LifeCycleAssessment(LCA)

ofTrellisEarth Bioplastic
RelativetoConventionalPolymers

www.TrellisEarth.com
*notforpublicdomainrelease*

Sources:
Environmentalassessmentofbiobasedpolymersandnaturalfibers
Dr. Martin Patel, Dr. Catia Bastioli, Dr. Luigi Marini, Dipl.Geokol. Eduard Wrdinger Utrecht
University, Department of Science, Technology and Society (STS), Copernicus Institute, Padualaan
14, NL3584 CH Utrecht, Netherland. This definitive study defines many of the methodologies
adopted by the industry in subsequent LCA studies performed on behalf of various commercial
clientsinthebioplasticsindustry.

http://en.europeanbioplastics.org/
European Bioplastics e.V. published a 2008 Position Paper entitled "Lifecycle Assessment of
Bioplastics"inwhichitoutlinesmethodologiesandissuesrelatedtobioplasticsLCAstudies.

http://www.altumetrics.com/
MuchofthematerialinthisdocumentistakenfromtheAltumetricscomparisonofbiopolymersto
conventionalpolymerspublishedin2011.Thisreport,whichfocusesonstarchbasedresins(bio
propylene, chemically equivalent to Trellis Earth(R) bioplastic) in comparison to conventional
polypropylene (PP), Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), high impact polystyrene (HIPS) and low
densitypolyethylene(LDPE),themostcommonalternativematerialsforfoodpackagingincluding
cutlery.

ExecutiveSummary

Environmental considerations have been and will continue to be an important motivation to

developandintroducebiobasedpolymersandnaturalfibercomposites.Thiscallsforacomparison
oftheirenvironmentalperformancewiththeirpetrochemicalcounterparts.Tothisend,lifecycle
assessment (LCA) can be applied, which is a standardized method to quantify environmental
impacts(ISO,19971999).

ALifeCycleAssessment(LCA)ofthebiopropylenethatischemicallyequivalenttotheTrellisEarth
(R)brandbioresinandfourconventionalplasticresinswasconductedbyAltumetrics.Thestudy
comparedthepoundforpoundimpactofbiopropylene(atradetermfortheTrellisEarth(R)brand
of bioresin) against conventional polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), high
impactpolystyrene(HIPS)andlowdensitypolyethylene(LDPE).

This purpose of the study was to potentially to help customers understand the environmental
ramifications of their polymer choices. The boundaries of the study were from cradle to
customer, those that are using the Trellis Earth(R) brand products (up to the point of departure
fromtheTrellisEarthfactorygate).

The plastics were compared by carbon footprint (global warming potential, GWP), resource
depletion,andanenvironmentalscorecalledReCiPe,whichcombinesenvironmentalimpactsinto
asinglevalue.

Thestudyfoundthat:

Trellis Earth bioresin had the best overall environmental performance. It had the
lowest carbonfootprint (GWP) of any of the plastics. Its carbon footprint was 8% lower
than the best conventional plastic, which was PP, and 76% lower than the worst
conventional plastic,whichwas HIPS. This was whenno creditwas givenfor
plantcarbondioxideabsorption. Whencreditwas given,the benefitof TrellisEarth
bioresin was even greater: its carbon footprint was 32% lower than even the best
conventional plastic(PP).

In terms of the ReCiPe single score (which amalgamates environmental impacts into a
single value) TrellisEarthbioresin was found to be superior to all conventionalplastics:
it was 23% better than the best conventional plastic, which was again PP.

The Trellis Earth bioresin also performed well against conventional plastics in terms of
abioticdepletion, whereitwasbetterthanallconventional alternatives.

Contents

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................3

Contents........................................................................................................................................4

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................5

2 LifeCycleAssessment............................................................................................................... 5

3 Goalandscope........................................................................................................................7

3.1 Scope................................................................................................................................8

3.2 InventoryAnalysis.............................................................................................................10

3.3 Impactassessment......................................................................................................... 1 1

4 Inventoryanalysis..................................................................................................................12

4.1 TrellisEarthbioresin........................................................................................................13

4.3 Conventional plastics..................................................................................................... 1 4

5 Impactassessment................................................................................................................ 1 9

5.1 GlobalWarmingPotential.............................................................................................. 1 9

5.2 AbioticResourceDepletion............................................................................................ 2 3

5.3 Singleenvironmental score............................................................................................ 2 5

6 Sensitivity Analysis................................................................................................................ 2 6

6.1 AchangetothestarchandPPcontentofTrellisEarthbioresin......................................27

7 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................29

AppendixA:Description ofImpactCategories............................................................................ 31

Introduction
Life cycle assessment provides a standardized method for measuring and comparing the
environmental impacts associated with the manufacturing, use and disposal of a product. This
studyconsiderstheproduction ofeachplastictoTrellisEarthsfactoryoutboundshippinggate.The
environmental impacts of each of the plastics have been assessed from raw material extraction
through totheproduction offinishedgoods.

