sustainability

Article
Environmental Impact and Sustainability of Bioplastic
Production from Food Waste
Katerina Synani 1 , Konstadinos Abeliotis 2, * , Kelly Velonia 3 , Angeliki Maragkaki 4 , Thrassyvoulos Manios 4
and Katia Lasaridi 1

1 Department of Geography, Harokopio University of Athens, 17676 Kallithea, Greece; synani@hua.gr (K.S.);
klasaridi@hua.gr (K.L.)
2 Department of Economics and Sustainable Development, Harokopio University of Athens,
17676 Kallithea, Greece
3 Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Crete, 70013 Heraklion, Greece;
velonia@materials.uoc.gr
4 Department of Agriculture, Hellenic Mediterranean University, 71410 Heraklion, Greece;
amaragkaki@hmu.gr (A.M.); tmanios@hmu.gr (T.M.)
* Correspondence: kabeli@hua.gr

Abstract: Plastic generation exacerbates the challenge of solid waste management. Moreover, plastics
emit substantial amounts of microplastics, which infiltrate the environment and food chain, posing
significant environmental risks. Compounded by their production from fossil fuels, such as crude
oil and natural gas, plastics present a formidable environmental concern. As a result, bioplastics
are an attractive alternative to fossil-based plastics since they use renewable energy sources, aim
to alleviate worries about reliance on fossil fuels, and are biodegradable, further enhancing their
environmental appeal. Along similar lines, the utilization of food waste to produce bioplastics is
attracting international interest. The current study presents the results of a life cycle assessment
conducted on bioplastic production from food waste, carried out in a pilot-scale reactor located in
Greece. The objective was to ascertain the comparative sustainability of recovering food waste for
bioplastic production versus utilizing cultivable raw materials. To this end, an equivalent amount
Citation: Synani, K.; Abeliotis, K.; of polylactic acid was produced from corn. The findings revealed a reduction in climate change,
Velonia, K.; Maragkaki, A.; Manios, T.; eutrophication, and ecotoxicity as a result of the study process. Despite these environmental benefits,
Lasaridi, K. Environmental Impact the study highlighted that energy consumption throughout the process poses a significant environ-
and Sustainability of Bioplastic
mental burden. This aspect calls for attention and modification to enhance the entire sustainability of
Production from Food Waste.
the process.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5529.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
Keywords: LCA; sustainability; PLA; circular economy; impacts; energy
su16135529

Academic Editors: Giovanni De Feo

and Ioannis Vardopoulos

Received: 26 April 2024

1. Introduction
Revised: 21 June 2024 The escalation of concerns surrounding solid waste management correlates with the
Accepted: 24 June 2024 global surge in population and affluence [1], further fueled by the escalating demand for
Published: 28 June 2024 plastic products and packaging. In 2021, global plastic production increased by 4% to
exceed 390.7 million tonnes, underscoring the persistent and robust demand for plastics.
During the same period, the EU27 + 3 utilized 5.5 million tonnes of post-consumer recycled
plastics, marking a 20% increase over 2018, and constituting around 10% of recycled
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
content in plastics conversion [2]. Forecasts indicate that plastic consumption is expected
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
to quadruple by 2060 [3].
This article is an open access article
Conversely, conventional plastic waste disposal methods remain insufficient, particu-
distributed under the terms and
larly in developing countries [4,5]. Plastic manufacturing accounts for 4% of total global
conditions of the Creative Commons
CO2 emissions. Non-biodegradable plastics endanger ecosystems and human health [6],
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
with their degradation producing micro- and nano-plastics [7], impacting ecosystem quality,
4.0/).
human health [8], and climate change [9].

Sustainability 2024, 16, 5529. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135529 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2024, 16, 5529 2 of 20

The linear consumption methods prevalent in industrialized countries, termed ‘throw-

away’ [10] and ‘take-make-dispose’ [11], have led to the global proliferation of plastic
waste [12]. This issue has been exacerbated by supply chain globalization [13], mass
consumption, and the COVID-19 epidemic [14].
The European Commission [15] has developed a circular economy plan for plastics to
optimize resource utilization and extend product lifetimes through multiple use cycles [16].
This concept combines economic approaches with biological aspects, offering the potential
for sustainable change [17]. Bioplastics, also known as biomass-based biopolymers, are a
viable alternative to petroplastics since they are biodegradable and compostable [18], effec-
tively closing the carbon cycle [19]. Despite representing only 1.5% of the plastics market,
bioplastics are estimated to increase their market share [20]. Their growing market share can
contribute to reducing reliance on fossil fuels [21], and facilitate the transition to a circular
economy [22]. However, this will require a steady supply of bioplastic raw materials [23],
and the implementation of appropriate recycling and recovery technologies [24]. Bio-waste,
including food waste, holds potential as a carbon feedstock for bio-based commodities and
biomaterials [16], which reduces the cost of bioplastic production [25].
The diversion of food waste from landfills to innovative processing mechanisms for
converting waste into valuable products or raw materials has seen significant progress in
recent years [25]. Furthermore, with the depletion of fossil resources and the challenges
posed by climate change, there is an urgent need for a transition to renewable and low-
carbon production methods [26].
This has led to the production of bioplastics like polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydrox-
yalkanoate (PHA), and bio-polypropylene [27], which are derived from food or biomass
resources like starch, corn, sugarcane, and lignocellulosic components. These bioplastics
play a vital role in transitioning towards a circular economy [28], reducing mineral ex-
traction and lowering carbon footprints, potentially mitigating end-of-life environmental
burdens [16].
The raw materials for bioplastics are categorized into three generations based on
their state of development. First-generation feedstocks typically include carbohydrate-rich
plants suitable for human or animal consumption, such as corn, which is abundant in
starch and readily available [29]. First-generation raw materials are based on intensive
agriculture, compete with food and feed, and have detrimental effects on humans and
the environment [27]. Consequently, alternative raw materials have been tested. Second-
generation raw materials comprise basic ingredients unsuitable for food or feed. These may
include non-edible crops (e.g., cellulose) or byproducts of first-generation feedstocks, such
as corn “hulls” or sugarcane molasses. Separately collected food waste, i.e., that has not
ended up in the municipal waste stream, is a second-generation feedstock for bioplastics
production [30]. The third-generation raw materials are the most innovative, still in the
early stages of development. It contains both algal biomass and industrial or municipal
waste, which are being transformed into raw materials through improved processes [31].
The utilization of alternative biomass sources holds promise for producing biomass-
based commodities with reduced environmental and socioeconomic implications without
competing with the food industry [32]. While food waste represents a valuable raw
material for bioplastic production [33], it requires pre-treatment to enhance or modify
its physicochemical and biological properties. Proper conversion of such wastes into
value-added products can prevent significant economic [34] and energy losses [35].
Despite advancements, industrial-scale production of bioplastics still faces challenges
that need addressing. Factors like techno-economics, profitability, raw material availabil-
ity [36], and market demands must be considered for large-scale manufacturing. The
environmental benefits of bioplastics are driving their adoption and promotion [37], with
bioplastic production from food waste emerging as a sustainable alternative [38]. Pri-
vate undertakings need to accurately quantify and demonstrate these benefits to avoid
misleading claims [39].
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5529 3 of 20

A range of studies have explored the conversion of food waste into bioplastics, high-
lighting the potential for sustainable and environmentally friendly production. Sakai
et al. [40] and Yu et al. [41] both propose innovative methods for this conversion. Sakai
et al. [40] focus on the production of high-quality poly-L-lactate (PLLA) biodegradable
plastics from food waste, while Yu et al. [41] investigate the use of various carbohydrates
and malt wastes as carbon sources for bioplastic production. Moreover, Perotto et al. [42]
contribute to the field by introducing a water-based process for converting vegetable waste
into bioplastic films, which are biodegradable and environmentally friendly. However,
there are significant knowledge gaps in this area, particularly in the environmental as-
sessment of bioplastic properties and their impact on food packaging. Kakadellis and
Harris [43] emphasize the need to consider the entire life cycle of food packaging and the
trade-offs involved. The potential of converting food waste into bioplastic is a promising
path for addressing both environmental and waste management challenges [44]. Bagnani
et al. [45] specifically demonstrate the feasibility of producing bioplastics from soy waste
on an industrial scale. Furthermore, the lack of standardized methodologies for assessing
the biodegradability of bio-based polymers, a key aspect of bioplastic assessment, is high-
lighted [44]. These gaps underscore the need for further research to optimize the conversion
of food waste into bioplastic and ensure its environmental sustainability.
The present research delves into the environmental impact assessment of converting
food waste into bioplastic, conducted within the framework of the A2UFood Project [46].
The project aimed to reduce food waste by developing bioplastic production from food
waste, aligning with the principles of the circular economy [47]. Tools such as life cycle
assessment (LCA) provide valuable insights into the environmental repercussions of a
material or product across its full life cycle, from raw material acquisition to disposal [32].
Recently, Ali et al. [16] reviewed several LCA studies that compare the environmental
impacts of specific bioplastics to those of petrochemical plastics. LCA studies on bioplastics
demonstrate significant differences in selected environmental impacts [30].
The novelty of the study lies in the fact that we employed life cycle assessment (LCA) to
examine the environmental impact of producing bioplastic from food waste in a pilot scale
unit for the first time in Greece, in addition to the environmental benefits of diverting the
same quantity of food waste from landfills. Following the ISO 14040 family standards, LCA
investigates environmental consequences across a product’s value chain, including goal and
scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation. Depending on
the assessment’s aims, LCA might include all system inputs and outputs, such as materials,
resources, energy, and emissions [48].

