from zero, which is economically and
15
carbon emissions are calculated in life cycle assessments (LCAs), socially attractive. Some possible plastics from food waste were
16
the losses (e. g., land use, by-products) and the carbon reviewed by Sanchez-Vazquez et al.[61]
17
emissions during manufacturing are often disregarded.[38] That said, the major challenges of plastics lie in the current
18
Spierling et al. analyzed various LCAs for bio-plastics, showing waste management logistics. In particular, sorting different
19
the variability of the results depending on the choice of the wastes and the presence of hazardous mixtures challenge the
20
upper or lower GWP.[39] Using multiple datasets can give more current recycling efforts.[62] Undegradable plastics in landfills are
21
accurate LCA results.[40] Nevertheless, LCAs rely heavily on likely to leak into the environment and cause microplastics.
22
assumptions. Especially in the waste management of (biode- Worldwide, the values of landfilled plastic are 45–75 %.[63–67] The
23
gradable) plastics, LCA uncertainties can be cumbersome. In a high mobility of microplastics causes worldwide water contam-
24
Novamont study,[41] the GWP of biodegradable mulch films was ination, affecting human and animal health.[68] In this sense,
25
2–3 times lower than landfill and incineration, respectively. environmental analyses should consider the potential release of
26
Another study stated that composting and anaerobic biodegra- microplastics. However, studies on the potential release of
27
dation have higher environmental impacts than incineration microplastics from different types of plastics (e. g., bio-based)
28
with energy recovery.[42] The variability of results reflects the are rare, underestimating the issue. In fact, biodegradable
29
difficulties in the environmental assessment and stresses the microplastics were found to have negative effects on both
30
importance of a critical viewpoint. Even so, a significant freshwater[69] and marine species,[70] yet still with fewer
31
reduction of the carbon footprint is commonly recognized for ecological effects compared to petro-based ones. Furthermore,
32
bio-plastics compared to petro-based ones.[43,44] the molecules making the plastics have a significant impact on
33
The feedstock used for producing biodegradable plastics life. For example, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) was found to be more
34
will also have different impacts on society. Most of today‘s bio- harmful compared to high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and
35
based and biodegradable plastics are made from food crops. polylactic acid (PLA). This hints to the usual toxicity of halogen-
36
This creates concerns on the water-land nexus of bio-based containing molecules. In this sense, plastics made with safe
37
chemicals. Yet according to European Bioplastics, the propor- monomers will have a lower effect on (micro)organisms. The
38
tion of land required for bio-materials is 2 % of the overall land degradation of biodegradable plastics was found to be much
39
use. This includes materials other than plastics. In perspective, slower in turtles compared to the claimed biodegradability. The
40
the land used for plastics represents a mere 0.016 % in 2019 100 % biodegradability claim resulted in a degradation of up to
41
and is estimated to increase to 0.021 % by 2024. Land use for 8.5 % in the turtles’ digestive tract.[71] Even so, biodegradable
42
bio-fuels is 60 times larger.[45,46] In this sense, the land take plastics will still have an undeniably positive impact on uses
43
indicator (in km2 per year)[47] and/or soil sealing (in km2; also that are prone to enter the environment.
44
known as imperviousness)[48,49] can also impose the limits of
45
developing bio-based plastics (soil sealing represents the
46
physical area covered by anthropological constructions, land 3. The Socio-Economic Impact of Plastics
47
take is the annual rate of soil sealing). These indicators describe
48
the availability of land for construction and/or agricultural The socio-economic impact of plastics is vast. Global plastics
49
practices. The higher the values of these indicators, the less production of plastics was of 360000 Mtpa in 2018[72] and is
50
natural land is available. One of the UN sustainable develop- projected to surpass 600 Mtpa by 2050.[73] This data excludes
51
ment goals (SDG 15)[50,51] aims at having a zero net land take by plastic fibers, which could represent an approximately 10 %
52
2050 to favor natural habitats and improve agricultural increase of the total production ( � 40 Mtpa). In Europe alone,
53
practices. Yet even if constructions on arable lands have slowed the 2018 annual turnover was of more than E360Bn with a
54
down in the EEA-39 region, the land take was 12.5 times higher production of about 62 Mtpa, contributing approximately
55
than the re-cultivated land between 2000 and 2018. This E30Bn in taxes.[63,64] This represents only 17 % of the worldwide
56
production of plastics, preceded by Asia & Oceania (51 %) and
57

ChemSusChem 2020, 13, 1 – 18 www.chemsuschem.org 5 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH GmbH

These are not the final page numbers! ��

 Reviews
ChemSusChem doi.org/10.1002/cssc.202002044

North America (18 %) (Figure 2). Worldwide, China is the biggest Minimizing these losses will benefit both the environment and
1
player, with 30 % of the total plastic production. the economy.
2
Plastics are used across sectors in numerous applications. The total global production of both bio-based and biode-
3
The lead market share in Europe is taken by the packaging gradable plastics in 2019 was only 2.1 million tonnes. The
4
sector (Figure 3).[63,64,74] Compared to current options, plastic estimated production growth is a remarkable 14 % over
5
packaging is lighter and more durable.[75] However, the short 4 years.[46,72] However, this means that if plastic production
6
lifetime of packaging (typically < 6 months) creates much remained constant in the next 10 years, bio(degradable) plastics
7
waste. Biodegradable packaging can minimize the overall would rise to about 2 % of the total plastic market. A good
8
environmental impact. Similarly, using biodegradable plastics overview of market data, feedstocks, processes, and market
9
for agricultural applications (e. g., mulch films) could strongly leaders is given in the 2018 Eunomia report.[30]
10
reduce soil microplastics.[76] These two sectors (150 Mtpa in The increase of gross domestic product (GDP) will affect
11
total) could be potentially substituted by biodegradable plastics production, as people typically use more plastics as
12
plastics. In other applications, durability is the deciding factor, their income levels rise. The temporary reset caused by the
13
rather than biodegradability. If biodegradability could be tuned covid-19 pandemic notwithstanding, the world economy is
14
in a similar fashion to oxo-degradability, more sectors could be expected to grow steadily over the coming decades. The US
15
benefit. Overall, biodegradable plastics could take over approx- market is expected to increase from $44000 at purchasing
16
imately 50 % of the total plastics production. power parity ($PPP) to 81000 $PPP, and the EU-OECD countries
17
Over 20000 tons of plastics end up in the oceans every from 30000 to 60000 $PPP. For China, Indonesia, and India the
18
day.[73,77] This is caused by leaks from landfills, losses of plastic increase is estimated at a factor of 5–6 from a cumulative
19
pellets during pre-product logistics (e. g., transportation), and baseline of approximately 14000 $PPP (70000–84000 $PPP).[78,79]
20
littering. Transportation of industrial pellets causes economic The economic growth in Asia will further increase the global
21
losses of E70–105Bn. Of the collected plastic waste in Europe, a demand for plastics. Given this high demand, most polymers
22
quarter is still landfilled (worldwide landfilling is higher, will be still produced from fossil-carbon resources (today over
23
averaging between 45–75 %).[63] Based on Europe’s turnover for 95 % of plastics are produced from fossil-carbon resources).
24
plastics (E360Bn), this translates to another E90Bn per annum. The advent of fracking has fueled plastic production by
25
allowing an increased supply of fossil-carbon resources.[74] At
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Figure 2. Plastic production by country in 2019. NAFTA: North America Free Trade Agreement (Canada, Mexico, and United States); CIS: Commonwealth of
41 Independent States (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan).
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56 Figure 3. Plastic production by sector in Europe. Others include medical appliances, furniture, and machine building.
57

ChemSusChem 2020, 13, 1 – 18 www.chemsuschem.org 6 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH GmbH

