Waste Management xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Life cycle assessment of bottled water: A case study of Green2O products

Naomi Horowitz, Jessica Frago, Dongyan Mu ⇑
School of Environmental and Sustainability Science, Kean University, 1000 Morris Ave., Union, NJ 07083, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study conducted a full life cycle analysis of bottled water on four types of bottles: ENSO, PLA (corn
Received 24 August 2017 based), recycled PET, and regular (petroleum based) PET, to discern which bottle material is more bene-
Revised 19 January 2018 ficial to use in terms of environmental impacts. PET bottles are the conventional bottles used that are not
Accepted 19 February 2018
biodegradable and accumulate in landfills. PLA corn based bottles are derived from an organic substance
Available online xxxx
and are degradable under certain environmental conditions. Recycled PET bottles are purified PET bottles
that were disposed of and are used in a closed loop system. An ENSO bottle contains a special additive
which is designed to help the plastic bottle degrade after disposed of in a landfill. The results showed that
of all fourteen impact categories examined, the recycled PET and ENSO bottles were generally better than
the PLA and regular PET bottles; however, the ENSO had the highest impacts in the categories of global
warming and respiratory organics, and the recycled PET had the highest impact in the eutrophication cat-
egory. The life cycle stages that were found to have the highest environmental impacts were the bottle
manufacturing stage and the bottled water distribution to storage stage. Analysis of the mixed bottle
material based on recycled PET resin and regular PET resin was discussed as well, in which key impact
categories were identified. The PLA bottle contained extremely low impacts in the carcinogens, respira-
tory organics and global warming categories, yet it still contained the highest impacts in seven of the
fourteen categories. Overall, the results demonstrate that the usage of more sustainable bottles, such
as biodegradable ENSO bottles and recycled PET bottles, appears to be a viable option for decreasing
impacts of the bottled water industry on the environment.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
Bottled water is a fast growing industry, with consumption
reaching a record high in 2015 with 11.7 billion gallons (Rodwan,
2016). In 2016 bottled water consumption in Mexico was the high-
est worldwide with 67.2 gallons per capita, followed by Thailand
with 56.9 gallons per capita, Italy with 47.5 gallons per capita,
and the United States with 39.3 gallons per capita (Statista,
2017). In 2012, worldwide consumption of bottled water totaled
288 billion liters, while the projected consumption for 2017 totaled
391 billion liters (Statista, 2017). As the industry booms, however,
it raises increasing concerns over resource use, human health, and
on the negative impacts to ecological systems.
One major concern is the predominant application of plastic
bottles made from a petroleum product such as polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) (Revathi, et al., 2017). PET is a long-chain poly-
mer part of the polyester family (Sinha, et al., 2010; Muschiolik,
Abbreviations: ENSO, Environmental Solution; GHG, greenhouse gas; GWP,
global warming potential; PET, polyethylene terephthalate; PLA, polylactic acid.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dmu@kean.edu (D. Mu).
1997). The intermediates of PET are terephthalic acid (TPA) and
ethylene glycol (EG) which are both acquired using oil feedstock
(Sinha, et al., 2010). Pure PET is a shapeless, glass-like material that
crystalizes when certain modifying agents are added or when heat
is applied above 72 °C (Sinha, et al., 2010). Typical PET bottle are a
major threat to the environment due to the high amount of chem-
icals, namely petroleum, required in production, as well as incor-
rect usage and disposal (Revathi, et al., 2017). Approximately 4%
of the petroleum used annually in the world in 2016 was for the
production of plastic (British Plastic Federation 2016). Bottled
water also results in a large amount of waste. According to the
study by the Center for Sustainable Systems, University of
Michigan (2015), approximately 7.2–14.1 million tons of plastic
waste disposed of in landfills each year accounts for 22% to 43%
of waste disposed in landfills (Gourmelon, 2015). The majority of
plastics are not biodegradeable, and therefore the bulk of the poly-
mers manufactured will persist for decades, centuries, and quite
possibly millennia (Hopewell, et al., 2009).
The environmental concerns regarding plastic waste are creat-
ing incentives to develop alternatives for petroleum based bottle
manufacturing to reduce plastic solid waste disposal (Zia et al.,
2007). Currently, scientists have developed many alternatives to