2. Methodology
2.1. Goal and Scope, System Boundaries
The goal of the study is to assess the environmental impact of converting food waste
into bioplastic. This assessment is based on the quantity of PLA produced using food waste
as feedstock, specifically from the 11 batch operating cycles carried out during the A2UFood
Project. In each operating cycle, 65 kg of sorted food waste were utilized, obtained after
manual sorting from 125 kg of untreated food waste, resulting in the production of 9 kg of
PLA. Thus, the functional unit is defined as the production of 99 kg of PLA. The graphical
representation of the system boundaries is shown in Figure 1.
The scope focuses solely on the environmental costs directly associated with the
conversion of food waste into bioplastics and does not consider the environmental impacts
of food production. However, the conversion process effectively diverts food waste from
landfills. Therefore, in this particular model, the diversion of food waste from landfills is
regarded as an environmental benefit. This positive impact is factored into the study by
subtracting the associated variables from the overall impacts demonstrated by the model.
In addition, the assessment excludes the construction of the pilot plant or the operational
energy requirements related to cleaning or maintenance of the facilities.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5529 4 of 20

Figure 1. Flow chart with the boundaries of functional units for the baseline scenario.

2.2. Life Cycle Inventory

2.2.1. Raw Material Acquisition
The study assessed the selection, extraction, conversion, and processing steps involved
in the PLA production process from food waste [49]. The food waste used in this study was
gathered from the Hellenic Mediterranean University’s student restaurant. The food waste
composition was determined to be 80% raw-fresh foods (vegetables), 10% fruits, and 10%
salads (on a wet basis) [50]. The assessment also includes the electricity consumption and
the chemicals used in the conversion (Appendix A, Table A1).

2.2.2. Pilot Unit Description

Pretreatment and processing, which encompassed receiving and processing equip-
ment such as conveyor belts, conveyor screws, shredders, pulpers, and monopumps, were
thoroughly examined in the present study. Additionally, the energy demands for fermenta-
tion processes, including bioreactors, filter systems, heating systems, and low-temperature
burners, were recorded. Polymerization, involving polymerization devices, was also cov-
ered. Figure 2 depicts the flow chart for the whole process of producing bioplastic in the
pilot unit.
Energy consumption was a major consideration in the current assessment. To evaluate
the energy requirements for the overall PLA production, a complete inventory of processes
requiring power was performed. Energy requirements for the building’s fans were also
considered, as they were necessary to maintain low ambient temperatures during the
production process. The analysis of production energy requirements highlights the signif-
icant energy consumption across various operational equipment and systems within an
industrial facility. Specifically, the receiving and processing equipment, including conveyor
belts, conveyor screws, shredders, pulpers, and monopumps, require 411.8 kWh for 2 h
of operation in every 8 h shift across 11 batches with an 85% operational rate. Bioreactor
R1 operates continuously for 4 days per batch, consuming 449 kWh, while bioreactor R2,
with 4 h of operation over 1 day per batch, uses 18.7 kWh. The filter system, operating
2 h per day for 1 day per batch, consumes 10.3 kWh. The low-temperature cooling system
for R1 requires a substantial 3430.5 kWh over 3.5 days per batch. Burners for R1 and R2
consume 3.9 kWh and 1.3 kWh, respectively. Polymerization devices, operating for 6 h per
day over 1 day per batch, consume 126.2 kWh. Building air circulation fans, running 8 h
daily for 55 days, require 74.8 kWh. Overall, the total energy needs amount to 4451.7 kWh
(Appendix A, Table A2).
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5529 5 of 20

Figure 2. Process flowchart for PLA production in the A2UFood pilot scale unit.
Figure 2. Process flowchart for PLA production in the A2UFood pilot scale unit.
Regarding the energy sources, the electricity mix in Greece in 2020, according to the
Hellenic
Energy Ministry of Energy
consumption wasand Environment,
a major consisted
consideration of oil atassessment.
in the current 7.22%, natural gas at
To evalu-
43.32%,
ate ligniterequirements
the energy at 9.48%, renewable energy
for the overall PLAsources at 28.85%,
production, nuclearinventory
a complete energy atof3.21%,
pro-
and other sources at 7.92%. To ensure a representative evaluation, a
cesses requiring power was performed. Energy requirements for the building’s fans were custom record for the
electricity mix was developed, as no ready-made library specific to
also considered, as they were necessary to maintain low ambient temperatures during theGreece was available.
production process. The analysis of production energy requirements highlights the sig-
2.2.3. Avoided Landfilling
nificant energy consumption across various operational equipment and systems within
The present
an industrial study
facility. adopts a gate-to-gate
Specifically, the receivingLCA approach
and processing [51],equipment,
focusing solely on the con-
including pilot-
scale unit for the production of PLA and excluding end-of-life processing
veyor belts, conveyor screws, shredders, pulpers, and monopumps, require 411.8 kWh for and food waste
2considerations.
h of operation in Biodegradable
every 8 h shiftplastics
acrossare
11 an interesting
batches with analternative for major
85% operational questions
rate. Bioreac-in
materials engineering. Nevertheless, PLA microplastics can pose
tor R1 operates continuously for 4 days per batch, consuming 449 kWh, while bioreactora threat under specific
conditions
R2, with 4 h[52]. End-of-life
of operation overimpacts of bioplastics
1 day per batch, usesinclude
18.7 kWh. the The
release
filterofsystem,
microplastics into
operating
the natural environment [52]. However, the present study excludes
2 h per day for 1 day per batch, consumes 10.3 kWh. The low-temperature cooling system the environmental
impacts
for associated
R1 requires with the disposal
a substantial or end-of-life
3430.5 kWh over 3.5 processing
days per batch. of theBurners
PLA productfor R1because
and R2it
bases its impact assessment on ready-made models, as discussed in
consume 3.9 kWh and 1.3 kWh, respectively. Polymerization devices, operating for 6 h the impact assessment
Section 2.3 that follows. These models do not include the impacts of microplastics, either in
per day over 1 day per batch, consume 126.2 kWh. Building air circulation fans, running
the natural environment or in human health. This is clearly identified by the authors of the
8 h daily for 55 days, require 74.8 kWh. Overall, the total energy needs amount to 4451.7
present study as a limitation of the applied LCA methodology that requires further research.
kWh (Appendix A, Table A2).
Furthermore, the production of food that ended up as food waste was not taken into account
Regarding the energy sources, the electricity mix in Greece in 2020, according to the
because it would have been produced regardless of its usage for PLA production.
Hellenic Ministry of Energy and Environment, consisted of oil at 7.22%, natural gas at
This study explores the option of diverting food waste disposal to landfills, which is
43.32%, lignite at 9.48%, renewable energy sources at 28.85%, nuclear energy at 3.21%, and
the primary method of waste disposal in Greece, comprising approximately 78% of the total
other sources at 7.92%. To ensure a representative evaluation, a custom record for the elec-
waste generation [53]. Special attention is given to the reduction in methane emissions, with
tricity mix was developed, as no ready-made library specific to Greece was available.
an emphasis on the kilograms of methane not emitted. By diverting 715 kg of food waste
from landfills, a reduction of 26.8 kg in methane emissions was achieved. This reduction
2.2.3. Avoided Landfilling
is based on the understanding that food waste contributes to 58% of methane emissions
The into
emitted present study adopts
the atmosphere inamunicipal
gate-to-gate
solidLCA approach
waste landfills[51],
[54].focusing solely on the
pilot-scale unit for the production of PLA and excluding end-of-life processing and food
2.3. Life
waste Cycle Impact Assessment
considerations. Biodegradable plastics are an interesting alternative for major ques-
tions SimaPro
in materialsversion 9.5 was Nevertheless,
engineering. used to generate PLAthe microplastics can pose amodel,
life cycle assessment threat under
which
specific conditions [52]. End-of-life impacts of bioplastics include
adhered to the ISO 14040 series of standards [55] The chosen impact assessment the release of microplas-
method
is the Ecological Footprint method 3.0 (adapted) V1.00/EF 3/excluding infrastructure
processes, which incorporates sixteen impact categories with their respective units: Cli-
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5529 6 of 20

mate change (CC)-[kg CO2 eq.], Ozone depletion (OD)-[kg CFC11 eq.], Ionizing radiation
(IR)-[kBq U-235 eq.], Photochemical ozone formation (POF)-[kg NMVOC eq.], Particulate
matter (PM)-[disease inc.], Human toxicity, non-cancer (HT-nc)-[CTUh], Human toxicity,
cancer (HT-c)-[CTUh], Acidification (A)-[mol H+ eq.], Eutrophication, freshwater (E-f)-[kg
P eq.], Eutrophication, marine (E-m)-[kg N eq.], Eutrophication, terrestrial (E-t)-[mol N
eq.], Ecotoxicity, freshwater (ECoX-f)-[CTUe], Land use (LU)-[Pt], Water use (WU)-[m3
depriv.], Resource use, fossils (RU-f)-[MJ], Resource use, minerals and metals (RU-mm)-[kg
Sb eq.]. All of the above impact categories are presented in terms of characterization and
normalization results. Characterization in life cycle assessment (LCA) research entails
modeling direct consequences for human health and other categories [56]. Furthermore,
normalization helps in understanding the relative significance of improvements or reduc-
tions achieved in specific impact categories, enabling the evaluation of the effectiveness of
mitigation efforts or the environmental benefits gained by avoiding certain materials or
processes [57].