These are not the final page numbers! ��

 Reviews
ChemSusChem doi.org/10.1002/cssc.202002044

the same time, only 4–6 % of these resources are used to European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC) argues
1
produce plastics worldwide and require less energy for their that shared responsibility between the manufacturer and the
2
production, transportation, and use.[80] If non-renewable carbon consumer can be introduced by increasing the price of plastic
3
resources were used solely for plastics, the lifespan of fossil- packaging.[87] However, fossil-carbon-derived plastics should not
4
carbon sources would increase at least ten-fold. In this sense, be considered at the same level of biodegradable and bio-
5
the manufacturing capacity will also depend on renewable based plastics. The low oil price[88,89] makes the competition
6
energy solutions. A model-based study estimated different with petro-based plastics difficult. A proper incentive, such as a
7
scenarios of future energy demand per capita.[81] The alarming higher carbon tax[90,91] could steer companies and consumers
8
results of the worst-case scenario (i. e., continuous growth of into making environmentally sensible choices.
9
GDP) require the use of all fossil-carbon resources and a Education on littering is crucial given the alarming amount
10
significant growth of renewable energy to satisfy the popula- of debris in the oceans.[92] Factors like the existence of small/
11
tion. In that scenario, petro-based biodegradable plastics could single-use consumer goods (e. g., individual ketchup sachets in
12
hinder economic growth by removing resources from fuels. fast-food restaurants) and tourism have been identified as
13
Recycled and plant-based biodegradable plastics can undeni- drivers of plastic littering.[74] A lack of easily recognizable sorting
14
ably contribute to satisfying the future world demand. bins can hinder proper waste management. However, throwing
15
Human health and safety are interlinked to climate change, trash in public shows marked neglect of pollution’s
16
feedstock choice, and microplastic formation. For climate consequences.[93] If we consider only mismanaged waste, Asian
17
change, two indicators exist on the link between health and countries were identified as the biggest polluters worldwide.[94]
18
extreme temperatures[82] or inundations.[83,84] Excessive heat and Yet the US and EU are the biggest producers of plastic waste
19
floods cause premature deaths and are directly related to the per capita, giving another perspective of the “biggest polluters”.
20
emissions of greenhouse gases. Natural feedstocks (e. g., plants) This hints to a lack of proper infrastructures in waste manage-
21
may be perceived as safer, but they pose different risks ment and highlights the waste export industry: plastic is often
22
compared to petro-based ones. For instance, mould inhalations shipped to developing countries for disposal.[95] The poorest
23
and self-ignition of biomass were identified as the major risks in people worldwide earn a living by collecting, sorting, and
24
storage areas.[85] Similarly, dust explosions might occur if selling recyclable waste from landfills, bins, and streets.[74] This
25
powder biomass is used. Some of the molecules derived from sad reality might be an inverse driver of waste management as
26
biomass are toxic, thus requiring safety studies regardless of it provides income to the poor. Yet if education and jobs
27
their natural origin. Safe in use, microplastics are a post- opportunities are improved, waste management practices can
28
consumer environmental hazard. Minimizing waste, improving be improved. Littering will decrease with an increased aware-
29
waste management, and higher biodegradability can limit their ness of pollution and climate change.
30
impact. Various socio-economic factors can be positively affected by
31
Despite the increasing awareness of the dangers of micro- bio-based and biodegradable plastics (Figure 4; note that
32
plastics, customers may advocate the preference for sustainable several of these factors are co-dependent).
33
products while showing reluctance to change their consumer
34
behavior.[86] A recent study shows that an industrial change
35
might be a bigger driver for biodegradable plastics as opposed 4. Material Flow Analysis of Plastics in 2019
36
to customer choices. Unfortunately, the average consumer
37
doesn’t distinguish “bio-based” from “biodegradable”.[61] In this By combining the information obtained from different
38
sense, education on sustainable industrial practices might sources,[15,67,72–74,77,94] we carried out a material flow analysis
39
improve customers’ viewpoint on plastics. A report by the (MFA) for the year 2019 (see Figure 5). In particular, a “business-
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56 Figure 4. Socio-economic impact categories for biodegradable plastics and positive or negative change of different indicators.
57

ChemSusChem 2020, 13, 1 – 18 www.chemsuschem.org 7 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH GmbH

These are not the final page numbers! ��

 Reviews
ChemSusChem doi.org/10.1002/cssc.202002044

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 Figure 5. Sankey diagram showing the MFA for fossil-carbon-based, bio-degradable, bio-based, and CO2-based plastics in 2019. All values are in millions of
tonnes.
35
36
37
38
as-usual” scenario was considered, that is, a 3.2 % yearly either mismanaged or landfilled, amounting to 78 % of all
39
increase in plastic production worldwide.[74] From 359 mil- municipal waste. Biodegradable plastics were assumed to form
40
lion tonnes in 2018, more than 370 tonnes can be estimated for compost. However, most biodegradable plastics are still incin-
41
2019. Compounding the data reported in 2019 for biodegrad- erated due to the high cost of industrial composting facilities.[74]
42
able/bio-based plastics[72] and CO2-based plastics,[32] the contri- Landfills and mismanaged waste are the major causes of
43
bution of sustainable plastics is nearly unnoticeable. Of the microplastics in the environment. Between 15–40 % of misman-
44
biodegradable plastics, an average of 200 ktpa are produced aged plastics enter the oceans from coastal cities.[94] Most of the
45
per type.[30] This value represents approximately 0.0005 % of all microplastics that form in these conditions (soil, coastlines) are
46
plastics produced every year. This colossal difference demon- difficult to quantify.[96] Estimates of microplastics released in the
47
strates the effort needed to displace the fossil-carbon giant, but soil in Europe are comparable to those reported for the oceans
48
also the enormous market potential of biodegradable plastics. in the same region.[73,76] Other microplastics are formed before
49
Lebreton and Andrady provided projections for total and entering the waste management system. These are caused by
50
mismanaged quantities of plastic waste.[15] Including this 2015 wear and tear of rubber and synthetic clothing or during pellet
51
data, we calculated the quantities of plastics that are landfilled, transportation.[14] In the MFA diagram these are considered as
52
recycled, and whose energy is recovered in 2019.[66,67,74] Almost production losses (directly formed microplastics, Figure 5). The
53
60 % of the yearly plastics production ends in waste manage- cumulative quantity of these “pre-waste” microplastics is similar
54
ment. Ideally, all of the municipal plastic waste will be then to the world production of CO2-based plastics, that is, extremely
55
either recycled, burned for energy, or composted. Nevertheless, small. But the real challenges of microplastics are not based on
56
it is clear from the MFA diagram that the majority of waste is
57

ChemSusChem 2020, 13, 1 – 18 www.chemsuschem.org 8 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH GmbH