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.02.043
0956-053X/Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article in press as: Horowitz, N., et al. Life cycle assessment of bottled water: A case study of Green2O products. Waste Management (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.02.043
2 N. Horowitz et al. / Waste Management xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
divert plastic bottles from landfills. Intensive research has been put
into the field of recycling. Recycling allows for a closed loop system
to repurpose the bottle after disposal. Another alternative is the
usage of biodegradable plastic bottles, such as corn-based polylac-
tic acid (PLA) bottles. PLA bottle grade is essentially carbon neutral
since it is derived from carbon sequestering plants, and as such is
also biodegradable when under appropriate environmental condi-
tions (West, 2016).
Environmental concerns, however, are raised with different
options for diverting plastic bottles from landfills. For example,
recycling uses energy to sort and process the plastics, which
increases the resource consumption and cost. Many water bottle
industries hesitate to recycle plastics resin because the cost may
be even higher than the new plastic resin (Intagliata, 2012). Simi-
larly, the PLA resin is derived from renewable resources such as,
biomass of sugar cane or corn starch (Madival, et al., 2009). Grow-
ing raw materials for PLA consumes energy and resources, which
increases life cycle impacts of PLA bottles significantly. Another
misconception seems to be that PLA will simply degrade once in
a landfill, however, the PLA plastic is only compostable under cer-
tain environmental conditions – mainly when digested by
microbes with temperatures reaching 140 ⁰F for ten consecutive
days (Royte, 2006). In addition, increasing PLA production seems
to be a question of morality when so many people in the world
are starving and malnourished (Royte, 2006).
The ENSO bottle is a relatively new alternative created to
increase biodegradability of plastic bottles in landfills. ENSO bot-
tles are regular PET bottles which contain an additive that makes
the bottles more enticing to the billions of microorganisms which
normally degrade plastic bottles. The microorganisms break down
the bottles into biogases and inert humus leaving no toxic materi-
als behind (ENSO Bottles, 2009). After the ENSO additive is mixed
into the plastic bottle components, the final product looks, feels,
and performs exactly as a normal bottle would, with the exception
of being biodegradable. Research has found that ENSO plastics
biodegrade by about 25 percent in only 160 days in ideal environ-
mental conditions (Huff, 2013). In addition, ENSO plastics can be
recycled just as any other typical plastic would, however, since a
majority of the bottle is composed of petroleum based plastic resin,
carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) are released once the bot-
tle decomposes.
In order to evaluate whether PLA and recycled PET bottles are
beneficial for the environment, past research was conducted on
the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of ordinary PET bottles in conjunc-
tion with recycled PET and corn based PLA bottles. A study done by
Li Shen et al. (2010), analyzed open loop recycling of PET bottles
with four PET recycling cases: mechanical recycling, semi-
mechanical recycling, back-to-oligomer recycling, and back-to-
monomer recycling. The results were also compared to polylactic
acid (PLA) bottles. The results concluded that recycled PET fibers
have lower environmental impacts than virgin fiber production,
specifically, in the categories of abiotic depletion, acidification
and human toxicity. The recycled fibers were found to have a com-
paratively high environmental impact on freshwater aquatic eco-
toxicity than the virgin PET, as well as a lower Global Warming
Potential (GWP), than PLA bottles. While Li Shen et al. conducted
a LCA study on recycled PET and PLA bottles, no LCA study has been
conducted on ENSO bottles in conjunction with regular PET, recy-
cled PET, and PLA bottles.
This study analyzed three supposed environmentally friendly
bottle alternatives: recycled PET bottles, PLA bottles and ENSO bot-
tles. As a baseline, the regular petroleum based PET bottles were
analyzed for comparison. The study coordinated with the bottled
water manufacturing company Green2O, a New Jersey based water
bottle company that aims to provide a premium all natural alkaline
spring water, packaged in an environmentally conscious container.
Please cite this article in press as: Horowitz, N., et al. Life cycle assessment of bottled water: A case study of Green2O products. Waste Management (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.02.043
The company proposed three product lines with different bottle
vendors to produce bottled water. Therefore, this study developed
a model that integrated the bottle manufacturing, water fillers, and
product distribution in a Green2O scenario. The study also aimed
to identify the key production stages that raise environmental
impacts in the bottled water production.
The outcomes of this study are expected to increase the public’s
understanding of environmental impacts of plastic bottles and
enlighten the water bottle industries of the impacts of various
plastic bottle alternatives. The results can also help the bottle man-
ufacturing industries improve their products to lower environmen-
tal impacts in certain production stages.
2. Methodology
The framework of this study followed the guidelines according
to ISO 14,000 standards for LCA. Data applied in LCA modeling and
analysis were either collected from the Green2O product chains or
retrieved from existing LCA databases, such as EcoInvent 3.1. A sce-
nario analysis was also conducted in order to determine if combin-
ing various percentages of recycled PET resin and regular PET resin
would have a lower impact on the environment.
2.1. Goal and scope
The goal of this project was to analyze the environmental
impacts of Green2O bottles by assessing 4 types of plastic materi-
als including ENSO, PLA, 100% recycled PET, and regular PET. The
100% recycled PET bottle was assumed entirely made from recy-
cled plastic resin. The PLA bottle was assumed to be corn based
and compostable. The ENSO bottle consists of regular PET resin,
albeit contains a special additive (1% by weight), which allows it
to degrade in a landfill extremely quickly. The regular PET was
assumed to be petroleum based plastic material. The functional
unit denoted for this project was 12 bottles, as this amount is typ-
ically found in one pack of Green2O water bottles.
The system boundary for the bottles being studied is illustrated
in the flow diagram in Fig. 1. The boundary took into account the
complete life-cycle, beginning from the extraction of raw materials
through the disposal of the product in a landfill. This boundary
included plastic material manufacturing, bottle manufacturing, fill-
ing the bottles with water, assembly of the product, distribution of
the product to storage and the market, consumption, and disposal/
recycling. Generally, the bottle preforms were assumed to be made
of different raw materials at different locations, and then trans-
ported to Tennessee to be filled with water. The bottle manufactur-
ing is described in Fig. 1. The products, bottled water were then
distributed across the country. This study assumed identical distri-
bution and use stages for the four types of water bottles. The final
disposals of four types of bottles were different and described in
Fig. 1 as well.
2.2. Life cycle Inventory (LCI)
The goal of Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) was established to identify
and quantify the environmental factors crossing the system
boundaries. LCI data, as shown in Table 1, consisted of raw material
and energy inputs utilized to create each product. The LCI included
all the unit processes and quantity of inputs shown in Fig. 1. The
impacts of unit processes such as plastic resin production, blow
molding, and water injection were attained from Ecoinvent 3.0
database on Simapro. The material use and inputs were based on
the actual weight of bottles and packaging. All the calculations
used to derive the quantitative data are described in the Supple-
mentary Information (SI).
 N. Horowitz et al. / Waste Management xxx (2018) xxx–xxx 3