2.4. Alternative Feedstock Scenario

PLA is a bioplastic primarily derived from starch raw ingredients [58]. Given that
starch is the principal feedstock for PLA manufacturing [27], a precise quantification of
the starch content within the food waste sample was conducted. Based on this result
and upon a review of pertinent literature, corn emerged as a prominent raw material [59].
Consequently, an alternative scenario was explored, utilizing corn for the production of an
equivalent mass of bioplastic. Thus, “the production of 304 kg of corn, which served as the
alternative raw material, has been avoided by producing bioplastic from food waste”.
This illustrates the twofold nature of prevention: one aspect involves diverting food
waste from landfills, while the other aspect entails preventing the production of an equiva-
lent amount of corn. An important step was the detailed analysis of the food waste sample
composition, with its distribution based on components representing the general variation
of food waste composition. This was followed by matching the sample with the starch
content, based on the Woodlands Healing Research Center nutritional guide, and one more
study [60]. The analytical amounts of these components are listed in Appendix A, Table A3.
The next step was to relate the amount of starch contained in the sample to the equivalent
amount of corn. Therefore, the use of an equivalent amount of corn, based on its starch
content, represents the alternative scenario for the incoming raw material to be used to
produce an equal amount of bioplastic.

2.5. Interpretation
The present study on PLA production from food waste provides valuable insights
into environmental implications and critical aspects. The findings can aid in decision-
making to optimize production processes and reduce environmental effects. At all phases
of the life cycle, data collection, measurement, and analysis are crucial for sustainable PLA
production. Opportunities for improvement include optimizing the production procedures,
reducing energy consumption, reducing garbage output, and developing alternative waste
disposal methods. The findings are presented in the results and discussion modules,
which include the assessment, limitations, and some recommendations for addressing
environmental problems.

2.6. Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis

A sensitivity analysis of Greece’s electricity mix, considering the environmental impact
data presented earlier, indicates the possible repercussions of adjusting the balance of en-
ergy sources. Greece has increasingly turned to renewable energy sources [61], comprising
over 30% of the electricity mix [62], alongside considerable contributions from natural gas
and lignite. However, as sustainability gains prominence and environmental concerns
mount, there is an opportunity to rethink this composition. Shifting away from natural gas
and lignite in favor of developing renewable energy sources could decrease greenhouse
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5529 7 of 20

gas emissions [63] as well as other harmful pollutants, thus contributing to global climate
change mitigation [64]. Furthermore, prioritizing contributions from nuclear and hydro-
electric sources while phasing out carbon-intensive sources could yield lasting benefits
regarding environmental protection and energy security [65]. By reevaluating and optimiz-
ing the electricity mix, Greece can move towards a more sustainable and resilient energy
future. Specifically, according to the Hellenic Ministry of Energy and Environment [66], the
energy mix in Greece in 2023 consisted of natural gas at 35.1%, lignite at 9.5%, renewable
energy sources at 40.3%, nuclear energy at 3.4%, and hydroelectric energy at 11.7%.
A systematic method for analyzing and minimizing uncertainty in research findings
is essential for increasing their reliability [67]. This assessment focuses on the consistency
and variability of the data and assumptions used in the LCA process. As indicated in prior
research, changes in food waste composition, processing efficiency, and energy utilization
have a significant impact on the interpretation of the LCA results. Furthermore, Hong
et al. [68] note that meticulously quantifying these uncertainties helps researchers assess the
amount of confidence in their results, identify critical areas that require more precise data,
and improve the overall dependability of the study’s findings. In this regard, an uncertainty
analysis was performed using SimaPro software version 9.5 and the Monte Carlo [69]
technique (which is incorporated by default in the software) for the total avoidance product
in the alternative feedstock scenario.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Characterization and Normalization
Table 1 illustrates the outcomes of the study across the various environmental impact
categories. The characterization results for each impact category are distributed among
three main components, namely: (i) the contribution of chemical additives, (ii) the contribu-
tion of electricity, and (iii) the contribution from the avoided landfilling of FW. Figure 3
presents the relative contribution of each of the three components. The electricity com-
ponent (shown in red in Figure 2) is the major contributor to various impact categories,
including climate change, ionizing radiation, freshwater ecotoxicity, and water use. This
indicates the crucial environmental impact of electricity use in the bioplastic production
process. The chemical addition (shown in blue in Figure 3) greatly affects ozone depletion,
photochemical ozone formation, freshwater ecotoxicity, terrestrial eutrophication, land use,
resource use, and mineral–metals resource use. This finding emphasizes the importance of
careful selection and the potential decrease in chemical additions to reduce their detrimen-
tal impact on the environment. Notably, the averted landfilling of FW (indicated in green)
has an environmentally favorable impact, particularly in terms of land use and freshwater
ecotoxicity. Our findings are in agreement with Nampoothiri et al. [70], who reported that
using leftovers or food waste can help lessen the environmental effect of PLA production.
Our characterization results reinforce the view that bioplastic production from food waste
emerges as a viable option since it has a positive impact on land use and on the reduction
of pollution in freshwater ecosystems.
More specifically, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, with a decrease of 50.9225 kg
CO2 eq., contribute to climate change mitigation. Furthermore, a decrease in ozone-
depleting chemicals by −1.6 × 10−6 kg CFC11 eq. helps in preserving the ozone layer. Re-
duced emissions of non-methane volatile organic chemicals (−0.10398 kg NMVOC eq.) and
particle matter (−2.4 × 10−6 illness inc.) result in improved air quality and public health
outcomes. Furthermore, reductions in human toxicity, both non-cancer (−9.6 × 10−7 CTUh)
and cancer-related (−2.5 × 10−8 CTUh), as well as acidification (−0.34189 mol H+ eq.),
indicate favorable effects on human health and ecosystem preservation. Decreased eu-
trophication in freshwater (−0.0497 kg P eq.), marine (−0.07274 kg N eq.), and terrestrial
(−1.16318 mol N eq.) ecosystems helps preserve ecological balance. The reduction in
freshwater ecotoxicity (−8161.21 CTUe) and land use (−21,306.69425 Pt) also suggests
positive effects on biodiversity conservation. However, please note that some authors have
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5529 8 of 20

questioned the overall positive influence of PLA manufacturing on climate change and
sustainability, particularly regarding land use [71].

Table 1. Characterization impact assessment results for the production of 99 kg of PLA from FW.

Impact Category (Unit) Total Chemical for PLA Electricity, GR_2021 Avoided FW
CC (kg CO2 eq.) 2492.15 1109.93 1433.14 −50.93
OD (kg CFC11 eq.) 0.0004 0.0003 0.00013 −1.6 × 10−6
IR (kBq U-235 eq.) 238.23 74.56 165.79 −2.12967
POF (kg NMVOC eq.) 5.99 3.55 2.5425 −0.10398
PM (disease inc.) 8.86 × 10−5 4.75 × 10−5 4.35 × 10−5 −2.4 × 10−6
HT-nc (CTUh) 1.87 × 10−5 1.23 × 10−5 7.38 × 10−6 −9.6 × 10−7
HT-c (CTUh) 5.37 × 10−7 3.03 × 10−7 2.58 × 10−7 −2.5 × 10−8
A (mol H+ eq.) 14.33 5.845239 8.83 −0.34
E-f (kg P eq.) 2.24 0.38 1.96 −0.05
E m (kg N eq.) 2.01 1.02 1.06 −0.07
E-t (mol N eq.) 18.45 12.41 7.25 −1.16
ECoX-f (CTUe) 31,178.8 35,891.19 3448.83 −8161.2
LU (Pt) 7175.5 28,241.53 240.65 −21306.7
WU (m3 depriv.) 11,037.2 2063.44 9211.42 −237.7
RU-f (MJ) 18,815.9 19,070.01 1.43 −255.4
Sustainability
RU mm (kg 2024,Sb
16,eq.)
x FOR PEER REVIEW
0.015 0.02 0 −0.0007 9 of 21

Figure 3. Characterization results for the production of PLA from FW.

Figure 3. Characterization results for the production of PLA from FW.