LifeCycleAssessment
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is defined by ISO (International Standards Organization) as the
compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the potential environmental impacts of a
productsystemthroughoutitslifecycle(ISO14040).Inotherwords,anLCAidentifiesthematerial
andenergyusage,emissionsandwasteflowsofaproduct,processorserviceoveritsentirelifecycle
inorderforitsenvironmentalimpactstobedetermined.

Figure1illustratesthelifecyclesystemconceptofnaturalresourcesandenergyenteringthesystem
andproduct,emissionsandwasteleavingthesystem.

Figure1,TypicalcategoriesofdatacollectedtodescribeprocessesinLCAterms

Companies undertake an LCA to understand the environmentalperformanceof their productfor

a variety of reasons including legislative pressures and supply chain issues. Another reasonis the
increasing number of environmentally conscious customers who are demanding products that
combinethebenefitsofgoodfunctionalityandlowcostwithhighenvironmentalperformance. While
an LCA is a valuable tool, it should be emphasized that it is one of many factors, such as costs,
consumer acceptance and production feasibility, which companies must take into account during
thedecisionmakingprocess.

The technical framework for a life cycle assessment consists of four interrelatedstages: goal
andscopedefinition,inventoryanalysis,impactassessmentandinterpretation as shownin
Figure2.

Figure2,StagesofanLCA(ISO14040)


TheISOstandards setouttherequirements associated witheachstage.

The goal and scope definition involves identifying the purpose ofthe study and the systems to
be studied, including setting the system boundaries and determining the level of detail
included.

Inthe inventory analysis allmaterials, substances and energy used andallemissions and waste
releasedtotheenvironment areidentifiedandquantifiedoverthewholelifecycleofthe
product(fromrawmaterialextractionandprocessing, throughmanufacture).

The impact assessment is a technical, quantitative method used to assess the environmental
significanceof the inputs and outputs identifiedin the inventory analysis. The impacts
considered can be divided into subject areas such as resource use, human health, and
ecological consequences.

In the interpretationstage, results are analyzed, limitationsexplained, conclusionsare made

andrecommendations areprovided.

Thefollowing sectionsoutlineeachofthesestagesforthisprojectindetail.

Goalandscope

The goal and scope of an LCA involves identifyingthe purpose of the study and information
relating to the systems being studied such as the system boundaries (i.e. what is
included/excluded fromthestudy).

Thepurposeofthisstudywastoevaluatetheenvironmental impactsassociatedwithTrellisEarth
bioplastic andfourconventional plastics priortotheirdelivery tothecustomer.

Trellis Earth intends to use the results internally to help develop more environmentally
responsible polymer blendsaswellasusetheresultstohelpbuyersevaluateitsproductswith
environmentalimpactsconsideredwhenchoosingbetweenbioresinandconventionalplastics.

3.1Scope

3.1.1Functionalunit

Any comparison of life cycle impacts must be based on a comparable function (or functional
unit)inordertoallowclearinterpretation. Thefunctionalunitforthestudywas:

Theproduction of1lbofplasticpellets

Allresultscontained withinthisreporttherefore represent theenvironmental impact

generated bytheproduction ofthis unit. Thepellets aredesigned tobefunctionally equivalent.
For example, 1lb of Trellis Earth bioresin is equivalent to 1lb of polypropylene when formed
intoaproductsuchascutleryordeliware.Howeveritispossiblethatinrareinstances unknown
to Trellis Earth some applications may require different amounts of polymer to achieve
equivalentproductperformance.The discussionwithinthe impactassessment(section5)
directly compares the products considered on a pound for pound basis since this is the most
common situation when the resins are formed by a customer through extrusion, m o l d i n g
o r f o r m i n g a p p l i c a t i o n s . If acustomer uses different amounts of material the results
ofthis study would need to be adjustedtoreflectthatsituation.

3.1.2Productsystemsandsystemboundaries

The system boundaries define the life cycle stages and unit processes included in the systems
tobestudied.Thisstudyconsidered oneblendofbioplastic:

TrellisEarthbioresincontaining ablendofpolypropylene andstarch(andadditives).

Thefollowingconventional plasticswerealsoconsidered inthestudy:

Polypropylene (PP)pelletscontaining conventional PP.

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)pelletscontaining conventional PET.

HighImpactPolystyrene (HIPS)pelletscontaining conventional HIPS.

LowDensityPolyethylene (LDPE)pelletscontaining conventional LDPE.

Eachoftheplasticsconsideredhavebeenevaluatedfromcradletogate.Cradletogate
meansthatthesystemsincludetheextractionofrawmaterials,theproduction and
transportation of input materials, and the production of products in Trellis Earths
facilities.