These are not the final page numbers! ��

 Reviews
ChemSusChem doi.org/10.1002/cssc.202002044

their relative quantity, rather on their effect on all living species limited impact of biodegradable plastics in land take, improve-
1
and their persistency. ments of soil quality and availability can only be beneficial to
2
The lifespan of plastic products can exceed 20 years. Thus, a this kind of plastics. In 2019, the EU imposed a ban on the
3
portion of plastics ( � 30 %)[64,77] will still be in use each year. production of oxo-degradable plastics thought to produce
4
However, the sum of all the different fates still leads to about persistent microplastics in the environment.[100] This ban,
5
20 % of plastics that are unaccounted for. This could be a however, excludes the knowledge transfer of this particular
6
warning sign of the amount of littering, illegal exports, and category to bio-based plastic. If oxidation is combined with a
7
underestimated values of plastic waste. Overall, a significant bio-plastic, enhanced biodegradability could be observed.
8
improvement in waste management worldwide is needed. From the financial point of view, the 2018 EU regulation
9
Accelerating the development of sustainable plastics, such as facilitates sustainable investment by setting clear criteria for
10
biodegradable ones, will positively impact the plastic market. assessing the green investment funds.[101,102] Fees to discourage
11
plastic production are imposed in Europe under the extended
12
producer responsibility (EPR).[103] According to the EASAC report,
13
these fees are too low (E50–250 per tonne) and vary
14 5. Government Policies on (Micro)Plastics Use significantly between countries.[87] Nevertheless, said fees are
15
and Registration not imposed worldwide, and a higher price could only reduce
16
the European companies’ competitiveness. At the same time,
17
Policies have the power to shift the companies’ focus towards the economic burden to develop properly recyclable and/or
18
different approaches, either locally or as international protocols. biodegradable plastics can be significant for companies. For
19
Since the establishment of the United Nations’ 17 sustainable this, Europe allocates investment schemes for research under
20
development goals (SDGs),[51] many companies have advocated the Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe programs.[104,105] In the
21
sustainable practices. According to the goals, plastics produc- latter, the investment focus now includes industrial digital-
22
tion will look at using renewable sources without impacts on ization and cybersecurity, reducing the funding available for
23
humans’ health (SDG3), climate change (SDG13), life below climate-related technologies. Of the proposed budget (origi-
24
water (SDG14), and life on land (SDG15). Circularity should also nally E100Bn, but still under debate) half is envisioned for
25
be considered, tackling SDG11 (sustainable cities and commun- public–private partnerships (PPPs). The majority of PPPs (70 %,
26
ities) and SDG12 (responsible production and consumption). E35Bn) will be allocated to innovative small and medium
27
Yet even with the adoption of the SDGs, the transition towards enterprises (SMEs) for product development at low technology
28
environmentally friendly plastics is still slow and requires readiness levels (TRL1–5, ideation/product development). How-
29
country-specific policies. ever, bio-based and biodegradable plastics often lack the
30
The biggest impact on the reduction of plastic waste was economic push for commercialization (high TRLs) given the low
31
given by the Chinese waste import ban of 2017.[97] This pushed price of petroleum feedstocks and long-established industrial
32
several countries to find other solutions for their plastic waste, processes.
33
implementing recycling processes and developing biodegrad- The public uproar over microplastics has pushed policy-
34
able plastics. Europe halved its monthly plastic waste export makers to start acting on the matter. The UK already enforced a
35
with these restrictions (from 300 to 150 ktons). Yet other ban on microbeads used for cosmetic and cleaning purposes in
36
countries still accept plastic waste. As mentioned above, sorting 2018.[106] This ban was impelled by the release of up to
37
of plastics in landfills is an important source of income for a 500 million microplastics per day despite an 80 % retention rate
38
part of the world population. Countries like Malaysia ( � 11 %), in UK wastewater treatment plants.[71] At the EU level, politicians
39
Thailand ( � 6 %), and Vietnam ( � 5 %) are the biggest import- are evaluating reports to make an informed choice for new bills.
40
ers, while the US ( � 16 %), Japan ( � 15 %), and Germany ( For instance, the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) has
41
� 13 %) are the biggest exporters. US exports of plastic waste in recently provided a socio-economic assessment on intentionally
42
2018 reached almost 9500 kton.[74] In 2019, the Basel Conven- added microplastics (e. g., microbeads in cosmetics).[107] These
43
tion, now signed by 187 countries worldwide (excluding the US, microbeads could be substituted with truly biodegradable
44
among others), called for more domestic solutions in dealing materials, offering an eco-friendly solution. However, microbe-
45
with (hazardous) waste.[98] This new agreement will only come ads per se might superfluous, so their use should be closely
46
into effect in 2021. Meanwhile, the garbage export to Asian scrutinized.
47
countries continues. New and existing (bio)plastics with productions of over one
48
At the European level, the new EU Green Deal 2020 will tonne need to comply with chemical registration regulations.
49
target (illegal) waste exports to Asian countries. At the same Such regulations exist worldwide to reduce the uncontrolled
50
time, a regulatory framework for biodegradable and bio-based release of toxic substances. The REACH regulation at the EU
51
plastics is set to be implemented. The ambitious plan will also level bans substances of very high concern [SVHCs, i. e.,
52
look at the local improvement of waste management techni- carcinogenic, mutagenic, or toxic for reproduction (CMR),
53
ques, which could in turn push recycling processes forward, persistent and/or bio-accumulative substances], which nowa-
54
reducing the need for biodegradable plastics. Amelioration of days only account for 205 small molecules.[108,109] However,
55
rural areas with a new financial plan will incentivize both considering the cumulative and detrimental effect of (micro)
56
circular and bio-economies.[99] Although we discussed the plastics, these should be included in the SVHCs list. Yet the
57

ChemSusChem 2020, 13, 1 – 18 www.chemsuschem.org 9 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH GmbH

These are not the final page numbers! ��

 Reviews
ChemSusChem doi.org/10.1002/cssc.202002044

restriction process is also fairly lengthy and costly: prior to the The first guidelines for testing chemicals were given by the
1
review period (set to 45 days), the manufacturer must have all OECD in the 1980s and sporadically updated thereafter.[116]
2
product and biodegradability testing done in a GLP-certified These guidelines are offered free of charge online and include
3
laboratory. In the future, the classification and management of various methods. However, these guidelines are not recognized
4
hazardous substances in (new) waste streams might be worldwide and act as self-certification. For a moderate fee
5
improved by the EU Green Deal.[110] (E50–100), certified standard tests are available worldwide. The
6
Worldwide, the focus on sustainability is limited to interna- International Standards Organization (ISO) offers a series of tests
7
tional protocols rather than local bills. At the US level environ- regarding biodegradability in various environments (e. g., soil,
8
mental policies appear to have a lower focus. To face littering, activated sludge, seawater, marine sediment), and these are
9
the US still enforces the 1972 Clean Water Act.[111] Concerning regularly updated.[117] The organization is supported by the
10
biomass, instead, the US government had released in early 2012 United Nations Standards Coordinating Committee (UNSCC),
11
its National Bioeconomy Blueprint. This bill focuses on fuels acting as a global harmonization attempt. At the EU level, the
12
produced from CO2 and biodegradable plastics made from European Committee for Standardization (CEN) proposes a
13
renewable biomass.[112] Currently, only California is setting up a series of biodegradability tests for packaging and agricultural
14
law to phase out plastics that cannot be compostable or plastics (e. g., mulch films); for other applications, CEN refers to
15
recyclable, and even this legislation faces bureaucratic the ISOs.[118] At the US level, American Society for Testing and
16
resistance.[113] Other countries, such as China, also have limited Materials (ASTM) standards use the imperial system and were
17
policies on biodegradable plastics but support research via recently updated.[119] These tests allow to compare biodegrad-
18
funding.[114] Rwanda is setting the example for African countries ability worldwide, but give no certification. A certification (with
19
in banning imports and single-use plastics while improving the a label or conformity mark) can only be given by an accredited
20
country’s economy.[115] For more country-specific policies on body, upon a one-time and/or annual payment.
21
bio-plastics, see the Organization for Economic Co-operation In general, when comparing the different tests, various
22
and Development (OECD) report.[114] definitions of biodegradability also arise. Of the ones consid-
23
ered by an ECHA report, we can distinguish three categories for
24
aerobic degradation: ready, inherent, and ultimate biodegrad-
25
ability. These tests vary in duration and percentage of
26 6. Standards and Certifications for biodegradation (measured as percentage of the theoretical O2
27
Biodegradable Plastics demand).[107] Table 2 gives the differences in biodegradability
28
terms.
29
Regardless of their feedstock or durability, all plastics appear All the tests are run in parallel against multiple blanks
30
similar to the eye. Thus, a series of standardized tests, (microbiota in chosen media only) and a reference substance
31
certifications, and corresponding labels are provided online. For (e. g., aniline, microcrystalline cellulose). Pre-adaptation of the
32
biodegradability, a variety of tests exists with specified con- microorganisms to the test substance is not allowed. By using
33
ditions. Standardized tests often strike a balance between a dissolved organic carbon (DOC, Zahn-Wellens) or biological
34
time-efficient testing (shortest 14 days, longest 24 months) and oxygen demand (BOD, MITI II test) measurements, a material
35
real-life conditions. In fact, higher temperatures than real can be considered inherently biodegradable if it reaches at least
36
conditions are often used to speed up the testing time. 70 % within 14 days.[120,121] A readily biodegradable material
37
Companies developing new plastics need to invest significant instead requires at least 60 % in a 10 days window within
38
resources in self-assessing product sustainability and in certifi- 28 days.[122–124] The window begins when 10 % biodegradation is
39
cation. The overall biodegradability assessment, including reached. Ultimate biodegradation is obtained when the test
40
laboratory spaces and equipment, becomes costly and time substance degrades by 90 % of the reference material. Duration
41
consuming. of the test depends on the ecosystem and could last a
42
maximum of 6 months in (sea)water.[125,126] For soil[127] and
43
44
45
46 Table 2. Differences between the three types of degradation.
47 Biodegradation Minimum Timeframe of Maximum test Analytical Standard Ref.
48 degradation [%] degradation duration method

49 inherently 70 within 14 days DOC or BOD OECD 302B or 302 C [92, 93]
50 degradable maximum analysis[a]
duration
51 readily 60 10 days[b] 28 days CO2 evolved OECD 301, 306, 310 [94–96]
52 degradable or O2 demand
53 ultimately 90 within 6 months (aqueous); CO2 evolved ISO 14851, 14852 (aqueous), [97–101]
degradable maximum 24 months (soil, or O2 demand ISO 17556 (soil),
54 duration seawater/sediment) ISO 19679, 18830
55 (seawater/sediment)
56 [a] DOC: dissolved organic carbon, BOD: biological oxygen demand. [b] Only after 10 % degradation is reached.
57

ChemSusChem 2020, 13, 1 – 18 www.chemsuschem.org 10 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH GmbH