Bole manufacturing Boled water producon and use Disposal

ENSO bole Water filling Distribuon and ENSO bole Disposal

market
PET Resin with ENSO
Hauling Truck 72 km
producon 0.27821 kg
Water Producon
Refrigeraon at
5.7493 kg Plasc waste in landfill 0.0556 kg
Market 0.03744
Blow molding 0.00466 kWh
kWh
Water Injecon
0.00978 kWh Distribuon to Cardboard waste in landfill 0.0599 g
ENSO Resin transportaon
AZ to OH Storage (from TN
to CA, TX, and NJ)
Product Assembly 1784 km Electricity generaon
ENSO Bole transportaon 0.12061 kWh
OH to TN
Product Packaging
Storage to Market
CH4, CO2
400 km
PLA bole

PLA Resin producon 0.3 kg PLA bole Disposal

Use Hauling Truck 72 km

Blow molding 0.00466 kWh
Other inputs Plasc waste in landfill 0.0556 kg
Consumer Vehicle
PLA Resin transportaon Transport 0.27504
MI to OH km Cardboard waste in landfill 0.0599
Label kg
PLA Bole transportaon
OH to TN Refrigeraon 0.10884
kWh Electricity generaon
Low-density 0.12061 kWh
polyethylene
Recycled PET bole (LPDE)
Recycled PET resin producon
producon 0.27821 kg Recycled PET bole disposal