However, thesystem boundary ofthisstudydoesnotinclude thedistribution oftheproduct to

thecustomerorthedisposalofproductsafteruse.Therefore, the differing impacts of these
plastics at end of life, such as composting andrecycling, are not considered within this
study. Where a customer wishes to carry out an lifecycleassessment ofitsproduct thisstudy
maybeusedtocontribute tothatstudytoachieve acradletogravestudy.

3.1.3Excludedprocesses

Processes outside thesystem boundary arenotincluded inthestudy. Inparticular thesestages

ofthelifecyclearenotincluded:

Transport of products from Trellis Earths facilities to the customer (this

transportation would be the same for all polymers and so would not change the
results).

Use of the customers product (products are various and not always known to
Trellis Earth, after delivery. In some instances, such as disposal methods, carbon
sequestration would vary, hence this study shows the two carbon extremes so that a
customercanseetherangeofresultswithinwhichtheirproductsresultswouldfall).

Wastetreatment (whichwouldvarydepending onthecustomers product).

Theexclusionoftheseaspectsisinlinewiththepurposeofthisstudy,whichistohelp
TrellisEarth R&D and introduce the issues to customers. A customer could build on this study
byincludingproductstagesinalifecycleassessment ofitsownparticularproduct.

In addition to the processes excluded by the system boundaries, a number of other processes
havebeenexcludedfromthestudy.Allexcludedprocessesareoutlinedbelow:

The construction, maintenance and demolition ofindustrial buildings and the

manufacture of machines and equipment was excluded from the study as these
impactsshouldbeabsorbed overthewholeoftheperiodofuse.Experience showsthat
theseimpactsarenegligible comparedwiththoselinkedtotheiroperation.

Packaging usedtotransportmaterialsbetweenthesupplierandtheproducerwas
excluded asthisimpactwasfoundtobenegligible whencompared totheimpactofthe
materialscontained withinthem.

3.1.4KeyAssumptionsandLimitations

Within any LCA some assumptions are required due to data constraints. The key assumptions
madewithinthisstudyareoutlinedbelow:

The transportationof all conventionalplastics from the supplier to the producer was
basedondistancesprovidedbyTrellisEarth.

Allroadtransportation wasassumedtobeviaa1632metrictontruck.

Theuseof naturalgasduringplasticproductmanufacturewasassumedto bein a

>100kWmodulating boiler.

Theproduction ofconventional plastics wasbased onEcoinvent data onpolymer

production inEurope.

3.2 Inventoryanalysis

Inventory analysis is the identification, collection and calculation of inputs and outputs of
environmental flows across the system boundaries. The inputs and outputs are scaled to the
functional unit and include both elementary and nonelementary flows. Elementary flows are
materials or energy entering the system being studied, which have been drawn from the
environment withoutprevious humantransformation, ormaterials andenergyleavingthe
system,whicharediscarded intotheenvironment withoutsubsequent humantransformation.

The software tool SimaPro was used to model the systems and calculate the environmental
impacts of the life cycle scenarios studied. SimaPro has been specifically developed by PR
Consultants intheNetherlands forthecalculation oflifecycleimpacts andisoneoftheworlds
leadingLCAtools.

Life cycle Inventories generally contain hundreds of environmental flows for a single product
system.Lifecycleimpactassessment (LCIA)translates theseflowsintopotential impactsonthe

10

environmentenablingthe evaluationof the systems through a number of impact categories

suchasglobalwarmingandabioticdepletion.

Wheregenericaveragedatahas beenused,dataspecificto UnitedStateswas usedin the

modeling where possible. However, in some cases the data represents a European average.
Primarily this data was obtained from the Ecoinvent database which contains the elementary
andnonelementaryflowsforover4000industrialmaterialsandprocesses.

3.3 Impactassessment

Theimpact assessment phase ofanLCAassigns theresults oftheinventory analysis todifferent

impactcategories. Theimpactcategories considered inthisstudywere:

GlobalWarmingPotential(GWPorcarbonfootprint)

Abioticresourcedepletion

Global warming potential is a measure of how much of a given mass of a greenhouse gas (for
example, CO2, methane, nitrous oxide) is estimated to contribute to global warming. Global
warmingoccursduetoanincreaseintheatmospheric concentration ofgreenhouse gases
whichchangestheabsorptionof infraredradiationin theatmosphere, knownas radiative
forcing leading to changes in climatic patterns and higher global average temperatures. Global
warmingpotentialismeasured intermsofCO2 equivalents.

For GWP, the IPCC 2007 characterization factors were used to translate the greenhouse gas
emissions generated by the life cycle scenarios into a single carbon footprint. These
characterizations factors do not included the absorption of biogenic CO2 from the atmosphere
during biomass growth and the release of biogenic carbon as carbon dioxide and methane
emissions duringproductdegradation. Thisisasignificant issueforpolymers thatcontain
biomass, such asthe bioplastics produced byTrellisEarth, since the exclusion ofthe absorption
ofbiogenic CO2 from the atmosphere during plant growth eliminates one of the key benefits
of the bioplastics. Therefore, to understand the relevance of this issue, these biogenic
impacts have been included as a sub category within the global warming results. This sub
includes theamount of biogenic carbon dioxide sequestered during production. However,
it does notconsidertheimplications ofproductdegradation andthepotential releaseof
thisbiogeniccarbon as carbon dioxide and methane as this degradation is outside the cradle
to gate scopeoftheproject.