These are not the final page numbers! ��

 Reviews
ChemSusChem doi.org/10.1002/cssc.202002044

marine sediment or seawater/sediment interface,[128,129] the standardized tests (e. g., ISOs) suggest the use of
1
maximum test period is 24 months. For a critical review on respirometers.[135] Other methods may rely on simple manomet-
2
biodegradability in freshwater, see the work of Harrison et al.[130] ric measurements by the use of BOD bottles or as in the MITI
3
The customer can recognize a biodegradable material only test proposed in the OECD guidelines.[121,122] Titrimetric measure-
4
if a label is placed on the product. Some of the common ments of the quantity of CO2 adsorbed in a base [e. g., Ba(OH)2]
5
certified labels are provided by organizations such as TÜV can be used too.[122] Using a DOC analyzer can also be an
6
AUSTRIA, DIN Certco (of TÜV Rheinland), or the European option, where the dissolved inorganic carbon is measured (e. g.,
7
Union.[131–133] The different conformity marks depend on the Zahn-Wellens/EVPA tests).[120,123,136,137] Analogously, the total
8
environment and type of plastic: organic carbon (TOC) can be measured. All of the tests must be
9
* Freshwater: The OK Biodegradable Water label certifies done in the dark with controlled conditions (temperature,
10
biodegradability in freshwater. This label requires detailed humidity). Although differences exist in sensitivity of the
11
product description and biodegradability tests. analyses, the choice often relies on availability and standard
12
* Seas: The OK Biodegradable Marine label certifies biodegrad- used. All of these analytical techniques possess inherent
13
ability in seawater and includes ecotoxicity studies. measurement errors, especially if done manually. Proper assess-
14
* Compost: Products that can be thrown in the food waste ment of biodegradability today requires a significant invest-
15
bear the conformity mark or label OK home compostable. ment in equipment (e. g., the respirometer shown in Figure 6
16
Other products bear the certificate OK compost IND, related costs � E65k).
17
to industrial composting facilities. A Compostable (Seedling) Measurement errors arise given a big variability of the
18
label also exists. DIN Certco uses the DIN Geprüft logo and media respiration (without sample, e. g., soil respiration). In fact,
19
specifies the biodegradability category. These labels are multiple parallel blank measurements are required (at least 3)
20
based on a series of standards depending on the compost to assess the “base” respiration (i. e., of the water, soil, etc.). The
21
environment. sample too should be done in replicates. This means that
22
* Bio-based: Din Certco provides Bio-based > 85 %, OK Biobased, analyzing a single substance requires six parallel reactors. Other
23
and USDA certified biobased product (based on the standard techniques, for example, monitoring isotopic carbon, can be
24
EN16785-1). The Royal Netherlands Standards Foundation used according to OECD guidelines.[138–140] However, this is an
25
(NEN) has also launched a certification scheme in 2016 (NCS expensive technique and usually used for potentially SVHC
26
16785) with a label indicating the percentage of bio-based pesticides.
27
content. Compostable plastics are monitored by thermogravimetric
28
* Overall environmental protection: The EU Ecolabel looks at analysis and calorimetry for home and industrial composting,
29
the sustainability of the whole manufacturing process of a respectively. Even if one of the requirements for a material to
30
product (e. g., amount of hazardous additives, circular waste be compostable is no ecotoxicity, standardized tests (e. g.,
31
streams, water recycling systems). The company must ISO 14855) exclude ecotoxicity studies.[141,142] Ecotoxicity was
32
provide all relevant tests and pay both a one-time and an only included in a withdrawn ASTM test (D6692-01).[143]
33
annual fee for using the label. This label can include However, the test was based on the analysis of 14CO2 from
34
biodegradable materials that are produced sustainably. radiolabeled polymers (cost-ineffective). Nevertheless, when
35
applying for a conformity mark, ecotoxicity must be evaluated.
36
The variety of labels can cause confusion. For instance, the Standardized tests suggest using small films (no larger than
37
Seedling label strictly refers to industrial composting. However, 5 mm × 5 mm) or the powder form (maximum 250 μm diameter)
38
the logo is vague and could be confused for materials of the plastics. A study on the granulometry effect showed
39
degrading with food waste (i. e., home composting). Some improved biodegradation when in the nano form.[144] This
40
products make false claims. For instance, a study on commercial
41
biodegradable plastics shows that only four out of the six tested
42
plastics were showing degradation.[134] Standardization of labels
43
could help both travelers and migrants. Most importantly,
44
ethical approaches should be at the base of biodegradability
45
claims, ensuring a positive impact on society.
46
47
48
49 7. Analytical Techniques for Biodegradability
50
and Microplastics
51
52
Most aerobic tests look at CO2 evolution or O2 demand as the
53
necessary gases involved in microbial life. Similarly, in anaerobic
54 Figure 6. Biodegradability equipment (Respicond™) at the Institute for
digestion, the evolution of methane is measured. The uptake or Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics (IBED) of the University of Amsterdam.
55
release of gases can be measured by different methods and is The setup consists of 96 parallel respirometers in a temperature-controlled
56 water bath under dark conditions. Photo by L. Filiciotto.
used for all media (soil, water, and seawater). Many of the
57

ChemSusChem 2020, 13, 1 – 18 www.chemsuschem.org 11 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH GmbH

These are not the final page numbers! ��

 Reviews
ChemSusChem doi.org/10.1002/cssc.202002044

approach excludes the first biodeterioration and/or weathering detector (TCD) is often used to assess biodegradability. Human
1
step of a bottle or similar. This deterioration could be error can be eliminated with an automatic sampler or an online
2
monitored by analyzing the molecular weight of an actual system (continuous sampling). Using a flame ionization detector
3
plastic product. The available techniques are gel permeation (FID) or a mass spectrometer (MS) could help to analyze the
4
chromatography (GPC) or matrix-assisted laser desorption monomers/oligomers coming from the degradation of plastics.
5
ionization time of flight (MALDI-TOF); however, the solubility of As seen for PVC, certain molecules could be highly toxic and
6
the plastic is usually the issue. Sometimes, biodegradability is can be assessed in laboratory conditions.[70] The combination of
7
assessed on the pellets rather than the final product. This will a series of analytical methods could give a better estimate of
8
also give a higher result as it ignores the thermal effect on the biodegradation. There is a trade-off between proper assessment
9
crystallinity of the materials (see below). and time-efficient analysis. Figure 7 summarizes the commonly
10
Photodegradation and accelerated weathering are assessed used analytical techniques and workflow.
11
by UV/Visible (UV/Vis) spectroscopy and infrared (IR) analysis
12
with the ISO 10640.[145] Nevertheless, UV/Vis is limited to plastics
13
presenting chromophores (e. g., conjugated double bond). IR
14 8. Physicochemical Properties and
analysis can give complex spectra of difficult interpretation.
15
Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) analysis can also be used. Biodegradability
16
However, when considering new bio-based plastics, the final
17
structure could have no clear repeating unit, which could The design of biodegradable plastics is hindered by the
18
complicate the final spectra. These analyses, in turn, are useful complexity of the processes involved and the lack of consistent
19
in monitoring released monomers or changes in the molecular data. Several physical and chemical properties influence bio-
20
structure.[146] degradability. The surface area of the plastic product is propor-
21
The formation of microplastics is overlooked by the stand- tional to its biodegradation. Hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity also
22
ardized tests, and no standard is available for their analysis. On influence biodegradation. Usually, hydrophilic microbes give
23
the same line, the recommended temperatures in the tests higher biodegradation rates.[148] For example, the assimilation of
24
range between 15–28 °C (except for industrial composting traditional petro-based plastics (e. g., PE) improves if carboxylic
25
facilities, which use 58 °C). However, the environment is usually acid groups are introduced.[149] Generalizing this, bio-based
26
at lower temperatures (seawater at 9 °C, freshwater and soil at plastics containing heteroatoms will be more biodegradable. At
27
12 °C average).[71] Moreover, all the standardized tests are the same time, factors like high crystallinity, melting temper-
28
carried out in the dark, excluding the effect of solar light and ature (Tm), glass transition temperature (Tg), and molecular
29
meteorological conditions (e. g., wind). At the same time, weight can reduce biodegradability. In general, the higher the
30
instead of freshwater, activated sludge is suggested by stand- molecular weight, the lower the biodegradability. Some plastics
31
ards. Activated sludge has more microbiota (also known as (e. g., LDPE)[150] biodegrade faster thanks to their amorphous
32
colony forming units, CFUs). In this sense, activated sludge is character given by branching. However, branching alone is not
33
not indicative of the real environmental conditions for plastic a guarantee for biodegradability.[149] If annealed after injection-
34
litter. Furthermore, the tests overlook the microorganisms’ molding, PLA becomes less biodegradable.[151]
35
ability to fight pollution and maintain the ecosystems’ balance Chemically, based on the knowledge derived from studies
36
via adaptation.[147] on small molecules (such as pesticides), the presence of
37
Generally, standards look at the microbial effect on the oxygen-containing groups (e. g., ester, acid) is considered as an
38
plastic, neglecting the possible released molecules that are not enhancer to biodegradation. In fact, the presence of oxygen will
39
CO2. Gas chromatography (GC) with a thermal conductivity improve the polar interaction with water and thus hydrolysis.[152]
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56 Figure 7. Sample form, conditions, and analytical techniques for assessing biodegradability of plastics.
57