Moving on
Moving on to
to the
the normalization
normalization phase,
phase, presented
presented inin Figure
Figure 4,
4, our
our findings
findings indicate
indicate
that the three
three most
most important
important categories
categories areare freshwater
freshwater eutrophication,
eutrophication, water use, and
freshwater ecotoxicity.
freshwater ecotoxicity.Electricity
Electricityis is
thethe major
major contributor
contributor forfirst
for the the two
firstcategories,
two categories,
while
while chemicals
chemicals are mainly
are mainly responsible
responsible for thefor the freshwater
freshwater ecotoxicity
ecotoxicity impacts.
impacts. Electricity
Electricity gen-
generation,
eration, particularly
particularly fromfrom fossil
fossil fuels,fuels,
has ahas a huge
huge environmental
environmental impact
impact [72].[72]. To ad-
To address
dress challenges,
these these challenges, a transition
a transition towardstowards
cleanercleaner and more
and more sustainable
sustainable energy energy
sourcessources
and
and improved
improved energy
energy efficiency
efficiency is of paramount
is of paramount importance.
importance. By reducing
By reducing the reliance
the reliance on
on fossil
fossiland
fuels fuelsembracing
and embracing
cleaner cleaner alternatives
alternatives such assuch as wind
wind and solar
and solar energy,
energy, the negative
the negative envi-
environmental
ronmental and health
and health implications
implications may may be alleviated.
be alleviated. Moreover,
Moreover, in theinpresent
the present pilot-
pilot-scale
scale case study, several practices and strategies can be implemented to reduce the total
energy needs for the specific equipment and systems outlined. For the receiving and pro-
cessing equipment, replacement of existing motors in conveyor belts, screws, shredders,
pulpers, and monopumps with high-efficiency models that use less power is recom-
mended. Then, for bioreactors R1 and R2, improvement of the insulation is recommended
 while chemicals are mainly responsible for the freshwater ecotoxicity impacts. Electricity
generation, particularly from fossil fuels, has a huge environmental impact [72]. To ad-
dress these challenges, a transition towards cleaner and more sustainable energy sources
and improved energy efficiency is of paramount importance. By reducing the reliance on
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5529 fossil fuels and embracing cleaner alternatives such as wind and solar energy, the negative 9 of 20
environmental and health implications may be alleviated. Moreover, in the present pilot-
scale case study, several practices and strategies can be implemented to reduce the total
case
energystudy, several
needs practices
for the specificand strategies
equipment andcan be implemented
systems to reduce
outlined. For the total
the receiving energy
and pro-
needs
cessingfor the specificreplacement
equipment, equipment of and systems
existing outlined.
motors For the receiving
in conveyor and processing
belts, screws, shredders,
equipment,
pulpers, and replacement
monopumps of existing motors in conveyor
with high-efficiency modelsbelts,
that screws,
use lessshredders,
power ispulpers,
recom-
and monopumps
mended. Then, forwith high-efficiency
bioreactors R1 and R2,models that use less
improvement power
of the is recommended.
insulation is recommendedThen,
for bioreactors R1 and R2, improvement of the insulation is recommended
to minimize heat loss and maintain optimal temperatures with less energy. Finally, for to minimize
heat loss and maintain
polymerization devices,optimal temperatures
replacement of existingwithequipment
less energy. Finally,
with for polymerization
energy-efficient models
devices, replacement
is recommended, thatofrequire
existingless
equipment
power, andwithoptimizing
energy-efficient models is recommended,
the polymerization process to
that require
reduce less power,
the duration of and optimizing
operation the polymerization
without affecting the quality process of to reduce
the final the duration
product can
of operation without affecting the quality of the final product can reduce
reduce energy consumption. By implementing these practices, the pilot-scale unit can re- energy consump-
tion. Bytotal
duce its implementing these practices,
energy consumption, leadingtheto pilot-scale
cost savings unit
andcan reduce
a lower its total energy
environmental im-
consumption,
pact. leading to cost savings and a lower environmental impact.

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Normalization
Normalization results
results for
for the
the impact
impact categories
categories for
for the
the production
production of
of PLA
PLA from
from FW.
FW.

3.2. Alternative Feedstock Scenario

Again, in this scenario, the characterization results presented in Table 2 are divided
into three major components: the contribution of chemical additives, the contribution of
electricity, and the contribution from avoiding food waste landfilling and corn not utilized
for producing the intended quantity of bioplastic. Figure 5 presents the relative contribu-
tion of each of the three components. The electricity component (red in Figure 5) is the
major contributor to climate change, ionizing radiation, freshwater ecotoxicity, acidification,
and water use. The chemicals (blue color) are the major contributors to ozone depletion,
photochemical ozone formation, human toxicity (cancer and non-cancer effects), freshwater
ecotoxicity, terrestrial eutrophication, land use, resource use, and mineral–metals resource
use. In the present scenario, it is noteworthy the environmentally positive impact, par-
ticularly on marine and terrestrial eutrophication, freshwater ecotoxicity, and land and
water use, of the prevented landfilling of FW and corn production (green color). First- and
second-generation PLA tend to have significant environmental consequences in various
areas, including human toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and marine eutrophication [32],
as confirmed by the findings of this study. Additionally, changes in land use can have
long-term environmental and ecological consequences [73].
Particularly, the positive savings (as represented by negative values) demonstrated
in Figure 5 across multiple categories represent the prevention that contributes to these
environmental impacts. The current study’s summarized data highlight notable reductions
in various environmental impact categories, affirming the benefits of converting food
waste into bioplastic feedstock. Specifically, regarding climate change, a total reduction of
182.13 kg CO2 eq. is observed, primarily attributed to the avoidance of greenhouse gas
emissions associated with fossil fuels or their derivatives, amounting to 155.77 kg CO2 eq.
Additionally, biogenic emissions savings of 25.55 kg CO2 eq. are realized, likely stemming
from reduced methane emissions due to diverting food waste from conventional disposal
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5529 10 of 20

methods. Furthermore, a total reduction of 18,214.4 CTUe in freshwater ecotoxicity is

achieved, credited to the avoidance of various organic and inorganic pollutants, as well
as metal-based contaminants, thereby safeguarding aquatic habitats. The reduction in
acidification by 1.87 mol H+ eq. signifies potential savings from mitigating acidifying
agents, which pose threats to ecosystems. Moreover, a decrease in resource usage from
fossil fuels by 256.24 MJ indicates reduced reliance on non-renewable energy sources in
bioplastic production, contributing to wider sustainability efforts. Finally, the decline
in terrestrial eutrophication by 7.24 kg P eq. indicates a favorable impact on nutrient
runoff into water bodies, mitigating excessive algae growth and preserving freshwater
ecosystems. These findings underscore the environmental benefits of repurposing food
waste for bioplastic production.

Table 2. Characterization impact assessment results for the production of 99 kg of PLA for the
alternative feedstock scenario for the main impact categories.

Impact Category (Unit) Total Chemical for PLA Electricity GR_2021 Avoided Raw Material
CC (kg CO2 eq.) 2360.95 1109.94 1433.14 −182.13
OD (kg CFC11 eq.) 0.0004 0.00023 0.00014 −1.4 × 10−5
IR (kBq U-235 eq.) 225.89 74.56 165.79 −14.463
POF (kg NMVOC eq.) 5.62 3.55 2.54 −0.47
PM (disease inc.) 7.84 × 10−5 4.75 × 10−5 4.35 × 10−5 −1.3 × 10−5
HT-nc (CTUh) 1.72 × 10−5 1.23 × 10−5 7.38 × 10−6 −2.4 × 10−6
HT-c (CTUh) 4.97 × 10−7 3.03 × 10−7 2.58 × 10−7 −6.4 × 10−8
A (mol H+ eq.) 12.81 5.85 8.825883 −1.86
E-f (kg P eq.) 2.20 0.33 1.96 −0.09
E m (kg N eq.) 0.02 1.02 1.06 −2.06
E-t (mol N eq.) 12.42 12.41 7.25 −7.24
ECoX-f (CTUe) 21,125.6 35,891.2 3448.83 −18,214.4
LU (Pt) 6978.47 28,241.5 240.65 −21,503.7
WU (m3 depriv.) 4327.67 2063.44 9211.42 −6947.19
RU-f (MJ) 18,815.2 19,070.0 1.43 −256.24
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW
RU mm (kg Sb eq.) 0.02 0.02 0 −0.0007 11 of 21

Figure 5. Characterization results for the alternative feedstock scenario, including the total preven-
Figure 5. Characterization results for the alternative feedstock scenario, including the total prevention.
tion.

Particularly, the positive savings (as represented by negative values) demonstrated

in Figure 5 across multiple categories represent the prevention that contributes to these
environmental impacts. The current study’s summarized data highlight notable reduc-
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5529 11 of 20

Continuing on to the normalization stage, as shown in Figure 6, our findings indicate

that the three most significant categories are freshwater eutrophication, water use, and
freshwater ecotoxicity. In the same context, electricity is the largest contributor for the first
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW
two categories, although at lower values, while chemicals are mostly responsible 12 forofthe
21
freshwater ecotoxicity impacts.

Figure 6. Normalization results for the alternative feedstock scenario, including the total prevention.
Figure 6. Normalization results for the alternative feedstock scenario, including the total prevention.

The main
The main categories
categories recorded
recorded asas prevention
prevention (Figure
(Figure 6)6) at
at the
the normalization
normalization levellevel in-
in-
clude freshwater eutrophication and freshwater ecotoxicity. These categories
clude freshwater eutrophication and freshwater ecotoxicity. These categories quantify the quantify the
savings achieved
savings achieved inin reducing
reducing nutrient
nutrient input
input and the reductions
and the reductions in in the
the release
release of
of ecotoxic
ecotoxic
substances. In life cycle assessments, normalization is a crucial step in assessing environ-
normalization is a crucial step in assessing environ-
mental impact
mental impact[74].
[74].ItItinvolves
involvescomparing
comparingthe theenvironmental
environmental impact
impact of of a product
a product or pro-
or process
cess
to to a reference
a reference value,value,
whichwhich is typically
is typically based
based on the on the average
average or impact
or typical typical of
impact of a
a specific
specific category
category of products
of products or processes.
or processes. Overall, normalization
Overall, normalization and characterization
and characterization in LCA help in
LCA
in help in evaluating
evaluating the environmental
the environmental impact of
impact of various various and
processes processes and[75].
products products [75].

