4.8 Review

Recommendations for replacing PET on packaging, fiber, and film materials with biobased counterparts

Journal

GREEN CHEMISTRY
Volume 23, Issue 22, Pages 8795-8820

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d1gc02082j

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) [CA18220]
  2. FCT- Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia/MEC [UIDB/50011/2020, UIDP/50011/2020]
  3. FEDER under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement
  4. FEDER funds through the program COMPETE-Programa Operacional Factores de Competitividade
  5. FCT [UID/EMS/00285/2020, CEECIND/02322/2020]
  6. National Science Centre within project SONATA [2018/31/D/ST8/00792]
  7. Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia [451-03-9/2021-14/200135]
  8. Knowledge Base programme Towards a circular and climate positive society of Wageningen University Research (WUR) [KB-34-010-001]
  9. Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review focuses on the importance of replacing the polymer resin PET, discussing various potential PET alternatives from biomass such as bio-PET, PEF, and PTF. While these biobased polymers may play a significant role in various applications in the future, their cost competitiveness remains a major obstacle to wider deployment. Social, political, and legal frameworks, along with supportive financial schemes, are driving rapid changes in the development and adoption of these renewable alternatives.
This review sheds light on urgent questions that arise from the need to replace a polymer resin,-poly(ethylene terephthalate), which represents 7.7% market-share in the global plastic demand (Plastics-the Facts 2019), by renewable alternatives. The main question that this review will address is: what are the most promising PET replacements made from biomass? Currently, under debate is naturally its biobased counterpart bio-PET (or even recycle rPET), as well as other aromatic key-players with comparable thermo-mechanical performance and enhanced barrier properties, such as poly(ethylene 2,5-furandicarboxylate) (PEF) and poly(trimethylene 2,5-furandicarboxylate) (PTF). They are most adequate for packaging, but not restricted to. Additional alternatives are the miscellaneous of lignin-based thermoplastic polymers, although the technology involved in this latter case is still premature. (Bio)degradable aliphatic polyesters, despite their typical inferior thermo-mechanical properties, can also play a role e.g., among PET fiber industry applications. Poly(lactic acid) (PLA) is the most developed renewable polyester, already a commercial reality. All biobased polymers reviewed face a major hindrance for their wider deployment their cost-competitiveness. A pertinent question arises then: Are these alternatives, or will they be, economically feasible? Social, political and legal frameworks together with supportive financial schemes are boosting rapid changes. In the future, most probably more than one polymer will come to the market and will be used in some of the panoply of PET applications. This evaluation overviews sustainability issues, including perspectives on their green synthesis. Moreover, this review does also not neglect the accumulation of plastics waste in the environment and the inherent challenges of polymers' end-of-life. Approximately 8 M tons of polymers waste leaks into the environment each year, a fact not disconnected to PET's non-biodegradability and still insufficient collection and recycling rates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available