ChemSusChem 2020, 13, 1 – 18 www.chemsuschem.org 12 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH GmbH

These are not the final page numbers! ��

 Reviews
ChemSusChem doi.org/10.1002/cssc.202002044

Introducing amine or amide groups may also favor well as proper assessment of environmental and socio-econom-
1
biodegradability.[153,154] Halogens can decrease bio-assimilation ic impacts. Yet even if it succeeds, this does not guarantee a
2
given their toxicity.[155] The general low reactivity of aliphatic commercial success. In this final section we present our
3
groups is a barrier to biodegradability. Part of sunlight, UV light personal critical insight on the challenges that biodegradable
4
will cause photodegradation of C H bonds particularly in plastics face in entering the large-scale plastics market. This
5
systems with conjugated bonds (including aromatics). Aromatic insight is based on our experience working for (and in one case,
6
groups usually confer rigidity and radical scavenging properties inventing and co-founding) bioplastic-producing companies.
7
which reduce biodegradability, even if prone to UV-initiated Biodegradable plastics (and indeed all plant-based plastics)
8
chain scission.[149] The addition of aliphatic esters can improve are an easy media sell. People love the stories: an eco-friendly
9
the biodegradability of aromatic groups.[156] This is the case of plastic, a plastic that‘s made from plants, zero CO2 footprint-all
10
PBAT (see Table 1), which is considered a more rigid biodegrad- straightforward and clear messages that benefit everyone. But
11
able plastic. Similarly, the presence of conjugated alkenes may turning this into reality is a huge challenge. To date, no
12
cause photo-initiated cross-linking rather than degradation. For company has commercialized bioplastics on a large scale (there
13
methods and mechanisms of (oxo/bio)-degradability of poly- are some advanced stage plants starting in China and India, but
14
olefins, the reader is referred to the Review by Ammala et al.[157] these are still a far cry from the megatons that are needed for
15
The major factors and chemical groups affected during having an impact on the sector). A glance at the meagre
16
biodegradation are illustrated in Figure 8. material flows of bioplastics in the Sankey diagram in Figure 5
17
The lack of consistent information on biodegradability of shows how much needs to change.
18
different plastics hinders finding a clear correlation between As far as we see it, there are three main reasons for this
19
physicochemical properties and their final fate. A good study discrepancy between popular public opinion and industrial
20
on the biodegradability of some commercial plastics was reality:
21
published by Chamas et al.[158] Model-based analysis might be The first and foremost is the cost. Bio-based plastics are
22
useful if applying quantitative structure-biodegradability rela- more expensive than petro-based ones. The plastics industry
23
tionships (QSBR). However, these models already present some relies on legacy production facilities that depreciated long ago
24
incongruencies for small molecules.[152] Often, literature studies and turn-key processes that are safe for company boards to
25
focus on monitoring one change [e. g., Fourier-transform (FT)IR invest in while minimizing risk exposure. Companies may say
26
structure] or only report CO2 evolution, hindering the creation nice things about sustainability on their websites, but their
27
of a database. A complete database could predict the boards are obliged to maintain shareholders’ profits. And
28
biodegradability of new plastics or aid the design of ad-hoc biodegradability is not always desirable, as it can also encour-
29
biodegradability. Repeating units, elemental analyses, physical age single-use and wastage. Biodegradable packaging makes
30
properties (e. g., Tg and Tm), and thermal history should be sense, but plastic products such as LEGO bricks are good for
31
correlated to biodegradability. Kinetic studies of biodegradabil- decades and should remain so.
32
ity could also be a highly useful tool for comparing new The second is that large-scale production of bioplastics
33
plastics. comes with a host of technical challenges, from low reactor
34
space-time yields to large variation in feedstock composition
35
and structure. The result is an increase in by-products, which
36
9. Summary and Outlook: A Personal Viewpoint means added costs in separations, especially if one seeks drop-
37
in replacements to conventional plastics. Because biomass,
38
The technological development of biodegradable plastics unlike crude oil, is already functionalized, it presents opportu-
39
requires chemistry and chemical engineering knowledge, as
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56 Figure 8. Key properties and processes that induce (bio)degradation of different chemical groups.
57

ChemSusChem 2020, 13, 1 – 18 www.chemsuschem.org 13 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH GmbH

