4.6 Review

A Review on the Life Cycle Assessment of Cellulose: From Properties to the Potential of Making It a Low Carbon Material

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 14, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma14040714

关键词

nanocellulose; life cycle assessment; cradle-to-grave; low carbon materials; cradle-to-gate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study highlights the significance of replacing fossil-based plastics with natural-based materials like cellulose to address the global issues of plastic production and pollution. By reviewing the properties of cellulose products and conducting life cycle assessments, solutions for making cellulose a low carbon material are proposed, contributing to environmental protection and sustainable development.
The huge plastic production and plastic pollution are considered important global issues due to environmental aspects. One practical and efficient way to address them is to replace fossil-based plastics with natural-based materials, such as cellulose. The applications of different cellulose products have recently received increasing attention because of their desirable properties, such as biodegradability and sustainability. In this regard, the current study initially reviews cellulose products' properties in three categories, including biopolymers based on the cellulose-derived monomer, cellulose fibers and their derivatives, and nanocellulose. The available life cycle assessments (LCA) for cellulose were comprehensively reviewed and classified at all the stages, including extraction of cellulose in various forms, manufacturing, usage, and disposal. Finally, due to the development of low-carbon materials in recent years and the importance of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions, the proposed solutions to make cellulose a low carbon material were made. The optimization of the cellulose production process, such as the recovery of excessive solvents and using by-products as inputs for other processes, seem to be the most important step toward making it a low carbon material.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据