3.3. Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis

Understanding variations in
Understanding variations in various
various impact
impact categories
categories is
is critical
critical in
in the
the continuous
continuous
effort
effort to monitor and reduce the environmental effects of human activities. The following
to monitor and reduce the environmental effects of human activities. The following
data
data shows
shows the most current
the most current percentage
percentage rates
rates of change, emphasizing
of change, emphasizing both
both gains and areas
gains and areas
for concern.
for concern.
Based
Based onon Figure
Figure 77 and
and Table
Table A4A4 (Appendix
(Appendix A), resuming all
A), resuming all operations
operations inin 2024
2024 (with
(with
the
the latest energy mix
latest energy in Greece,
mix in Greece, which
which has
has been
been implemented
implemented since
since 2023)
2023) could
could potentially
potentially
lead
lead to
to aa significant
significant 20%
20% reduction
reduction in in carbon
carbon dioxide
dioxide equivalent,
equivalent, indicating
indicating progress
progress inin
addressing climate change concerns. Additionally, a 21% decrease in chlorofluorocarbon
addressing climate change concerns. Additionally, a 21% decrease in chlorofluorocarbon
equivalent
equivalent suggests
suggestseffectiveness
effectivenessinin phasing outout
phasing ozone-depleting
ozone-depletingcompounds,
compounds,contributing
contrib-
to the recovery of the ozone layer. Notably, there is a 19% reduction in non-methane
uting to the recovery of the ozone layer. Notably, there is a 19% reduction in non-methane volatile
organic compound equivalent, indicating progress in reducing air pollution
volatile organic compound equivalent, indicating progress in reducing air pollution and ozone
and
generation. The significant 47% decrease in illness incidence due to particulate
ozone generation. The significant 47% decrease in illness incidence due to particulate mat- matter
indicates successful measures to improve air quality and protect public health. Similarly,
ter indicates successful measures to improve air quality and protect public health. Simi-
the 12% reduction in non-cancerous human toxicity demonstrates attempts to minimize
larly, the 12% reduction in non-cancerous human toxicity demonstrates attempts to mini-
exposure to dangerous chemicals, hence improving human health and well-being. Notable
mize exposure to dangerous chemicals, hence improving human health and well-being.
reductions include a 32% decrease in malignant human toxicity, indicating success in
Notable reductions include a 32% decrease in malignant human toxicity, indicating suc-
reducing carcinogenic dangers, and a 35% reduction in hydrogen ion equivalent, indicating
cess in reducing carcinogenic dangers, and a 35% reduction in hydrogen ion equivalent,
progress in mitigating acidification and maintaining ecological pH equilibrium.
indicating progress in mitigating acidification and maintaining ecological pH equilibrium.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21
Sustainability 2024,
2024, 16,
16, 5529
x FOR PEER REVIEW 13
12of 21
of 20

Figure 7. Characterization diagram of sensitivity analysis for the main impact categories.
Figure 7. Characterization diagram of sensitivity analysis for the main impact categories.
Figure 7. Characterization diagram of sensitivity analysis for the main impact categories.
While there have been considerable advancements in key environmental impact cat-
While
While
egories, there
there have
challenges have been
been
persist considerable
considerable
that advancements
advancements
require collective action andin key
in environmental
key environmental
innovation. Continuedimpact cat-
impact
collab-
egories,
oration challenges
categories, challenges
among persist that require
persistindustry,
governments, collective
that require action
andcollective
communities and
action innovation. Continued
and innovation.
is critical to ensuringContinuedcollab-
a sustain-
oration among
collaboration
able future. governments,
among industry,
governments, and
industry,communities
and is
communities critical
is to ensuring
critical to a sustain-
ensuring a
able future.
sustainable future.
The uncertainty analysis is shown in Figure 8, and the category with a significant
The uncertainty
difference analysis
is human toxicity is shown
without in Figure
cancer effects,8,which
and the category
might significant
with a significant
be attributed to various
difference is human toxicity without cancer
difference These include variations in exposure
variables. effects,
effects, which might be attributed
and susceptibility across populations, to various
the
variables. These include variations in exposure and susceptibility across
complexity of chemical interactions, a lack of comprehensive data on long-term exposure, populations, the
complexity of chemical
methodological differencesinteractions, a lack of comprehensive
in the assessment data on
of toxicity, and variationson long-term
long-term
in models exposure,
exposure,
used to
methodological differences
differences in the assessment of toxicity,
extrapolate data from experimental studies to real-world scenarios. Furthermore, used
toxicity, and variations in models to
regula-
extrapolate
extrapolate data
data from
from experimental
experimental studies
studies toto real-world
real-world scenarios.
scenarios. Furthermore,
Furthermore,
tory standards and procedural discrepancies among areas and nations might lead to inac- regula-
regulatory
tory standards
standards
curate and procedural
and procedural
measurements discrepancies
anddiscrepancies
interpretations ofamong
among areas areas
human and and data.
nations
nations
toxicity might might
These lead to inac-
leadcharacteristics
to inaccurate
curate measurements
measurements and and interpretations
interpretations of humanof human
toxicity toxicity
data. data.
These These characteristics
characteristics
make it challenging to acquire accurate and reliable measures of non-cancer human ad- make it
challenging
make effects.
verse to acquiretoaccurate
it challenging acquire and reliable
accurate andmeasures
reliable of non-cancer
measures human adverse
of non-cancer human effects.
ad-
verse effects.

Figure 8. Uncertainty analysis for all avoided products at the normalization level.
Figure
Figure 8. Uncertainty analysis
8. Uncertainty analysis for
for all
all avoided
avoided products
products at
at the
the normalization
normalization level.
level.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5529 13 of 20

The primary advantages of producing PLA from food waste include reduced envi-
ronmental impact and long-term sustainability [76]. This aligns with environmental aims
since converting food waste into bioplastics such as PLA promotes circular economy princi-
ples [77] and reduces dependency on polymers produced through fossil fuels [9]. However,
significant challenges such as raw material volatility, process optimization, and economic
feasibility need to be addressed.
The diversity of raw materials affects the efficiency and consistency of the fermen-
tation process and subsequent PLA synthesis. To produce high-quality PLA, research
and development are needed to develop efficient and cost-effective technologies for the
pretreatment, fermentation, and purification of lactic acid derived from food waste. The
economic feasibility of waste collection, treatment, and conversion procedures relative to
standard PLA production methods will determine viability. More numerical details for the
uncertainty analysis results are presented in Table A5 in Appendix A.

4. Conclusions and Limitations

Bioplastics produced from organic waste offer a promising alternative for reducing
dependence on petroleum-based plastics [78]. This study focuses on evaluating PLA
production from food waste, with an emphasis on its potential to promote environmental
sustainability. The main benefits are increased resource efficiency, less environmental
impact, and long-term sustainability. This strategy applies the principles of the circular
economy while also reducing reliance on polymers derived from fossil fuels. Our results
indicate that electricity is the major contributor to the most important environmental
impacts of PLA production from food waste in the pilot scale unit. Moreover, the electricity
required for PLA production still depends on fossil sources. The most important impacts
are freshwater eutrophication, water use, and freshwater ecotoxicity. Our findings are in
agreement with literature reports that state that switching to second-generation feedstocks,
such as separately collected food waste, and improvements in energy efficiency and use of
renewable energy are among the technological advances that reduce the environmental
impacts of bioplastics [30].
Aside from the environmental benefits, there are certain limitations, such as the
economic viability, as waste collection, treatment costs, and conversion process efficiency
determine PLA production from food waste. Waste management technology innovation
and efficient conversion procedures are crucial to cost-effectiveness. Tsang et al. [35]
and Jõgi and Bhat [31] highlighted the potential cost savings resulting from bioplastic
production from food waste compared to standard processes while emphasizing the need
for more cost-effective solutions. Additional studies underscore the need to examine the
economic feasibility of the food-waste-to-bioplastics concept within the context of a circular
economy [79]. However, a direct comparative economic analysis is still absent, illustrating
the need for more research in this field.
In terms of future research challenges within the use of LCA for the assessment of
bioplastics production, we also clearly identify that the plastic littering impacts, even for
bioplastics that are marketed as biodegradable, are not included within any current LCA
impact category [9]. With the fast-growing accumulation of degradable bioplastics and
their resulting microplastics in soils globally, there is an urgent better need to understand
their potential effects on soil-microbial-plant systems, which could serve as a starting point
for assessing their ecological risk in terrestrial ecosystems [52]. Based on these scientific
findings, relative LCA impact models should be developed.
Regarding the scalability of the present process to an industrial one, the use of pilot-
scale data is a difficult issue with several challenges. Berndtsson et al. [80] note the necessity
for senior management support in scaling up data-driven pilot initiatives. There is also a
suggested framework for pilot line scale-up utilizing digital manufacturing, which may
improve the accuracy of scale-up models [81]. These studies demonstrate the importance
of detailed planning, organizational support, and the technology tools required for scaling
up the process.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5529 14 of 20

To summarize, while both food waste and corn may be used as raw materials for PLA
production, employing food waste has the potential to reduce waste, increase resource
efficiency, and reduce environmental impacts. However, process optimization, scalability,
and economic viability issues must be addressed before PLA production from food waste
can be more competitive and sustainable than standard corn-based PLA production.