11

For abiotic resource depletion, the CML 2 baseline 2000 method, a problemorientedapproach
developed by the Center for Environmental Science (CML), Leiden University, the Netherlands,
wasused.Adescription ofeachoftheseimpactcategories isgiveninappendixA.

To provide a greater understanding of the relevance of certain impact categories, the ReCiPe
method was also used togenerate asingle environmental score for each scenario. This method
normalizes and weights environmental impact categories and then combines them into asingle
score in terms of ecopoints where 1,000 ecopoints is the equivalent of an average persons
annual environmental load. ReCiPe was developed by panels of experts agreeing weightings of
different environmental issues. Any weighting is potentially controversial. For example, some
experts feel that ReCiPe assigns too much importance to GWP, whereas other experts feel this
appropriately reflects the importance of the global warming issue. Some experts even feel that
no weightings should ever be used, meaning no single score methodology should ever be used.
In recognition of this range of views, ReCipe results should be seen as rule of thumb
management summaryindications ratherthanashardandfastscientificfact.

The impact assessment reflects potential and not actual impacts and takes no account of the
local receiving environment. In addition, the underlying scientific knowledge, especially for fate
andexposureassessment, isstillunderdevelopment.

Included intheassessment isanevaluation oftheGHG impacts both with andwithout biogenic

carbon. This is the approach recommended in the most recent GHG Protocol adopted by the
SustainabilityConsortium. This approach is recommendedby the Consortiumbecause it
providestransparency: a readerwhofeelsbiogeniccarbonshouldnotbeincludedcansee
thoseresults,whilea readerwhofeelsthatit shouldbe includedcan see thoseresults.In
addition, in the case of Trellis Earth the approach makes sense because it shows the range of
potentialresultsachievedbydifferentTrellisEarthcustomers.

4 Inventoryanalysis

This section describes the data used to model the life cycles of the five plastics considered
during the inventory analysis stage. The following sections describe the primary data (data
collectedfromthecustomerandsuppliers)andsecondarydata(dataprovidedbyexisting
datasetsor assumptions)usedto modelthe productionof the bioplasticsand conventional
plasticsconsidered fromcradletogate.

12

4.1TrellisEarthbioresin

The diagramsin figure3 showthe cradleto gatelife cycleof 1 lb of TrellisEarth bioplastic

pellets produced by TrellisEarthProducts,Inc. The following sections outline the data used to
model the lifecycleofthisproductbasedonthelifecyclestagesidentified inthisfigure.

Figure3,Thecradletogatelifecycleof1lbofTrellisEarthbioresinbioplastic pellets.

4.2Additives

The quantity of all additives required to produce 1 lb of bioplasticresin was suppliedby Trellis
Earth. All input materials were assessed and modeled using the most appropriate
secondary dataavailable.

4.2.4Productionenergy

Theproduction ofgridelectricity wasbased on the delivery of medium voltage electricity from

the US grid. The use of natural gaswas modeled usingEuropean data on the deliveryand
burningof naturalgas for heat in a>100kWmodulating boiler.

13

4.2.5Transport

Thetransportation ofmaterials frommaterial supplier toTrellisEarth wasbasedon

acombination ofestimates and primary data provided byTrellisEarth. Alldistances from
thematerialsuppliertoTrellisEarthwereprovidedbyTrellisEarth.

4.2.6Productionwaste

The disposal of the pellet production waste was based on wastage rates provided by Trellis
Earth. The landfill of pellet production waste was modeled using Ecoinvent data on the
disposal ofmixedplastictolandfillandisrepresentative ofaSwissmunicipal sanitarylandfill.

4.3 Conventional plastics

Thefollowing sections outline thedatausedtomodelthelifecycles oftheconventional

plasticsconsidered inthisstudy.

4.3.1.1Polypropylene

The diagramin figure7 showsthe cradleto gate life cycleof 1 lb of polypropylene pellets
(as though) produced by Trellis Earth (for normalization purposes). The following section
outlines the data used to model the life cycle ofthisplastic.

Figure7,Thecradletogatelifecycleof1lbofconventional polypropylene (PP)pellets.

14

The production of polypropylene resin used in the conventional PP pellets was modeled using
Ecoinvent data representing the average of 28 production sites producing a total of 7.2 Mt in
Europeduring1999.

The transportation of polypropylene resin from the material supplier to TrellisEarth was based
onadistance of940milesbytrainprovided byTrellisEarth. Railtransport wasmodeled
usingEcoinventdatarepresenting theuseofdieselrailfreightintheUnitedStates.