Blow molding 0.00466 kWh Stretch blow

molding 0.0156 kg Packaging Hauling Truck 72 km

Recycled PET preform

materials
Plasc waste in landfill 0.0556 kg
transportaon Transportaon of
OH to OH, MI Packaging
LPDE Label 1170
Cardboard
k Cardboard waste in landfill 0.0599
Recycled PET bole kg
transportaon Transportaon of
OH, MI to TN cardboard
Cap NJ to NT 1170 km
Recycled PET bole disposal
Typical PET bole
Polypropylene (PP)
PET resin producon 0.27821 producon 0.0216 Packaging Plasc
manufacturing Hauling Truck 72 km
k
0.0184 kg
Blow molding 0.00466 kWh Injecon molding Plasc waste in landfill 0.334 kg
0.0216 kg Extrusion plasc film
PET preform transportaon 0.059 kg
OH to OH
Transportaon of Cardboard waste in landfill
caps Transportaon of 0.0599 kg
PET bole transportaon 1170 km packing plascs km
OH to TN

Fig. 1. Flow diagram of system boundary.

The bottle manufacturing includes the plastic polymer/resin
manufacturing, preform manufacturing, and blowing preforms
to bottles. These three steps may occur at different locations.
Based on the information provided by the Green2O Company,
they purchase PLA preform and ENSO preform from the same
vendor located in Dayton, OH. However, the commercialized
PLA resin is only provided by NatureWorks, located in Min-
nesota. When modeling the LCI, transportation for PLA resin
requires traveling from Minnesota to Ohio where bottle pre-
forms vendor is located. The preforms were then assumed to
be transported to Tennessee, blown into bottles, and filled with
spring water before the final product, i.e., Green2O bottled
water, was packed and distributed. Similarly to the PLA bottle,
the ENSO bottle requires the additive which is produced in Ari-
zona. The study assumed the plastic resin with ENSO additive
was made in Arizona. The LCI modeled the transportation for
the ENSO resin from Arizona to Ohio to make ENSO preforms,
and then to Tennessee where spring water is filled into ENSO
bottles. All the distances inputted into the model are shown in
Table 2.

Please cite this article in press as: Horowitz, N., et al. Life cycle assessment of bottled water: A case study of Green2O products. Waste Management (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.02.043
4 N. Horowitz et al. / Waste Management xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Direct inputs and outputs of each type of bottle.

Unit Recycled PET PLA ENSO Regular PET

Direct inputs
PET kg 0.278 0 0.275 0.278
Packaging Film kg 0.0184 0.0184 0.0184 0.0184
PLA kg 0 0.3 0 0
ENSO Additive kg 0 0 0.00278 0
LPDE kg 0.0156 0.0156 0.0156 0.0156
PP kg 0.0216 0.0216 0.0216 0.0216
Cardboard kg 0.0599 0.0599 0.0599 0.0599
Water kg 0.479 0.479 0.479 0.4791
Transportation km 3156 3975 5719 3292
Direct discharge/emissions
Carbon Dioxide kg CO2 eq 0 0 0.786 0
Electricity kWh 0 0 1.206 0
Methane kg CH4 eq 0 0 0.292 0
Waste Stream kg 0.0556 0.356 0.334 0.334

Table 2
The distance traveled during each process.

PLA ENSO Recycled PET Regular PET

Polymer manufacturer Minnetonka, MI Mesa, AZ Bowling Green, OH Columbus, OH
Preform manufacturer 1148 km 2892 km Average 61.6 km 237 km
Dayton, OH Dayton, OH Holland, OH and Manchester, MI Holland, OH
Filler 571 km 571 km Average 839 799 km
Dandridge, TN Dandridge, TN km Dandridge, TN Dandridge, TN
+
Distribution centers 1784 km+ (California, Texas and New Jersey)
Distribution center to stores 400 km
*
Stores to consumers 0.27 km
Disposal 72 km
+
The average distance from Tennessee to California, Texas, and New Jersey was found to be 1784 km (as shown in the table below).
*
Distance for consumers was calculated on the basis that supplementary items besides the water bottles were bought together. The average distance driven to the store
was taken to be 27 km. The quantity of water bottles compared to the entire purchase was assumed to be 1%.