Author Contributions: The collaborative nature of the research outlined in this article involved each
author contributing in diverse ways, encompassing unique perspectives, insights, feedback, and
guidance that may not be easily quantified or neatly categorized. Despite this complexity, an effort
has been made to delineate the authors’ contributions, recognizing that: conceptualization. K.S. and
K.A.; methodology. K.A. and K.S.; software. K.S. and K.A.; validation. K.A., K.V. and K.L.; formal
analysis. K.A. and K.S.; investigation. K.S. and A.M.; resources. A.M., T.M. and K.V.; data curation.
A.M., K.V. and T.M.; writing—original draft preparation. K.A. and K.S.; writing—review and editing.
K.A. and K.L.; visualization. K.S.; supervision. K.L., K.A. and T.M.; project administration. T.M. and
K.L.; funding acquisition. T.M. and K.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This study was financially supported by the A2UFood Project (UIA 02-115 “Avoidable and
Unavoidable Food Wastes: A Holistic Managing Approach for Urban Environments—A2U Food”,
Urban Innovative Actions Initiative, EU, (2018–2022)), co-funded by the European Regional and
Development Fund through the Urban Innovative Actions Initiative.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are contained within this manuscript
for reproducibility purposes.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge all who have directly or indirectly
helped in carrying out this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A
Table A1. Chemicals import table for LCI (all the chemicals used were purchased in larger quantities
as they are part of the consumables for other laboratory experiments, via on-line ordering).

Chemical Characteristics/Supply Company Amount Unit

Sodium hydroxide ≥98.0–100.5%/Sigma Aldrich (Burlington, MA, USA) 25 kg
without water, in a 15% solution state/market product
Sodium hypochlorite, 100 kg
for cleaning
Tetrahydrofuran Min. 99.5%/Honeywell (Charlotte, NC, USA) 4.5 kg
Acetone, Pure 100%, Liquid/Manis chemicals (Athens, Greece) 4 kg
Hydrochloric acid from
Honeywell X31087 hydrochloric acid solution, 6 M HCl 4 kg
benzene chlorination
1-butanol p.a. ≥99.5%/Merck (Marousi, Athens, Greece) 176 kg
Tin concentrate (Tin(II)
92.5–100.0%/Sigma Aldrich (Burlington, MA, USA) 1 kg
2-ethylhexanoate)
Enzyme, Glucoamylase,
Amlyloglucosidases Spirizyme Fuel (SPF) from Novozymes 5 kg
Novozyme, Spirizyme
Ammonium Hydroxide liquid 25%/Manis chemicals (Athens, Greece) 25 kg
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5529 15 of 20

Table A2. Energy needs import table for LCI.

Production Energy Hours of Operation (h) Power of Devices (kW) Energy Requirements (kWh)
Receiving/processing equipment
2 h in every 8 h shift *
(conveyor belt, conveyor screws, 18.7 22.02 kW 411.8
11 batches * 85%
shredder, pulper, monopump)
4 days * 24 h/day * 11
Bioreactor R1 898 0.5 kW 449
batches * 85%
1 day * 4 h/day * 11
Bioreactor R2 37.4 0.5 kW 18.7
batches * 85%
1 day * 2 h/day * 11
Filter system 18.7 0.55 kW 10.3
batches * 85%
Low temperature heating system: 3.5 days * 24 h/day * 11
785 4.37 kW 3430.5
for R1 batches * 85%
0.5 days * 24 h/day * 11
Burner R1 112.2 0.035 kW 3.9
batches * 85%
1 day * 4 h/day * 11
Burner R2 37.4 0.035 kW 1.3
batches * 85%
1 day * 6 h/day * 11
Polymerization devices 56.1 2.25 kW 126.2
batches * 85%
Building air circulation fans 55 days * 8 h/day * 85% 374 0.20 kW 74.8
Total energy needs 4451.7

Table A3. Starch contained in the case study sample for LCI (https://woodmed.com/index.php/
health-information/basic-health-maintenance-diet/135-appendix-3-starch-content-of-vegetables-
and-fruits (accessed on 15 February 2024).

Food Category % Starch Total Feedstock Quantity (kg) Quantity of Starch in Feedstock (kg)
Spinach 0.03 25.0 0.75
Broccoli 0.03 28.0 0.84
Cabbage 0.03 29.0 0.87
Brussel Sprouts 0.09 18.0 1.60
White Potato 0.18 100.0 18.0
Pepper 0.06 32.0 1.92
Cucumber 0.03 40.0 1.20
Lettuce 0.03 80.0 2.40
Tomatoes 0.03 70.0 2.10
Carrots 0.09 56.5 5.08
Onions 0.09 93.0 8.30
Beans 0.21 10.0 2.10
Green Peas 0.15 40.0 6.00
Beets 0.09 22.0 1.98
Total amount of vegetables -- 643.5 53.0
Grapefruit 0.09 5.0 0.45
Bananas 0.21 25.0 5.25
Watermelon 0.06 5.0 0.30
Oranges 0.12 20.0 2.40
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5529 16 of 20

Table A3. Cont.

Food Category % Starch Total Feedstock Quantity (kg) Quantity of Starch in Feedstock (kg)
Peaches 0.12 6.0 0.72
Apples 0.15 10.5 1.58
Total amount of fruits -- 71.5 10.70
Total Starch 63.9
Corn 0.21 100.0 21.00
Total -- 304 63.9

Table A4. Sensitivity analysis for two electricity mixes and the rate of change.

Impact Category (Unit) 2021 Energy Mix 2023 Energy Mix % Rate of Change
CC (kg CO2 eq.) 2360.95 1879.05 −20%
OD (kg CFC11 eq.) 0.00 0.00 −21%
IR (kBq U-235 eq.) 225.90 228.23 1%
POF (kg NMVOC eq.) 5.62 4.56 −19%
PM (disease inc.) 0.00 0.00 −47%
HT-nc (CTUh) 0.00 0.00 −12%
HT-c (CTUh) 0.00 0.00 −32%
A (mol H+ eq.) 12.81 8.38 −35%
E-f (kg P eq.) 2.19 2.20 0%
E m (kg N eq.) 0.02 −0.22 −1360%
E-t (mol N eq.) 12.42 9.78 −21%
ECoX-f (CTUe) 21,125.6 19,234.86 −9%
LU (Pt) 6978.47 6399.44 −8%
WU (m3 depriv.) 4327.67 186,362.87 4206%
RU-f (MJ) 18,815.2 18,814.65 0%
RU mm (kg Sb eq.) 0.015 0.015 0%

Table A5. Uncertainty analysis for total avoided product at normalization.

Label PLA with Avoided FW and Corn Low High

CC 0.323 0.025 0.036
OD 0.003 0.001 0.001
IR 0.036 0.025 0.205
POF 0.159 0.025 0.042
PM 0.141 0.032 0.09
HT-nc −0.292 11.9 13.506
HT-c 0.122 0.706 0.802
A 0.225 0.018 0.022
E-f 1.375 0.175 0.32
E-m 0.001 0.01 0.017
E-t 0.069 0.014 0.02
ECoX-f −0.084 0.358 0.372
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5529 17 of 20

Table A5. Cont.

Label PLA with Avoided FW and Corn Low High

LU 0.008 0.006 0.004
WU 0.616 3.543 2.544
RU-f 0.108 0.03 0.061
RU-mm 0.198 0.071 0.107

