The increased consumption of plastics in day to day life has a significant impact on the environment. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is widely used to select a sustainable alternative in plastic waste management. The LCA studies on mechanical recycling and energy recovery scenarios showed that recycling resulted in lower emissions and provided benefits to the environment. These results are valid only if the performance of the recycled plastic is equivalent to those of the virgin materials. Many LCA studies have been focused on individual impact categories rather than aggregated single score. The decision making process becomes complex if individual impact categories are used. This research is focused on the comparison of LCA results between individual and aggregated impacts and integration of performance of recycled plastics in LCA. The results indicated that recycling was the preferred option if it could replace a minimum of 70–80% of virgin plastics.
BanerjiAK: ‘Construction materials from made from recycled polyolefins and other polymers’, US patent no. 5,030,662, 1991.
6.
ScelsiL, HodzicA, SoutisC, RajendranS, Al-AliM, KahramanR: ‘A critical review on composite materials based on recycled thermoplastics and glass fibres’, Plast. Rubber Compos. Macromol. Eng., 2011, 40, 1–10.
7.
ChialinC: ‘Design for environment: a quality based model for green product development’, Manage. Sci., 2001, 47, (2)250–263
8.
BhanderSG, HauschildM, McalooneT: ‘Implementation of life cycle assessment in product development’, Environ. Prog., 2003, 22, (4), 255–267.
9.
CraighillA, PowellJ: ‘Life cycle assessment and economic evaluation of recycling: a case study’, Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 1996, 7, (2), 75–96.
10.
MolgaardC: ‘Environmental impacts by disposal of plastic from municipal solid waste’, Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 1995, 15, 51–63.
11.
ErikssonM, CarlssonR, FrostellB, BjörklundA, AssefaG, SundqvistJO, GranathbJ, BakydA, ThyseliusdL: ‘Municipal solid waste management from a systems perspective’, J. Cleaner Prod., 2005, 13, 241–252.
12.
PeruginiF, MastelloneML, ArenaU: ‘A life cycle assessment of mechanical feedstock recycling options for management of plastic packaging waste’, Environ. Prog., 2005, 24, (2), 137–154.
13.
PeruginiF, MastelloneML, ArenaU: ‘Life cycle assessment of a plastic packaging recycling system’, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 2003, 8, (2), 92–98.
14.
PeruginiF, MastelloneML, ArenaU: ‘The environmental aspects of mechanical recycling of PE and PET: a life cycle assessment study’, Prog. Rubber Plast. Recycl. Technol., 2004, 20, 69–84.
15.
‘LCA of waste management options mixed plastic wastes’, WRAP final report, WRAP, Banbury, UK, 2008.
16.
AstrupT, FruergaardT, ChristensenTH: ‘Recycling of plastics: accounting of green house gases and global warming contribution’, Waste Manage. Res., 2009, 27, 763–772.
17.
BjorklundA, FinnvedenG: ‘Recycling revisited—life cycle comparisons of global warming impact and total energy use of waste management strategies’, Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 2005, 44, 309–317.
‘Environmental management life cycle assessment — principles and framework’, ISO 14040:2006, British Standards, BSI, London, UK, 2006.
20.
KremerH, HeydeM, HolleyW: ‘Recycling and recovery of plastics from packaging's in domestic waste’, ‘LCA-type analysis of different strategies’, LCA Documents Vol. 5, Institut Verfahrenstechnik und verpackung, Freising, Germany, 1999.
21.
HischierR: ‘Life cycle inventories of packaging and graphical paper’, Final report ecoinvent data v2·0, Vol. 11, Swiss Centre for LCI, Empa-TSL, Dübendorf, Switzerland, 2007.
22.
FrischknechtR, TuchschmidM, EmmeneggerFM, BauerC, DonesR: in‘Energiesystemen’, (ed. , DonesR, ed), Final report no. 6 ecoinvent data v2·0, Vol. 6, Swiss Centre for LCI, PSI, Dübendorf and Villigen, Switzerland, 2007.
23.
VDI-Richtlinien: ‘Cumulative energy demand – terms, definitions, methods of calculation’, VDI – guideline 4600, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, Germany, 1997.
24.
HuijbregtsMA, HellwegbS, FrischknechtcR, HungerbühlerdK, HendriksaAJ: ‘Ecological footprint accounting in the life cycle assessment of products’, Ecol. Econ., 2008, 64, (4), 798–807.
HauschildM, PottingJ: ‘Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment – the EDIP2003 methodology’, Environmental news no. 80, Danish Ministry of the Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2005.
29.
HauschildM, PottingJ: ‘Background for spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment – the EDIP2003 methodology’, Environmental project no. 996, Danish Ministry of the Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2005.
30.
GoedkoopM, EfftingS, ColtignonM: ‘A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment’, ‘The Eco-indicator 99 – manual for designers’, 2nd edn; 2000, Amersfoort, PRE Consultants B.V.
31.
‘A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment’, ‘Eco-Indicator 99 – manual for designers’; 2000, Amersfoort, Ministry of Housing Spatial Planning and the Environment, PRE Consultants B.V.
32.
GuineeJ B, ed (ed.): ‘Life cycle assessment: an operational guide to the ISO Standards’, 1st edn; 2001, Dordrecht, Kluwer academic Publishers.
33.
DreyerLC, NiemannAL, HauschildMZ: ‘Comparison of three different LCIA methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco-indicator 99. Does it matter which one you choose?’, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 2003, 8, (4), 191–200.
HofstetterP: ‘Perspectives of life cycle assessment, a structured approach to combine technosphere, ecosphere and valuesphere’, 1st edn; 1998, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
36.
BareJC, GloriaTG: ‘Critical analysis of the mathematical relationships and comprehensiveness of life cycle impact assessment approaches’, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2006, 40, (4), 1104–1113.