Theproduction oftheplastic pellets wasmodeled usingprimary dataontheuseofgrid

electricity and natural gas and was provided by Trellis Earth. A detailed site assessment was
undertakenand this showedthat all the plasticswere processedin the sameway with the
same energy requirements (mixing, heating and pelletization were the same in each case). This
data was combinedwith secondarydata from the Ecoinventdatabaseon the impact of grid
electricity production and natural gas extraction and use. The production of grid electricity was
based on the delivery of medium voltage electricity from grid in the United States. The use of
natural gas was modeled using European data on the delivery and burning of natural gas for
heatina>100kWmodulating boiler.

The disposal of the pellet production waste was based on wastage rates provided by Trellis
Earth.The landfill of productionwaste was modeled using Ecoinvent data on the disposal of
mixedplastictolandfillandisrepresentative ofaSwissmunicipal sanitarylandfill.

4.3.1.2Polyethyleneterephthalate

The diagrams in figure 8 show the cradle to gate life cycle of 1 lb of the polyethylene
terephthalate pellets ( a s t h o u g h ) produced by Trellis Earth. The following section
outlines the data used tomodelthelifecycleofthesepellets.

15

Figure8,Thecradletogatelifecycleof1lbofconventional polyethylene terephthalate (PET)

pellets.

The production of polyethylene terephthalate resin used in the conventional PET pellets was
modeledusingEcoinventdata representingthe productionof a total of 569,000t of
amorphous polyethylene terephthalate fromethyleneglycolandPTAinEuropeduring2000.

The transportation of polyethylene terephthalate resin from the material supplier to Trellis
Earth was based on a distance of 940 miles by train provided by Trellis Earth. Rail
transport was modeled using Ecoinvent data representing the use of diesel rail freight in the
UnitedStates.

Theproduction oftheplastic pellets wasmodeled usingprimary dataontheuseofgrid

electricity and natural gas and was provided by TrellisEarth. This data was combined
withsecondarydatafromtheEcoinventdatabaseontheimpactofgridelectricityproductionand
natural gas extraction and use. The production of grid electricity was based on the delivery of
medium voltage electricity from the US grid. The use of natural gas was modeled using
Europeandata on the deliveryand burningof natural gas for heat in a >100kWmodulating
boiler.

The disposal of the pellet production waste was based on wastage rates provided by Trellis
Earth. The landfill of pellet production waste was modeled using Ecoinvent data on the
disposal ofmixedplastictolandfillandisrepresentative ofSwissmunicipal sanitarylandfill.

16

4.3.1.3HighImpactPolystyrene

Thediagrams infigure 9show thecradle togatelifecycleof1lbofthehighimpact polystyrene

pellets ( a s t h o u g h ) produced by TrellisEarth. The following section outlines the data used
to model the lifecycleofthesepellets.

Figure9,Thecradletogatelifecycleof1lbofconventional highimpactpolystyrene (HIPS)

pellets

The production of the high impact polystyrene resin used in the conventional HIPS pellets was
modeled using Ecoinvent data representing the average production of 15 sites of high impact
polystyrene fromethyleneandbenzenebyfreeradicalprocesses.

The transportation of high impact polystyrene resin from the material supplier to Trellis Earth
was based on a distance of 940 miles by train provided by Trellis Earth. Rail transport was
modeledusingEcoinventdatarepresenting theuseofdieselrailfreightintheUnitedStates.

Theproduction oftheplasticpellets wasmodeled usingprimary dataontheuseofgrid

electricity and natural gas and was provided by TrellisEarth. This data was combined
withsecondarydatafromtheEcoinventdatabaseontheimpactofgridelectricityproductionand
natural gas extraction and use. The production of grid electricity was based on the delivery of
medium voltage electricity from the US grid. The use of natural gas was modeled using
Europeandata on the deliveryand burningof natural gas for heat in a >100kWmodulating
boiler.

17

The disposal of the pellet production waste was based on wastage rates provided by Trellis
Earth. The landfill of pellet production waste was modeled using Ecoinvent data on the
disposal ofmixedplastictolandfillandisrepresentative ofaSwissmunicipal sanitarylandfill.

4.3.1.4LowDensityPolyethylene

The diagrams in figure 10 show the cradle to gate life cycle of1lb ofthe low density
polyethylenepellets(asthough)producedby TrellisEarth.The followingsectionoutlinesthe
data used tomodelthelifecycleofthesepellets.

Figure10,Thecradletogatelifecycleof1lbofconventional LowDensityPolyethylene (LDPE)

pellets.

18

Theproduction ofthelow density polyethylene resin used intheconventional LDPE pellets was
modeled using Ecoinvent data representing the average production of 4.79Mt of LDPE during
1999. The transportation oflow density polyethylene resin from the material supplier to
Trellis Earth was based on a distance of 940 miles by train provided by Trellis Earth. Rail
transportwasmodeled usingEcoinvent datarepresenting theuseof dieselrailfreightin
theUnitedStates.