These are not the final page numbers! ��

 Reviews
ChemSusChem doi.org/10.1002/cssc.202002044

nities for alternative solutions (new types of plastics), but these [10] S. Freinkel, in Plastic: A Toxic Love Story, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt,
1 Boston, 2011, pp. 6–11.
come with added complications.
2 [11] O. Horodytska, A. Cabanes, A. Fullana, in The Handbook of Environ-
Finally, perhaps the most crucial barrier is the human mental Chemistry, Springer, Heidelberg, 2019, pp. 1–18.
3
element. Not invented here (NIH) is an old yet highly relevant [12] Ellen McArthur Foundation, “The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking
4 the Future of Plastics,” can be found under https://www.ellenmacar-
adage when it comes to bioplastics. The traditional plastics
5 thurfoundation.org/publications/the-new-plastics-economy-rethink-
industry is conservative and risk-averse. Business unit managers ing-the-future-of-plastics, 2016.
6
shy from investing in truly new concepts, because if they fail, [13] M. Eriksen, L. C. M. Lebreton, H. S. Carson, M. Thiel, C. J. Moore, J. C.
7 Borerro, F. Galgani, P. G. Ryan, J. Reisser, PLoS One 2014, 9, e111913.
there goes their bonus (and maybe their job!), and if they
8 [14] S. Hann, C. Sherrington, O. Jamieson, M. Hickman, P. Kershaw, A.
succeed, the new business might disrupt their own position. Bapasola, G. Cole, Investigating Options for Reducing Releases in the
9
Yet we remain optimistic. Biodegradable plastics are being Aquatic Environment of Microplastics Emitted by (but Not Intentionally
10
continually developed and have the potential for capturing Added in) Products, Eunomia, 2018, https://www.eunomia.co.uk/
11 reports-tools/investigating-options-for-reducing-releases-in-the-
healthy market shares in the coming decade. Tougher govern-
12 aquatic-environment-of-microplastics-emitted-by-products/.
ment regulations and higher carbon taxes are helping, as is the [15] L. Lebreton, A. Andrady, Palgrave Commun. 2019, 5, 1–11.
13
change in public opinion. Feedstock and product diversity also [16] D. Eerkes-Medrano, R. C. Thompson, D. C. Aldridge, Water Res. 2015,
14 75, 63–82.
have an upside, namely more flexible processes and a different
15 [17] K. L. Law, R. C. Thompson, Science 2014, 345, 144–145.
approach to consumer products. And globalization means that [18] N. Kalogerakis, K. Karkanorachaki, G. C. Kalogerakis, E. I. Triantafyllidi,
16
companies can benefit from cost differences: the Corbion Purac A. D. Gotsis, P. Partsinevelos, F. Fava, Front. Mar. Sci. 2017, 4, 84.
17 [19] G. Scott, in Degradable Polymers (Ed.: G. Scott), Springer, Dordrecht,
plant in Thailand produces 75 ktpa with a CapEx of approx-
18 2002, pp. 1–15.
imately E60 M, compared to E200 M for the Total Corbion [20] A. U. Rahman, Oxo-Biodegradable Additives for Use in Fossil Fuel Polymer
19
100 ktpa PLA plant in France. Cost advantages may yet prove to Films and Once-Used Packaging, 2012, WO2012088585 A1.
20
be the driver for enhancing the spread of bio-based and [21] P. Zbořilová, J. Pác, Oxo-Degradable Polyolefinic Material, 2014,
21 CZ304315B6.
biodegradable plastics in developing and emerging economies.
22 [22] J. M. R. da Luz, S. A. Paes, D. M. S. Bazzolli, M. R. Tótola, A. J. Demuner,
23 M. C. M. Kasuya, PLoS One 2014, 9, e107438.
[23] S. Lambert, M. Wagner, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2017, 46, 6855–6871.
24 [24] S. Harrison, Compositions and Methods for Resisting Soil Erosion and Fire
Acknowledgements
25 Retardation, 2008, US7407993B2.
26 [25] D. M. Teegarden, in Polymer Chemistry: Introduction to an Indispensable
We thank Dr. J.R. Parsons, Dr. E. de Rike and J. Schoorl for Science, NSTA Press, Arlington, 2004, pp. 20–21.
27 [26] B. Xiong, R. D. Loss, D. Shields, T. Pawlik, R. Hochreiter, A. L. Zydney, M.
discussions on biodegradability test setups. This project is co-
28 Kumar, NPJ Clean Water 2018, 1, 1–9.
funded with subsidy from the Topsector Energy by the Dutch [27] J. J. Mortvedt, R. L. Mikkelsen, Micronutrient Delivery Systems Using
29
Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy. This is an Institute Hydrophilic Polyacrylamides, 1993, US5221313 A.
30
of Sustainable Process Technology (ISPT) project. [28] J. P. Greene, in Sustainable Plastics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2014, pp.
31 71–106.
32 [29] P. Anastas, N. Eghbali, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2009, 39, 301–312.
[30] S. Hann, R. Scholes, R. Briedis, K. Kirkevaag, Bio-Based and Biodegrad-
33
Conflict of Interest able Plastics: An Assessment of the Value Chain for Bio-Based and
34 Biodegradable Plastics in Norway, Eunomia For The Norwegian Environ-
35 ment Agency, 2018.
The authors declare no conflict of interest. [31] E. de Jong, M. A. Dam, L. Sipos, G.-J. M. Gruter, in Biobased Monomers,
36
Polymers, and Materials, American Chemical Society, 2012, pp. 1–13.
37 [32] Y. Xu, L. Lin, M. Xiao, S. Wang, A. T. Smith, L. Sun, Y. Meng, Prog. Polym.
38 Keywords: biodegradable · economy · policy · polymers · Sci. 2018, 80, 163–182.
39 sustainable chemistry [33] M. M. Bomgardner, Chem. Eng. News 2016, 94, 13.
[34] E. de Jong, H. Stichnothe, G. Bell, H. Jørgensen, Bio-Based Chemicals: A
40
2020 Update, International Energy Agency, 2019.
41 [35] European Bioplastics e.V., “Environment,” can be found under https://
42 www.european-bioplastics.org/bioplastics/environment/, 2019.
[36] European Bioplastics e.V., Bioplastics Facts and Figures, Berlin, 2020.
43 [1] J. Taalbi, Research Policy 2017, 46, 1437–1453.
[2] R. W. Beachey, J. Afr. His. 1967, 8, 269–290. [37] T. Iwata, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 3210–3215; Angew. Chem.
44 2015, 127, 3254–3260.
[3] R. Mülhaupt, Macromol. Chem. Phys. 2013, 214, 159–174.
45 [4] J. G. Cook, in Handbook of Textile Fibres: Man-Made Fibres, Woodhead [38] P. Pawelzik, M. Carus, J. Hotchkiss, R. Narayan, S. Selke, M. Wellisch, M.
46 Publishing, Cambridge, 1984, pp. 201–207. Weiss, B. Wicke, M. K. Patel, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2013, 73, 211–228.
[5] H. Lintsen, M. J. Hollestelle, R. Hölsgens, The Plastics Revolution: How [39] S. Spierling, E. Knüpffer, H. Behnsen, M. Mudersbach, H. Krieg, S.
47 Springer, S. Albrecht, C. Herrmann, H.-J. Endres, J. Cleaner Prod. 2018,
the Netherlands Became a Global Player in Plastics, Foundation For The
48 History Of Technology, Eindhoven, 2017. 185, 476–491.
49 [6] PlasticsEurope, “The Compelling Facts about Plastics,” can be found [40] E. J. M. van der Harst, Robustness of Life Cycle Assessment Results:
under https://www.plasticseurope.org/application/files/1515/1689/ Influence of Data Variation and Modelling Choices on Results for
50 Beverage Packaging Materials, Environmental Systems Analysis PhD
9283/2007CompellingFacts_PubOct2008.pdf, 2007.
51 [7] PlasticsEurope, “Plastics - Architects of Modern and Sustainable Thesis, Wageningen University, 2015, https://edepot.wur.nl/360115.
52 Buildings, can be found under https://www.plasticseurope.org/applica- [41] F. Razza, A. K. Cerutti, in Soil Degradable Bioplastics for a Sustainable
tion/files/3915/1714/0577/bc_brochure_111212.pdf, 2012. Modern Agriculture (Ed.: M. Malinconico), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg,
53
[8] A. White, S. Lockyer, Nutrition Bulletin 2020, 45, 35–50. 2017, pp. 169–185.
54 [9] “Every single piece of plastic ever made still exists. Here’s the story,” [42] M. R. Yates, C. Y. Barlow, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2013, 78, 54–66.
55 can be found under https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/ [43] I. D. Posen, P. Jaramillo, W. M. Griffin, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50,
56 7281/every-single-piece-of-plastic-ever-made-still-exists-heres-the- 2846–2858.
story, 2017. [44] J. W. Levis, M. A. Barlaz, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 5470–5476.
57

ChemSusChem 2020, 13, 1 – 18 www.chemsuschem.org 14 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH GmbH