Green2O purchases regular PET and recycled PET preforms from
a vendor located in Holland, OH. As the vendor did not provide
detailed information on their supply chain, this study made an
assumption that the regular PET and recycled PET plastic resin
were produced locally. As a result, the 100% recycled PET bottle
and regular PET bottle do not require a large amount of plastic
resin transportation to the bottle preform manufacturers. In the
LCI, the preforms were made in Ohio and then transported to Ten-
nessee for water filling. All the bottle manufacturing and trans-
portation scenarios were based on the actual vendors and supply
chains proposed by the Green2O Company, seen in Table 2.
Disposal was also different regarding each bottle in this study.
The 100% recycled PET bottle was assumed to be sorted out from
other wastes at the landfills, shredded into flakes and pellets, and
sent to the manufacturers to mold the PET pellets and make bottle
preforms. This study also assumed landfills were located close to
the recycled PET resin manufacturers in Ohio, therefore, the trans-
portation of PET pellets to the resin makers were not incorporated
into the model.
The regular PET bottles were assumed to be disposed of in land-
fills, and to not degrade for millennia. Therefore, the regular PET
bottles did not release emissions, albeit they could raise other envi-
ronmental impacts such as ecotoxicity and land occupation. PLA
bottles were assumed to be disposed of in landfills and compostable
but not degradable under standard landfill conditions (Royte,
2006). The emissions released from PLA bottles were not accounted
for in the final impact assessment because the carbon in PLA was
extracted from the atmosphere in the corn growing stage.
The emission from the ENSO bottles degrading in landfills were
assumed to be recaptured and converted into electricity. The calcu-
lation of emissions was based on information provided by the
ENSO manufacturer and is further explained in the SI. The ENSO
plastics contain 62.5 wt% of carbon, which was assumed to be
decomposed entirely in a landfill and converted to either CO2 or
CH4. The study then assumed half of total carbon emissions were
CH4, in which 90% would be captured to generate electricity and
10% would escape into the air. The electricity generation was based
on the quantity of captured CH4 and the biogas combustion effi-
ciency (35% per MJ CH4 combusted) provided in the GREET model.
The total emissions of ENSO bottle disposal in landfills included
CO2 from plastic decomposition, the CH4 released to air, and emis-
sions from biogas combustion. Those emissions were counted into
the final impacts because they were derived from petroleum-based
fossil fuels. The electricity generated was treated as a benefit in the
LCI, in which the impacts of electricity generated were subtracted
from the total impacts of the ENSO bottle.
In regards to the packaging, this study assumed that all the
packaging cardboard was disposed of in landfills and degraded.
The bottle’s cap, label and plastic film/wrap disposed in landfills
were assumed to not be biodegradable. The caps were composed
of polypropylene (PP) and the labels and plastic film/wrap and
were composed of low density polyethylene (LPDE).
2.3. Life cycle impact analysis (LCIA)
The Life Cycle Impact Analysis (LCIA) stage, aimed at
comprehending and analyzing the data for significance in possible
environmental impacts in a system. Impact 2002+ (IMPact
Assessment of Chemical Toxics) analysis method was applied in
the LCIA using SimaPro 8. The categories analyzed included carcino-
gens (kg C2H3Cl eq), non-carcinogens (kg C2H3Cl eq), respiratory
inorganics (kg PM2.5 eq), ozone layer depletion (kg CFC-11 eq), res-
piratory organics (kg C2H4 eq), aquatic ecotoxicity (kg TEG soil), ter-
restrial ecotoxicity (kg TEG soil), terrestrial acidification/