Theproduction oftheplastic pellets wasmodeled usingprimary dataontheuseofgrid

electricity and natural gas and was provided by TrellisEarth. This data was combined
withsecondarydatafromtheEcoinventdatabaseontheimpactofgridelectricityproductionand
natural gas extraction and use. The production of grid electricity was based on the delivery of
medium voltage electricity from the US grid. The use of natural gas was modeled using
Europeandata on the deliveryand burningof natural gas for heat in a >100kWmodulating
boiler.

The disposal of the pellet production waste was based on wastage rates provided by Trellis
Earth. The landfill of pellet production waste was modeled using Ecoinvent data on the
disposal ofmixedplastictolandfillandisrepresentative ofaSwissmunicipal sanitarylandfill.

5 Impactassessment

The following sections outline the results of the impact assessment of the Trellis Earth
bioplasticsand conventional plastics identified in section 3.1. The first section (5.1) provides an
overview of the carbon footprint results (Global Warming Potential, GWP). The second
section (5.2) outlines the results for abiotic resource depletion. The third section (5.3)
provides an analysisoftheReCiPesingleenvironmental scoreresults.

5.1 GlobalWarmingPotential

The resultsfor the carbonfootprint(GlobalWarmingPotential,GWP) of all the plasticsare

shown in table 1 and figures 11 and 12. The table and figures show the results excluding and
including the effect of biogenic carbon dioxide absorption during biomass growth. All results

19

representthe functionalunit (the productionof 1lb of plasticpellets).The tableshowsthe

results along with the best and worst option marked either red (worst) or green (best). The
figures showabreakdown ofeachplasticbasedonthelifecyclestages identified inthe
inventoryanalysis(section4).Theresultscanbesummarized asfollows:

The Trellis Earth bioresin bioplastic had the lowest GWP per lb of any of the plastics
considered (both when the absorption of biogenic carbon dioxide was included and
excluded). Itwasfoundtobe8.1%lowerthanthenearestconventional plastic(PP)when
biogenic carbon dioxide was excluded. This difference rose to 31.7% when biogenic
carbon wasincluded.

Table1,TheGlobalWarmingPotential(GWP)ofeachplasticwithandwithouttheinclusionof
biogeniccarbon.

20


Figure11,TheGlobalWarming Potential (GWP)ofeachplasticwithouttheinclusionofbiogenic

carbonbasedonlifecyclestage.

21

Figure12,TheGlobalWarmingPotential(GWP)ofeachplasticwiththeinclusionofbiogenic
carbonbasedonlifecyclestage.

The results show that, when biogenic carbon was excluded, the plastic with the lowest GWP
per lb was the TrellisEarthbioresin while the plastic with the highest GWP per lb was HIPS.
In somecases the TrellisEarthbioresin bioplastic was very significantly better (76% lower than
HIPS)andinothercasesitwassignificantly betterbutbyasmalleramount(8%lowerthanPP).

The compostable bioplastics were all found to be superior to HIPS and competitive with APET.
However, they were found to be inferior to all other conventional plastics. This was due to a
number of factors includingthe greater transportdistancesinvolved(particularlyfor Ecoflex
from Germany) andthe impact ofmaterial production. The split ofimpact between Ecoflex and
PLA was fairly even despite the use of a larger quantity of Ecoflex within each compostable
bioplastic. Therefore the PLA had the largest material contribution, almost entirely due to the
consumption ofenergy,fromgridelectricity andnaturalgas,usedtoproduceit.

22

When biogenic carbon was included in the impact assessment of GWP, the TrellisEarth
bioplastic was found to be superior to all other alternatives. The inclusion of the absorption of
carbon dioxide reduced the impact of the TrellisEarthbioresin by over 25% compared to the
original results due to the uptake of CO2 from the air. So the benefit of TrellisEarthbioresin
became even greater. The impact of the conventional plastics remained largely unchanged as
theydidnotincludeanyrenewable materialintheircomposition.

5.2 AbioticResourceDepletion

Theresultsfor abioticresourcedepletionusingthe CMLimpactassessmentmethodfor all

plastic pellets are shown in table 2. The table shows the results along with the best and worst
option in each category marked either red (worst) or green (best). All results represent the
functionalunit(theproduction of1lbofplasticpellets).

Table2,Theimpactonresourcedepletion foreachplastic.