These are not the final page numbers! ��

 Reviews
ChemSusChem doi.org/10.1002/cssc.202002044

[45] European Bioplastics e.V., “Feedstock,” can be found under https:// [74] Plastic Atlas 2019: Facts and Figures about the World of Synthetic
1 www.european-bioplastics.org/bioplastics/feedstock/, 2019. Polymers, Heinrich Böll Foundation, Berlin, 2019.
2 [46] European Bioplastics e.V., nova-Institute, “Bioplastics Market Data [75] B. Brandt, H. Pilz, The Impact of Plastic Packaging on Life Cycle Energy
3 2019. Global Production Capacities of Bioplastics 2019–2024,” can be Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Europe., Denkstatt &
found under https://docs.european-bioplastics.org/publications/mar- PlasticsEurope, 2011.
4 ket_data/Report_Bioplastics_Market_Data_2019.pdf, 2020. [76] J.-J. Guo, X.-P. Huang, L. Xiang, Y.-Z. Wang, Y.-W. Li, H. Li, Q.-Y. Cai, C.-
5 [47] “Land take in Europe,” can be found under https://www.eea.euro- H. Mo, M.-H. Wong, Environ. Int. 2020, 137, 105263.
6 pa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/land-take-3/assessment, 2019. [77] R. Geyer, J. R. Jambeck, K. L. Law, Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1700782.
[48] “Imperviousness and imperviousness change in Europe,” can be found [78] OECD, “Economic Outlook No 95-Long-term baseline projections,” can
7 under https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/impervi- be found under https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode =
8 ousness-change-2/assessment, 2020. EO95_LTB#, 2014.
9 [49] S. Naumann, A. Frelih-Larsen, G. Prokop, S. Ittner, M. Reed, J. Mills, F. [79] OECD, OECD Economic Outlook, Volume 2014 Issue 1, OECD Publishing,
Morari, S. Verzandvoort, S. Albrecht, A. Bjuréus, G. Siebielec, T. Miturski, Paris, 2014.
10 in International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy 2018 (Eds.: H. Ginzky, E. [80] E. Chiellini, S. Cometa, A. Corti, in Encyclopedia of Polymer Applications,
11 Dooley, I. L. Heuser, E. Kasimbazi, T. Markus, T. Qin), Springer Interna- 3 Volume Set (Ed.: M. Mishra), Taylor & Francis, 2018, pp. 1907–1957.
12 tional Publishing, Cham, 2019, pp. 83–112. [81] I. Capellán-Pérez, M. Mediavilla, C. de Castro, Ó. Carpintero, L. J. Miguel,
[50] “Goal 15: Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform,” can be Energy 2014, 77, 641–666.
13 found under https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg15, 2019. [82] “Extreme temperatures and health,” can be found under https://
14 [51] United Nations, The Sustainable Development Goals Report, UN, 2020. www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/heat-and-health-2/as-
15 [52] “World population projected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 sessment, 2016.
billion in 2100 j UN DESA j United Nations Department of Economic [83] “Floods and health,” can be found under https://www.eea.europa.eu/
16 and Social Affairs,” can be found under https://www.un.org/develop- data-and-maps/indicators/floods-and-health-1/assessment, 2016.
17 ment/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects- [84] R. S. Kovats, R. Valentini, L. M. Bouwer, E. Georgopoulou, D. Jacob, E.
18 2017.html, 2017. Martin, M. Rounsevell, J.-F. Soussana, in Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
[53] W. Lutz, S. KC, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B 2010, 365, 2779–2791. Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. (Eds.: V. R. Barros,
19
[54] “Food Loss and Food Waste - FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization C. B. Field, D. J. Dokken, M. D. Mastrandrea, K. J. Mach, T. E. Bilir, M.
20 of the United Nations,” can be found under http://www.fao.org/food- Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel,
21 loss-and-food-waste/en/, 2020. A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, L. L. White), Cambridge
[55] R. Ishangulyyev, S. Kim, S. H. Lee, Foods 2019, 8, 297. University Press, Cambridge, 2014, pp. 1267–1326.
22
[56] L. Viva, F. Ciulli, A. Kolk, G. Rothenberg, Adv. Sustainable Syst. 2020, [85] J. Mullerova, in SGEM2014 Conference Proceedings, SGEM2014, 2014,
23 2000023, 1–17. pp. 261–266.
24 [57] “Diversion of waste from landfill,” can be found under https:// [86] L. M. Heidbreder, I. Bablok, S. Drews, C. Menzel, Sci. Total Environ.
www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/diversion-from-landfill/ 2019, 668, 1077–1093.
25
assessment, 2019. [87] European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) Secretariat,
26 [58] “Waste recycling,” can be found under https://www.eea.europa.eu/ “Packaging Plastics in the Circular Economy,” can be found under
27 data-and-maps/indicators/waste-recycling-1/assessment-1, 2019. https://easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Plastics/EASAC_
28 [59] European Economic Area (EEA), Diverting Waste from Landfill. Effective- Plastics_complete_Web_PDF.pdf, 2020.
ness of Waste-Management Policies in the European Union, European [88] “US oil prices turn negative as demand dries up,” can be found under
29 Union, Copenhagen, 2009. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52350082, 2020.
30 [60] J. Papineschi, P. Jones, R. Gillies, Recycling – Who Really Leads the [89] L. H. Ederington, C. S. Fernando, S. A. Hoelscher, T. K. Lee, S. C. Linn, J.
31 World?, Eunomia, 2017. Commod. Mark. 2019, 13, 1–15.
[61] S. A. Sanchez-Vazquez, H. C. Hailes, J. R. G. Evans, Polym. Rev. 2013, 53, [90] European Commission, “EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS),” can
32 627–694. be found under https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en, 2016.
33 [62] B. Didier, “Briefing of the European Parliament,” can be found under [91] E. Narassimhan, K. S. Gallagher, S. Koester, J. R. Alejo, Climate Policy
34 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2015/559493/ 2018, 18, 967–991.
EPRS_BRI(2015)559493_EN.pdf, 2015. [92] J. Lehmköster, in World Ocean Review (Ed.: T. Schröder), Maribus, 2010,
35 [63] PlasticsEurope, “Plastics-The Facts 2018,” can be found under https:// pp. 76–99.
36 www.plasticseurope.org/application/files/6315/4510/9658/Plastics_ [93] H. Ritchie, M. Roser, “Our World in Data,” can be found under https://
37 the_facts_2018_AF_web.pdf, 2018. ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution, 2018.
[64] PlasticsEurope, “Plastics-The Facts 2019,” can be found under https:// [94] J. R. Jambeck, R. Geyer, C. Wilcox, T. R. Siegler, M. Perryman, A.
38 www.plasticseurope.org/application/files/1115/7236/4388/FINAL_ Andrady, R. Narayan, K. L. Law, Science 2015, 347, 768–771.
39 web_version_Plastics_the_facts2019_14102019.pdf, 2019. [95] European Environment Agency, The Plastic Waste Trade in the Circular
40 [65] P. Agamuthu, Waste Manage. Res. 2013, 31, 1–2. Economy, European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen, 2019.
[66] Organisation For Economic Co-Operation And Development, “Environ- [96] J. N. Möller, M. G. J. Löder, C. Laforsch, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54,
41 ment at a Glance 2020,” can be found under https://www.oecd- 2078–2090.
42 ilibrary.org/environment/environment-at-a-glance/volume-/issue-_ [97] A. L. Brooks, S. Wang, J. R. Jambeck, Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaat0131.
43 4ea7d35 f-en, 2020. [98] United Nations (UNEP), Report of the Conference of the Parties to the
[67] Conversio Market & Strategy, Global Plastics Flow Study 2019, Conversio Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of
44
Gmbh, 2020. Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal on the Work of Its Fourteenth
45 [68] J. C. Prata, J. P. da Costa, I. Lopes, A. C. Duarte, T. Rocha-Santos, Sci. Meeting, Basel Convention, Geneva, 2019.
46 Total Environ. 2020, 702, 134455. [99] European Commission, “Communication from the Commission to the
[69] S. Straub, P. E. Hirsch, P. Burkhardt-Holm, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European
47
Health 2017, 14, 774. Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
48 [70] D. S. Green, B. Boots, J. Sigwart, S. Jiang, C. Rocha, Environ. Pollut. 2016, The European Green Deal,” can be found under https://eur-lex.eur-
49 208, 426–434. opa.eu/resource.html?uri = cellar:b828d165-1c22-11ea-8c1 f-01aa75e-
[71] European Environmental Bureau, ClientEarth, ECOS, “Joint NGOs’ d71a1.0002.02/DOC_1&format = PDF, 2019.
50
comments to the Annex XV restriction report, proposal for a restriction [100] European Commission, “Directive (EU) 2019/ of the European Parlia-
51 of intentionally added microplastics,” can be found under https:// ment and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the Reduction of the
52 mk0eeborgicuypctuf7e.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ Impact of Certain Plastic Products on the Environment,” can be found
53 Response-to-draft-microplastics-biodegradation-criteria.pdf, 2019. under https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/904/oj, 2019.
[72] European Bioplastics e.V., “Market,” can be found under https:// [101] European Commission, “Proposal for a Regulation of the European
54 www.european-bioplastics.org/market/, 2019. Parliament and of the Council on the Establishment of a Framework to
55 [73] European Parliament, “A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Facilitate Sustainable Investment.,” can be found under https://
56 Economy,” can be found under https://www.europarl.europa.eu/ ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2018/EN/COM-2018-353-F1-
doceo/document/TA-8-2018-0352_EN.html, 2018. EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF, 2018.
57

ChemSusChem 2020, 13, 1 – 18 www.chemsuschem.org 15 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH GmbH