References
1. Ramos, A.; Afonso Teixeira, C.; Rouboa, A. Environmental Analysis of Waste-to-Energy—A Portuguese Case Study. Energies 2018,
11, 548. [CrossRef]
2. Plastics—The Facts 2022 • Plastics Europe. Available online: https://plasticseurope.org/knowledge-hub/plastics-the-facts-2022/
(accessed on 5 October 2023).
3. OECD. Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060; OECD: Paris, France, 2022; ISBN 978-92-64-97364-0.
4. Browning, S.; Beymer-Farris, B.; Seay, J.R. Addressing the Challenges Associated with Plastic Waste Disposal and Management in
Developing Countries. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2021, 32, 100682. [CrossRef]
5. Zheng, J.; Suh, S. Strategies to Reduce the Global Carbon Footprint of Plastics. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2019, 9, 374–378. [CrossRef]
6. Schmaltz, E.; Melvin, E.C.; Diana, Z.; Gunady, E.F.; Rittschof, D.; Somarelli, J.A.; Virdin, J.; Dunphy-Daly, M.M. Plastic Pollution
Solutions: Emerging Technologies to Prevent and Collect Marine Plastic Pollution. Environ. Int. 2020, 144, 106067. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
7. Rai, P.K.; Lee, J.; Brown, R.J.C.; Kim, K.-H. Micro- and Nano-Plastic Pollution: Behavior, Microbial Ecology, and Remediation
Technologies. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 291, 125240. [CrossRef]
8. Saley, A.M.; Smart, A.C.; Bezerra, M.F.; Burnham, T.L.U.; Capece, L.R.; Lima, L.F.O.; Carsh, A.C.; Williams, S.L.; Morgan, S.G.
Microplastic Accumulation and Biomagnification in a Coastal Marine Reserve Situated in a Sparsely Populated Area. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 2019, 146, 54–59. [CrossRef]
9. Bishop, G.; Styles, D.; Lens, P.N.L. Environmental Performance Comparison of Bioplastics and Petrochemical Plastics: A Review
of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Methodological Decisions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 168, 105451. [CrossRef]
10. Shogren, R.; Wood, D.; Orts, W.; Glenn, G. Plant-Based Materials and Transitioning to a Circular Economy. Sustain. Prod. Consum.
2019, 19, 194–215. [CrossRef]
11. Blank, L.M.; Narancic, T.; Mampel, J.; Tiso, T.; O’Connor, K. Biotechnological Upcycling of Plastic Waste and Other Non-
Conventional Feedstocks in a Circular Economy. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2020, 62, 212–219. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Tamburini, E.; Costa, S.; Summa, D.; Battistella, L.; Fano, E.A.; Castaldelli, G. Plastic (PET) vs Bioplastic (PLA) or Refillable
Aluminium Bottles—What Is the Most Sustainable Choice for Drinking Water? A Life-Cycle (LCA) Analysis. Environ. Res. 2021,
196, 110974. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Schneiderman, D.K.; Hillmyer, M.A. 50th Anniversary Perspective: There Is a Great Future in Sustainable Polymers. Macro-
molecules 2017, 50, 3733–3749. [CrossRef]
14. Yuan, X.; Wang, X.; Sarkar, B.; Ok, Y.S. The COVID-19 Pandemic Necessitates a Shift to a Plastic Circular Economy. Nat. Rev. Earth
Environ. 2021, 2, 659–660. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Document 52018DC0028, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy. 2018. Available
online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2018:28:FIN (accessed on 10 January 2024).
16. Ali, S.S.; Abdelkarim, E.A.; Elsamahy, T.; Al-Tohamy, R.; Li, F.; Kornaros, M.; Zuorro, A.; Zhu, D.; Sun, J. Bioplastic Production in
Terms of Life Cycle Assessment: A State-of-the-Art Review. Environ. Sci. Ecotechnol. 2023, 15, 100254. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Kircher, M. The Bioeconomy Needs Economic, Ecological and Social Sustainability. AIMSES 2022, 9, 33–50. [CrossRef]
18. Sidek, I.S.; Draman, S.F.S.; Abdullah, S.R.S.; Anuar, N. Current Development on Bioplastics and Its Future Prospects: An
Introductory Review. INWASCON Technol. Mag. 2019, 03–08. [CrossRef]
19. Blum, N.U.; Haupt, M.; Bening, C.R. Why “Circular” Doesn’t Always Mean “Sustainable”. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 162,
105042. [CrossRef]
20. Bajpai, P. Market for Biobased Packaging Material. In Biobased Polymers; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 191–196.
ISBN 978-0-12-818404-2.
21. Chia, W.Y.; Ying Tang, D.Y.; Khoo, K.S.; Kay Lup, A.N.; Chew, K.W. Nature’s Fight against Plastic Pollution: Algae for Plastic
Biodegradation and Bioplastics Production. Environ. Sci. Ecotechnol. 2020, 4, 100065. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Imre, B.; García, L.; Puglia, D.; Vilaplana, F. Reactive Compatibilization of Plant Polysaccharides and Biobased Polymers: Review
on Current Strategies, Expectations and Reality. Carbohydr. Polym. 2019, 209, 20–37. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Zhao, X.; Cornish, K.; Vodovotz, Y. Narrowing the Gap for Bioplastic Use in Food Packaging: An Update. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2020, 54, 4712–4732. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5529 18 of 20

24. Muniyasamy, S.; Dada, O.E. Recycling of Plastics and Composites Materials and Degradation Technologies for Bioplastics and
Biocomposites. In Waste Management in the Fashion and Textile Industries; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 311–333.
ISBN 978-0-12-818758-6.
25. Sindhu, R.; Gnansounou, E.; Rebello, S.; Binod, P.; Varjani, S.; Thakur, I.S.; Nair, R.B.; Pandey, A. Conversion of Food and Kitchen
Waste to Value-Added Products. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 241, 619–630. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Rebolledo-Leiva, R.; Ladakis, D.; Ioannidou, S.-M.; Koutinas, A.; Moreira, M.T.; González-García, S. Pursuing Single or Combined
Wheat Straw Based Poly(Butylene Succinate) Production Routes: A Life Cycle Approach of First- and Second-Generation
Feedstocks. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 2023, 37, e00683. [CrossRef]
27. Trivedi, A.K.; Gupta, M.K.; Singh, H. PLA Based Biocomposites for Sustainable Products: A Review. Adv. Ind. Eng. Polym. Res.
2023, 6, 382–395. [CrossRef]
28. Tsiropoulos, I.; Faaij, A.P.C.; Lundquist, L.; Schenker, U.; Briois, J.F.; Patel, M.K. Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Bio-Based
Plastics from Sugarcane Ethanol. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 90, 114–127. [CrossRef]
29. Vink, E.T.H.; Rábago, K.R.; Glassner, D.A.; Gruber, P.R. Applications of Life Cycle Assessment to NatureWorksTM Polylactide
(PLA) Production. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2003, 80, 403–419. [CrossRef]
30. Brizga, J.; Hubacek, K.; Feng, K. The Unintended Side Effects of Bioplastics: Carbon, Land, and Water Footprints. One Earth 2020,
3, 45–53. [CrossRef]
31. Jõgi, K.; Bhat, R. Valorization of Food Processing Wastes and By-Products for Bioplastic Production. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 2020,
18, 100326. [CrossRef]
32. Fonseca, A.; Ramalho, E.; Gouveia, A.; Figueiredo, F.; Nunes, J. Life Cycle Assessment of PLA Products: A Systematic Literature
Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12470. [CrossRef]
33. Govil, T.; Wang, J.; Samanta, D.; David, A.; Tripathi, A.; Rauniyar, S.; Salem, D.R.; Sani, R.K. Lignocellulosic Feedstock: A Review
of a Sustainable Platform for Cleaner Production of Nature’s Plastics. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 270, 122521. [CrossRef]
34. Swetha, T.A.; Ananthi, V.; Bora, A.; Sengottuvelan, N.; Ponnuchamy, K.; Muthusamy, G.; Arun, A. A Review on Biodegradable
Polylactic Acid (PLA) Production from Fermentative Food Waste—Its Applications and Degradation. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2023,
234, 123703. [CrossRef]
35. Tsang, Y.F.; Kumar, V.; Samadar, P.; Yang, Y.; Lee, J.; Ok, Y.S.; Song, H.; Kim, K.-H.; Kwon, E.E.; Jeon, Y.J. Production of Bioplastic
through Food Waste Valorization. Environ. Int. 2019, 127, 625–644. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Elissen, H.J.H.; Kootstra, A.M.J. Production of Short-Chain Volatile Fatty Acids and Lactic Acid during Small-Scale Ensiling of
Meadow Grass. Available online: https://edepot.wur.nl/415175 (accessed on 21 November 2023).
37. Woodford, M. Modeling Imprecision in Perception, Valuation, and Choice. Annu. Rev. Econ. 2020, 12, 579–601. [CrossRef]
38. Gong, L.; Passari, A.K.; Yin, C.; Kumar Thakur, V.; Newbold, J.; Clark, W.; Jiang, Y.; Kumar, S.; Gupta, V.K. Sustainable Utilization
of Fruit and Vegetable Waste Bioresources for Bioplastics Production. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2024, 44, 236–254. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Cecchi, T. Biobased Polymers from Food Waste Feedstock and Their Synthesis. In Biobased Products from Food Sector Waste; Springer
International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 231–285. ISBN 978-3-030-63435-3.
40. Sakai, K.; Taniguchi, M.; Miura, S.; Ohara, H.; Matsumoto, T.; Shirai, Y. Making Plastics from Garbage: A Novel Process for
Poly-L-Lactate Production from Municipal Food Waste. J. Ind. Ecol. 2003, 7, 63–74. [CrossRef]
41. Yu, P.H.; Chua, H.; Huang, A.L.; Lo, W.; Chen, G.Q. Conversion of Food Industrial Wastes into Bioplastics. Appl. Biochem.
Biotechnol. 1998, 70–72, 603–614. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Perotto, G.; Ceseracciu, L.; Simonutti, R.; Paul, U.C.; Guzman-Puyol, S.; Tran, T.-N.; Bayer, I.S.; Athanassiou, A. Bioplastics from
Vegetable Waste via an Eco-Friendly Water-Based Process. Green Chem. 2018, 20, 894–902. [CrossRef]
43. Kakadellis, S.; Harris, Z.M. Don’t Scrap the Waste: The Need for Broader System Boundaries in Bioplastic Food Packaging
Life-Cycle Assessment—A Critical Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 274, 122831. [CrossRef]
44. Ramadhan, M.O.; Handayani, M.N. The Potential of Food Waste as Bioplastic Material to Promote Environmental Sustainability:
A Review. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 980, 012082. [CrossRef]
45. Bagnani, M.; Peydayesh, M.; Knapp, T.; Appenzeller, E.; Sutter, D.; Kränzlin, S.; Gong, Y.; Wehrle, A.; Greuter, S.; Bucher, M.; et al.
From Soy Waste to Bioplastics: Industrial Proof of Concept. Biomacromolecules 2024, 25, 2033–2040. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Chroni, C.; Lasaridi, K.; Stylianidis, N.; Velonia, K.; Manios, T.; Daliakopoulos, I.; Tsompanidis, C.; Hafner, G.; Skarvelakis,
M.; Drosou, Z. The A2UFood Project—Avoidable and Unavoidable Food Wastes: A Holistic Managing Approach for Urban
Environments. Proceedings 2019, 30, 83. [CrossRef]
47. D’Adamo, I. Adopting Circular Economy Current Practices and Future Perspectives; MDPI: Basel, Switzerland, 2020; ISBN 978-3-03928-
343-9.
48. Finkbeiner, M.; Inaba, A.; Tan, R.; Christiansen, K.; Klüppel, H.-J. The New International Standards for Life Cycle Assessment:
ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2006, 11, 80–85. [CrossRef]
49. Theodorou, A.; Raptis, V.; Baltzaki, C.I.M.; Manios, T.; Harmandaris, V.; Velonia, K. Synthesis and Modeling of Poly(L-Lactic
Acid) via Polycondensation of L-Lactic Acid. Polymers 2023, 15, 4569. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50. Maragkaki, A.; Malliaros, N.G.; Sampathianakis, I.; Lolos, T.; Tsompanidis, C.; Manios, T. Evaluation of Biodegradability of
Polylactic Acid and Compostable Bags from Food Waste under Industrial Composting. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15963. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5529 19 of 20