Abioticdepletion
(lbsSbeq/lb)

Plasticproducts
TrellisEarthbioresin
Compostable3000
Compostable3002
Compostable3010
Polypropylene
AmorphousPolyethylene Terephthalate
HighImpactPolystyrene
LowDensityPolyethylene

0.0283
0.0320
0.0325
0.0329
0.0369
0.0386
0.0443
0.0377

TheTrellisEarthbioresinwasfoundtohavethelowestabioticresourcedepletionandwas23%
lowerthanthenearestconventionalplastic(PP).BoththeTrellisEarthbioresinandcompostable
bioplastics were found to be superior to their conventional alternatives due to the reduced
quantityoffossilbasedplasticusedtoproducethem.Thisisparticularlyclearinfigure13
whichshowstheresultsbasedontheirlifecyclestage.Thisshowsthattheimpactofstarchonthe
TrellisEarthbioresinandPLAonthecompostablebioplasticswasrelativelylowcomparedtothe
impactofthematerialsusedintheconventionalalternatives.

23

Figure13,Theabioticresourcedepletionofeachplasticbasedonlifecyclestage.

5.3 Singleenvironmental score

The ReCiPe impact assessment method was used to provide a single environmental score. The
Recipe method normalizesand weights a number of categories based on their relative
importance to provide a single score in ecopoints where 1,000 ecopoints is the equivalent of
an average citizens annual environmental load. This presents an understanding of the relative
importanceof the impactcategoriesconsideredin the previoussection.Howeverany
weightingmethodispotentially controversial sincevaluejudgmentsareinvolved(the
importance ofoneenvironmental issue compared toanother isahuman judgment). This
means that ReCipe results should be taken as an interesting managementperspectiverather
than hard science agreed by all stakeholders.The results were based on a Hierarchist
(balanced) perspective using world normalizationfactors and are shown in table 3 and figure
14.

The results show that Trellis Earth bioresin bioplastic was superior to all conventional
alternatives. The Trellis Earth bioresin was found to have a 16% lower score than the best
performingconventionalplastic (PP). The best performingcompostableplastic (Compostable
3000) hadanimpact only1%greater thanconventional PP,but9%lower thanAPET, 24%lower
than HIPS and 1.3% lower than LDPE. For the Compostablebioplastics,the slight advantage
24

gained through the use of renewable materials was balanced by the additional transportation
impacts required. However, the use ofstarch and other materials within the TrellisEarth
bioplastic gaveitaclearadvantage overconventional polymers.

Table3,TheReCiPesinglescoreresultsforeachplastic.

ReCiPeWorldH/ASingleScore
(Ecopoints/lb)

Plasticproducts
TrellisEarthbioresin
Compostable3000
Compostable3002
Compostable3010
Polypropylene
AmorphousPolyethyleneTerephthalate
HighImpactPolystyrene
LowDensityPolyethylene

0.1568
0.1892
0.1904
0.1916
0.1869
0.2082
0.2479
0.1916

Figure14,TheReCiPesinglescoreofeachplasticbasedonlifecyclestage.

25

6 SensitivityAnalysis

Toprovide agreaterunderstanding oftheinfluence ofindividual materials onCarbonFootprint

(GlobalWarmingPotential,GWP),arangeofsensitivity analyseswereconducted.

Figure 15 shows the impact per lb of each of the major component materials utilized within all
of the bioplastics (including transportation to Trellis Earth). This shows that when biogenic
carbondioxide absorption isexcluded from theresults, PLAandEcoflex havethehighest impact
per lb of the major materials, while starch has the lowest. When biogenic carbon dioxide
absorption isincluded, the PLA becomes superior to the conventional plastics (HDPE and
PP) dropping 61.5%, but the impact of Ecoflex only drops by 5.3%, making it the worst
option. In addition, the starch provides a negative GWP value meaning it provides a net
benefit to GWP throughtheabsorption ofcarbondioxideduringgrowth.

Figure15,TheGWPperlbofeachmajorinputmaterialincludingtransportation tosite.

26

Figure15emphasizes that:

Starch always has the best carbon footprint result, whether or not biogenic carbon is
credited.

PLA shows very different results depending on whether biogenic carbon is credited: it
has the worst carbon footprint of any of the materials when not given credit for plant
carbondioxideabsorption, butthesecondbestwhengiventhiscredit.

Ecoflex only improves slightly ifgiven credit forcarbon absorbed (which istobe
expectedsince it is not a plant based material),and in all cases Ecoflex has a worse
carbonfootprintthanconventionalpolymers(becauseit is derivedmainlyfromthe
same conventional monomers as PET, which is one of the higherimpact conventional
polymers).

HDPE and PPhave verysimilar carbon footprints: they have ahigher impact thanstarch
ifcarbonisnotcredited,andahigherimpactthanPLAandstarchifcarboniscredited.

6.1 A change to the starch and PP content of Trellis

Earthbioresin

Since starch has the lowest carbon footprint, it means that the environmental performance of
TrellisEarthbioresin improves if starch content is raised. However in reality the product would
becometooweakifthestarchcontentwastoohigh.