These are not the final page numbers! ��

 Reviews
ChemSusChem doi.org/10.1002/cssc.202002044

[102] “Legislative train schedule,” can be found under https://www.europar- [125] International Organization for Standardization, “ISO 14851 : 2019,” can
1 l.europa.eu/legislative-train, 2020. be found under https://www.iso.org/cms/render/live/en/sites/isoorg/
2 [103] V. Monier, M. Hestin, J. Cavé, I. Laureysens, E. Watkins, H. Reisinger, L. contents/data/standard/07/00/70026.html, 2019.
3 Porsch, “Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsi- [126] International Organization for Standardization, “ISO 14852 : 2018,” can
bility (EPR),” can be found under https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ be found under https://www.iso.org/cms/render/live/en/sites/isoorg/
4 archives/waste/eu_guidance/pdf/Guidance%20on%20EPR%20-%20Fi- contents/data/standard/07/20/72051.html, 2018.
5 nal%20Report.pdf, 2014. [127] International Organization for Standardization, “ISO 17556 : 2019,” can
6 [104] European Commission, “Commission Staff Working Paper. Impact be found under https://www.iso.org/cms/render/live/en/sites/isoorg/
Assessment - Horizon 2020, the Framework Programme for Research contents/data/standard/07/49/74993.html, 2019.
7 [128] International Organization for Standardization, “ISO 19679 : 2016,” can
and Innovation,” can be found under http://ec.europa.eu/research/
8 horizon2020/pdf/proposals/horizon_2020_impact_assessment_re- be found under https://www.iso.org/cms/render/live/en/sites/isoorg/
9 port.pdf#view = fit&pagemode = none, 2011. contents/data/standard/06/60/66003.html, 2016.
[105] European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innova- [129] International Organization for Standardization, “ISO 18830 : 2016,” can
10 be found under https://www.iso.org/cms/render/live/en/sites/isoorg/
tion, “EU Budget for the Future: Horizon Europe,” can be found under
11 http://publications.europa.eu/publication/manifestation_identifier/ contents/data/standard/06/35/63515.html, 2016.
12 PUB_KI0118590ENN, 2018. [130] J. P. Harrison, C. Boardman, K. O’Callaghan, A.-M. Delort, J. Song, R. Soc.
[106] United Kingdom, “The Environmental Protection (Microbeads) (Eng- Open Sci. 2018, 5, 171792.
13 [131] “Product certification and certification marks j TÜV Rheinland,” can be
land) Regulations 2017,” can be found http://www.legislation.gov.uk/
14 uksi/2017/1312/pdfs/uksi_20171312_en.pdf, 2017. found under https://www.tuv.com/netherlands/en/product-certifica-
15 [107] European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), “Annex XV Restriction Report: tion.html, 2019.
[132] “Certifications,” can be found under https://www.tuv-at.be/green-
16 Proposal of Restriction for Intentionally Added Microplastics,” can be
marks/certifications/, 2019.
found under https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/05bd96e3-
17 [133] “EU Ecolabel - Environment - European Commission,” can be found
b969-0a7c-c6d0-441182893720, 2019.
18 under https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/, n.d.
[108] European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), “Authorisation-ECHA,” can be
[134] M. Nazareth, M. R. C. Marques, M. C. A. Leite, Í. B. Castro, J. Hazard.
19 found under https://echa.europa.eu/substances-of-very-high-concern-
Mater. 2019, 366, 714–722.
20 identification-explained, 2019.
[135] H. Spanjers, P. A. Vanrolleghem, in Experimental Methods in Wastewater
[109] M. Kubicki, Guidance on the Preparation of an Application for Author-
21 Treatment (Eds.: M. C. M. van Loosdrecht, P. H. Nielsen, C. M. Lopez-
isation, European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki, 2011.
Vazquez, D. Brdjanovic), IWA Publishing, London, 2016, p. 133.
22 [110] European Commission, “A New Circular Economy Action Plan,” can be [136] “Test No. 302 A: Inherent Biodegradability: Modified SCAS Test,” can
23 found under https://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/ be found under https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test-no-
new_circular_economy_action_plan.pdf, 2020. 302a-inherent-biodegradability-modified-scas-test_9789264070363-en,
24
[111] United States of America, “The Clean Water Act and Trash-Free 1981.
25 Waters,” can be found under https://www.epa.gov/trash-free-waters/ [137] “Test No. 303: Simulation Test - Aerobic Sewage Treatment – A:
26 clean-water-act-and-trash-free-waters, 1972. Activated Sludge Units; B: Biofilms,” can be found under https://
27 [112] T. W. House, Ind. Biotechnol. 2012, 8, 97–102. www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test-no-303-simulation-test-aero-
[113] M. Singh, “Most ambitious US law to tackle single-use plastics faces bic-sewage-treatment-a-activated-sludge-units-b-biofilms_
28 make-or-break moment”, can be found under http://www.theguar- 9789264070424-en, 2001.
29 dian.com/us-news/2019/sep/13/california-plastics-legislation-single- [138] “Test No. 307: Aerobic and Anaerobic Transformation in Soil,” can be
30 use, 2019. found under https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test-no-307-
[114] OECD, “Policies for Bioplastics in the Context of a Bioeconomy,” can be aerobic-and-anaerobic-transformation-in-soil_9789264070509-en,
31
found under https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/ 2002.
32 policies-for-bioplastics-in-the-context-of-a-bioeconomy_5k3xpf9rrw6d- [139] “Test No. 308: Aerobic and Anaerobic Transformation in Aquatic
33 en, 2013. Sediment Systems,” can be found under https://www.oecd-ilibrar-
34 [115] J. O. Babayemi, I. C. Nnorom, O. Osibanjo, R. Weber, Environ. Sci. Eur. y.org/environment/test-no-308-aerobic-and-anaerobic-transformation-
2019, 31, 60. in-aquatic-sediment-systems_9789264070523-en, 2002.
35 [116] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD [140] “Test No. 309: Aerobic Mineralisation in Surface Water – Simulation
36 Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, 1992. Biodegradation Test,” can be found under https://www.oecd-ilibrar-
37 [117] “ISO - Standards,” can be found under https://www.iso.org/stand- y.org/environment/test-no-309-aerobic-mineralisation-in-surface-
ards.html, 2019. water-simulation-biodegradation-test_9789264070547-en, 2004.
38 [118] “CEN - Advanced search - Publications and Work in Progress,” can be [141] International Organization for Standardization, “ISO 14855-1 : 2012,”
39 found under https://standards.cen.eu/dyn/www/f?p = CENWEB:105::RE- can be found under https://www.iso.org/cms/render/live/en/sites/
40 SET::::, 2019. isoorg/contents/data/standard/05/79/57902.html, 2012.
[119] “ASTM International - Standards and Publications,” can be found under [142] International Organization for Standardization, “ISO 14855-2 : 2018,”
41 can be found under https://www.iso.org/cms/render/live/en/sites/
https://www.astm.org/Standard/standards-and-publications.html,
42 2019. isoorg/contents/data/standard/07/20/72046.html, 2018.
43 [120] “Test No. 302B: Inherent Biodegradability: Zahn-Wellens/ EVPA Test,” [143] D20 Committee, Test Method for Determining the Biodegradability of
can be found under https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test- Radiolabeled Polymeric Plastic Materials in Seawater, ASTM Interna-
44
no-302b-inherent-biodegradability-zahn-wellens-evpa-test_ tional, 2010.
45 9789264070387-en, 1992. [144] S. Chinaglia, M. Tosin, F. Degli-Innocenti, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2018,
46 [121] “Test No. 302C: Inherent Biodegradability: Modified MITI Test (II),” can 147, 237–244.
be found under https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test-no- [145] International Organization for Standardization, “ISO 10640 : 2011,” can
47
302c-inherent-biodegradability-modified-miti-test-ii_9789264070400- be found under https://www.iso.org/cms/render/live/en/sites/isoorg/
48 contents/data/standard/04/60/46024.html, 2011.
en, 2009.
49 [122] “Test No. 301: Ready Biodegradability,” can be found under https:// [146] W.-F. Su, in Principles of Polymer Design and Synthesis (Ed.: W.-F. Su),
www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test-no-301-ready-biodegradabil- Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013, pp. 89–110.
50
ity_9789264070349-en, 1992. [147] B. A. J. Poursat, R. J. M. van Spanning, P. de Voogt, J. R. Parsons, Crit.
51 Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 49, 2220–2255.
[123] “Test No. 306: Biodegradability in Seawater,” can be found under
52 [148] A. Krasowska, K. Sigler, Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2014, 4, 112.
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test-no-306-biodegradabil-
53 [149] B. Gewert, M. M. Plassmann, M. MacLeod, Environ. Sci.: Processes
ity-in-seawater_9789264070486-en, 1992.
Impacts 2015, 17, 1513–1521.
54 [124] “Test No. 310: Ready Biodegradability - CO2 in sealed vessels (Head-
[150] A. Rudin, P. Choi, in The Elements of Polymer Science & Engineering
space Test),” can be found under https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/
55 (Third Edition) (Eds.: A. Rudin, P. Choi), Academic Press, Boston, 2013,
environment/test-no-310-ready-biodegradability-co2-in-sealed-vessels-
56 pp. 1–62.
headspace-test_9789264224506-en, 2014.
[151] R. Pantani, A. Sorrentino, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2013, 98, 1089–1096.
57

ChemSusChem 2020, 13, 1 – 18 www.chemsuschem.org 16 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH GmbH

These are not the final page numbers! ��

 Reviews
ChemSusChem doi.org/10.1002/cssc.202002044

[152] R. W. Okey, H. D. Stensel, Water Res. 1996, 30, 2206–2214. [158] A. Chamas, H. Moon, J. Zheng, Y. Qiu, T. Tabassum, J. H. Jang, M. Abu-
1 [153] M. F. Ebbesen, C. Gerke, P. Hartwig, L. Hartmann, Polym. Chem. 2016, 7, Omar, S. L. Scott, S. Suh, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2020, 8, 3494–
2 7086–7093. 3511.
[154] K. Luo, J. Yang, P. Kopečková, J. Kopeček, Macromolecules 2011, 44,
3
2481–2488.
4 [155] R. S. Boethling, E. Sommer, D. DiFiore, Chem. Rev. 2007, 107, 2207–
5 2227.
[156] A. A. Shah, S. Kato, N. Shintani, N. R. Kamini, T. Nakajima-Kambe, Appl.
6
Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2014, 98, 3437–3447.
7 [157] A. Ammala, S. Bateman, K. Dean, E. Petinakis, P. Sangwan, S. Wong, Q. Manuscript received: August 27, 2020
8 Yuan, L. Yu, C. Patrick, K. H. Leong, Prog. Polym. Sci. 2011, 36, 1015– Revised manuscript received: October 6, 2020
1049. Version of record online: ■■■, ■■■■
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57

ChemSusChem 2020, 13, 1 – 18 www.chemsuschem.org 17 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH GmbH

These are not the final page numbers! ��

 1 REVIEWS
2
3
Dr. L. Filiciotto, Prof. Dr. G. Rothen-
4
berg*
5
6 1 – 18
7
8
Biodegradable Plastics: Standards,
9 Policies, and Impacts
Waste not! This critical Review of the certifications, physico-chemical prop-
10
state of the art of biodegradable erties, and analytical techniques, high-
11
12
plastics covers the environmental and lighting the potential of bioplastics,
13 socio-economic impact of plastics, but also the challenges and barriers
14 government policies, standards and towards their commercialization.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57