51. Preethi; Kavitha, S.; Rajesh Banu, J.; Arulazhagan, P.; Gunasekaran, M. Environmental Impacts and Sustainability Assessment of
Food Loss and Waste Valorization: Value Chain Analysis of Food Consumption. In Food Waste to Valuable Resources; Elsevier:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 359–388. ISBN 978-0-12-818353-3.
52. Liu, R.; Liang, J.; Yang, Y.; Jiang, H.; Tian, X. Effect of Polylactic Acid Microplastics on Soil Properties, Soil Microbials and Plant
Growth. Chemosphere 2023, 329, 138504. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53. Perkoulidis, G.; Malamakis, A.; Banias, G.; Moussiopoulos, N. Development of a Methodological Framework for the Evaluation
of the Material and Energy Recovery Potential of Municipal Solid Waste Management: Implementation in Five Greek Regions.
Circ. Econ. Sustain. 2022, 2, 313–326. [CrossRef]
54. Powell, J.T.; Townsend, T.G.; Zimmerman, J.B. Estimates of Solid Waste Disposal Rates and Reduction Targets for Landfill Gas
Emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2016, 6, 162–165. [CrossRef]
55. ISO 14040:2006 (En), Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. Available online:
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:iso:14040:ed-2:v1:en (accessed on 23 June 2024).
56. Boulay, A.-M.; Bulle, C.; Bayart, J.-B.; Deschênes, L.; Margni, M. Regional Characterization of Freshwater Use in LCA: Modeling
Direct Impacts on Human Health. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 8948–8957. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Hélias, A.; Esnouf, A.; Finkbeiner, M. Consistent Normalization Approach for Life Cycle Assessment Based on Inventory
Databases. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 703, 134583. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Lim, L.-T.; Auras, R.; Rubino, M. Processing Technologies for Poly(Lactic Acid). Prog. Polym. Sci. 2008, 33, 820–852. [CrossRef]
59. Rezvani Ghomi, E.R.; Khosravi, F.; Saedi Ardahaei, A.S.; Dai, Y.; Neisiany, R.E.; Foroughi, F.; Wu, M.; Das, O.; Ramakrishna, S. The
Life Cycle Assessment for Polylactic Acid (PLA) to Make It a Low-Carbon Material. Polymers 2021, 13, 1854. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
60. Goldschmidt, J.; Sankavaram, K.; Udahogora, M. Advancing Cultural Competencies: Applying the Dietary Exchange List System
to Jamaican Foods. Health Sci. J. 2018, 12. [CrossRef]
61. Karytsas, S.; Vardopoulos, I.; Theodoropoulou, E. Factors Affecting Sustainable Market Acceptance of Residential Microgeneration
Technologies. A Two Time Period Comparative Analysis. Energies 2019, 12, 3298. [CrossRef]
62. Oikonomou, T.I.; Andreosatos, C.; Drosou, V.; Karytsas, C. The Influence of Energy Policy Instruments upon the Promotion of
Solar Thermal Technology in Greece. In Proceedings of the BEHAVE 2020—6th European Conference on Behaviour and Energy
Efficiency, Copenhagen, Denmark, 21–23 October 2020. Available online: https://c2e2.unepccc.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/
3/2021/05/442-the-influence-of-energy-policy-instruments-upon-the-promotion-of-solar-thermal-technology-in-greece.pdf (ac-
cessed on 12 January 2024).
63. Rashid Khan, H.U.; Awan, U.; Zaman, K.; Nassani, A.A.; Haffar, M.; Abro, M.M.Q. Assessing Hybrid Solar-Wind Potential for
Industrial Decarbonization Strategies: Global Shift to Green Development. Energies 2021, 14, 7620. [CrossRef]
64. Al Shidi, H.; Sulaiman, H.; Amoatey, P. Shifting to Renewable Energy to Mitigate Carbon Emissions: Initiatives by the States of
Gulf Cooperation Council. Low Carbon Econ. 2016, 07, 123–136. [CrossRef]
65. Sheldon, S.; Hadian, S.; Zik, O. Beyond Carbon: Quantifying Environmental Externalities as Energy for Hydroelectric and Nuclear
Power. Energy 2015, 84, 36–44. [CrossRef]
66. International Energy Agency. Greece 2023 Energy Policy Review; IEA Energy Policy Reviews; OECD: Paris, France, 2023;
ISBN 978-92-64-32569-2.
67. Plant, A.L.; Becker, C.A.; Hanisch, R.J.; Boisvert, R.F.; Possolo, A.M.; Elliott, J.T. How Measurement Science Can Improve
Confidence in Research Results. PLoS Biol. 2018, 16, e2004299. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
68. Hong, J.; Shaked, S.; Rosenbaum, R.K.; Jolliet, O. Analytical Uncertainty Propagation in Life Cycle Inventory and Impact
Assessment: Application to an Automobile Front Panel. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2010, 15, 499–510. [CrossRef]
69. Adamczak, S.; Świderski, J.; Dobrowolski, T.; Mathia, T.G. Evaluation of Measurement Uncertainty of Profile Parameters Using a
Monte Carlo Method. Mechanik 2018, 418–420. [CrossRef]
70. Madhavan Nampoothiri, K.; Nair, N.R.; John, R.P. An Overview of the Recent Developments in Polylactide (PLA) Research.
Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 8493–8501. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
71. Escobar, N.; Haddad, S.; Börner, J.; Britz, W. Land Use Mediated GHG Emissions and Spillovers from Increased Consumption of
Bioplastics. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 125005. [CrossRef]
72. Chen, W.; Oldfield, T.L.; Cinelli, P.; Righetti, M.C.; Holden, N.M. Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment of Potato Pulp Valorisation in
Biocomposite Production. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 269, 122366. [CrossRef]
73. Qiu, H.; Hu, B.; Zhang, Z. Impacts of Land Use Change on Ecosystem Service Value Based on SDGs Report--Taking Guangxi as
an Example. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 133, 108366. [CrossRef]
74. Aymard, V.; Botta-Genoulaz, V. Normalisation in Life-Cycle Assessment: Consequences of New European Factors on Decision-
Making. Supply Chain Forum Int. J. 2017, 18, 76–83. [CrossRef]
75. Lim, S.-R. Application of Life Cycle Assessment to Enhance the Environmental Performance of Process Systems and Products.
Clean Technol. 2014, 20, 339–348. [CrossRef]
76. Fahim, I.S.; Chbib, H.; Mahmoud, H.M. The Synthesis, Production & Economic Feasibility of Manufacturing PLA from Agricul-
tural Waste. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 2019, 12, 100142. [CrossRef]
77. Rosenboom, J.-G.; Langer, R.; Traverso, G. Bioplastics for a Circular Economy. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2022, 7, 117–137. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5529 20 of 20

78. Samer, M.; Hijazi, O.; Mohamed, B.A.; Abdelsalam, E.M.; Amer, M.A.; Yacoub, I.H.; Attia, Y.A.; Bernhardt, H. Environmental
Impact Assessment of Bioplastics Production from Agricultural Crop Residues. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2022, 24, 815–827.
[CrossRef]
79. Banu, J.R.; Sharmila, V.G. Review on Food Waste Valorisation for Bioplastic Production towards a Circular Economy: Sustainable
Approaches and Biodegradability Assessment. Sustain. Energy Fuels 2023, 7, 3165–3184. [CrossRef]
80. Berndtsson, M.; Ericsson, A.; Svahn, T. Scaling-Up Data-Driven Pilot Projects. AI Mag. 2020, 41, 94–102. [CrossRef]
81. Chinnathai, M.K.; Al-Mowafy, Z.; Alkan, B.; Vera, D.; Harrison, R. A Framework for Pilot Line Scale-up Using Digital Manufac-
turing. Procedia CIRP 2019, 81, 962–967. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.