A sensitivity analysis was carried out to show the benefit of an increase in starch content on
Trellis Earth bioresin (Figure 16). This figure shows that if no starch is included in Trellis Earth
bioresinandtheproportions ofthe other materials remains the same (meaning itismade
up of PP andadditives), thecarbon footprint is2.529lbsCO2(e)/lb(biogenic carbon included
andexcluded).This would mean that TrellisEarthbioresin would still be marginally superior
to conventionalPP (thereason itisnotidentical toPPisthatithasadditives). However, asthe
content of starch beginsto increase, the GWP falls (with and without biogenic carbon). The
result excludingbiogeniccarbon falls at a rate of 0.012 lbs CO2 for every 1% increase in starch
content while the resultincluding biogenic carbon falls atagreater rate of0.029 lbsCO2
for every 1% increase.Althougha 100% starch contentdoes not result in a negativevalue
like the starch materialshown in figure 15, the GWP result including biogenic carbon drops
by 95% to just 0.139 lbsCO2/lb.

27

Figure16,TheGWPperlbofTrellisEarthbioresinwithincreased/decreased starch
content.

Conversely, figure 17shows theimplications ofincreasing thepolypropylene (PP)content when

the proportion of the other materials remains the same. This shows that the impact of Trellis
Earth bioresin increases as the PP content increases at a rate of 0.006 lbs CO2 per 1%
increase when biogenic carbon dioxide is excluded. This again shows that as the content of
starch drops, theimpact of TrellisEarthbioresin increases. However, even at 100% PP content,
theTrellisEarthbioresinissuperiortoallotheralternatives andidenticaltoconventional PP.

28


Figure17,TheGWPperlbofTrellisEarthbioresinwithincreased/decreased PPcontent.

7 Conclusion

The study found that the TrellisEarthbioresinwasbetterthanconventional plastics intermsof

globalwarmingpotential,abioticresourcedepletion and ReCiPe single score.

Theperformances oftheTrellisEarthbioresinwasfurtherfoundtobeaidedbytheinclusion
ofabsorbedbiogenic carbon dioxide in the measurementof global warming. T h e b ioresin
saw a 2125%drop inits impact when theabsorption ofCO2 during plant growth wasincluded.

Carbon footprint results need to be taken in context with the use and disposal of the product
produced from the plastic. If the product is used for a significant period of time or does not
degrade,the carbonwill remainsequesteredwithinthe material,thereforeremovingitfrom
the atmosphere for a significant period. Alternately, this benefit may be lost if the

29

material is used in short term product and is either incinerated or entirely degrades within a
relativelyshortperiod.

Thesensitivity analysis found thatStarch hadthelowest GWP ofanyofthematerials usedboth

when biogenic carbon wasincluded andexcluded. However, even without astarch content, the
Trellis Earth bioresin bioplastic was found to be superior to conventional plastics (because in
this case itis made up of the best of the conventional plastics, PP, plus additives that have a
lower carbonfootprint than PP).

Toconclude,theresultsofthisstudyfoundthat:

Trellis Earth bioresin had the best overall environmental performance. It had the
lowest carbonfootprint (GWP) ofany oftheplastic pellets. Itscarbon footprint was 8%
lower than the best conventional plastic, which was PP, and 76% lower than the worst
conventionalplastic,whichwasHIPS.Thiswaswhennocreditwasgivenforplantcarbon
dioxideabsorption. Whencreditwas given,the benefitof TrellisEarthbioresin was
even greater: its carbon footprint was 32% lower than even the best conventional
plastic(PP).

In terms of the ReCiPe single score (which amalgamates environmental impacts into a
single value) Trellis Earth bioresin was found to be superior to all conventional
plastics: it was23%betterthanthebestconventional plastic,whichwasagainPP.

30

AppendixA:DescriptionofImpactCategories

Abioticdepletion

Whatisit?Thisimpact category referstothedepletion ofnonliving(abiotic) resources suchasfossil

fuels,minerals,clayandpeat.

Why is it an issue? In 2006, WWF International reported that mans impact on global resourceshas
tripledsince1961and is now25%abovethe planetsabilityto regenerate itself.If theworlds
populationshared a western lifestyle, three planets would be required to meet theirneeds.

Howisitmeasured? Abioticdepletion ismeasured inkilograms ofAntimony (Sb)equivalents.

Globalwarming

What is it? Global warming potential is a measure of how much of a given mass of a green
house gas (for example, CO2, methane, nitrous oxide) is estimated to contribute to global
warming. Global warming occurs due toanincrease intheatmospheric concentration ofgreenhouse
gases which changes theabsorption ofinfrared radiation intheatmosphere,knownasradiative
forcingleadingtochangesinclimaticpatternsandhigherglobalaveragetemperatures.

Why is it an issue? If no action is taken to reduce global carbon emissions, average

temperatures are likely to rise by more than 2 degrees Celsius. This change will increase severe
weather such as tropical storms, droughts and extreme heat waves and heavy precipitation.
Stabilization wouldrequireemissionstobeatleast25%belowcurrentlevelsby2050.

Howisitmeasured? Globalwarmingpotentialismeasured intermsofCO2 equivalents.