Please cite this article in press as: Horowitz, N., et al. Life cycle assessment of bottled water: A case study of Green2O products. Waste Management (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.02.043
 N. Horowitz et al. / Waste Management xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
nutrification (kg SO2 eq), land occupation (m2org
arable), aquatic
acidification (kg SO2 eq), aquatic eutrophication (kg PO4 P-lim), glo-
bal warming (kg CO2 eq), non-renewable energy (MJ primary) and
mineral extraction (MJ surplus). The impact of nonrenewable
energy counted the primary energy use, which included petroleum,
natural gas and coal. Climate change was characterized by utilizing
CO2 equivalency, with 100 years developed by the Intergovernmen-
tal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Greenhouse gases, such as CO2,
CH4 and N2O, were converted to CO2 equivalency to create a sum
total of global warming potential. Acidification was accounted for
using SO2 equivalents, which included NOx and NH3. The eutrophi-
cation included discharges of nutrients, mainly nitrogen and phos-
phorus, into water bodies. The definition and calculation of other
impacts can be found in Impacts 2000+ as well.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Environmental impacts of bottled water with different bottle
materials
LCA contains categories with units measuring each impact cate-
gory. Each category may not be compared to each other (i.e. car-
cinogenics and eutrophication), albeit, each category within the
stage/bottle may be compared to the identical category in a differ-
ent stage/bottle (i.e. carcinogenics in PLA and carcinogenics in
ENSO). The data may be analyzed both in terms of impacts within
each stage for each bottle that contributes the greatest to the envi-
ronmental impact, as well as the sum of the impacts for each stage
to compare the total impacts of each bottle. As such, the data can
depict both the bottle that has the highest impact on the environ-
ment, as well as the stage in each bottle that contributes the most
to impacting the environment. The data for each impact category
was analyzed and compared to each other. The total impacts of four
types of bottled water are shown in Table 3 and the impacts of dif-
ferent production stages of each bottle type are shown in Fig. 2.
3.1.1. Carcinogens, non-carcinogens and respiratory effects
The carcinogens, non-carcinogens and respiratory effects are all
environmental impacts juxtaposed alongside human health. The
results showed that the carcinogens were highest for the regular
PET bottle, with a value of 0.411 kg C2H3Cl eq. A close second in
the category of carcinogens was the ENSO bottle, with a value of
0.355 kg C2H3Cl eq. The carcinogens of regular PET and ENSO were
Table 3
LCIA results of the bottled water with different bottle materials.
The bottle that raises the highest and 2nd highest impact in each impact categories are highlighted.
Please cite this article in press as: Horowitz, N., et al. Life cycle assessment of bottled water: A case study of Green2O products. Waste Management (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.02.043
5
4–7 times greater than for the PLA and recycled PET bottles. The
stage that contains the highest impact in carcinogens for the regu-
lar PET bottle was the bottle manufacturing stage, with a value of
91.1% of all the stages. The highest stage for the ENSO bottle was
also the bottle manufacturing stage, which constitutes 105.9% of
the category. A value over 100% was attained due to the disposal
stage having a negative impact of 0.0553 C2H3Cl eq. As the PET
resin manufacturing usually releases high carcinogens, the regular
PET and ENSO bottles were high in this category because they both
contain high petroleum based PET.
The non-carcinogenics of the four bottles were close to each
other, ranging from the highest for the PLA bottle with a value of
0.178 C2H3Cl eq. to the lowest for the ENSO bottle of 0.164 C2H3Cl
eq. Non-carcinogenics was highest in the stage of the distribution
to storage for all four bottles, with a second value in the bottle man-
ufacturing and a third of the customer use stage. The sum of the
three categories amounted to 89% of the category. As the electricity
generation has a high non-carcinogen release, the higher impact
occurs in stages using more electricity than others. The product dis-
tribution and the customer use stages used electricity for refrigera-
tors and storage, which raised higher impacts on non-carcinogens.
In addition, the fossil use in transportation raised non-
carcinogenics impact, particularly in the distribution to storage
stage.
Respiratory inorganics was highest for the regular PET bottle,
with a value of 0.00446 kg PM2.5 eq., followed by the PLA bottle,
with a value of 0.00426 kg PM2.5 eq. Whereas, the respiratory
organics were highest for the ENSO bottle with a value of 0.0035
kg C2H4 eq, albeit, it was the lowest in respiratory inorganics with
a value of 0.00389 kg C2H4 eq. The stages which contributed to the
regular PET bottle’s impact in respiratory inorganics was 42.6% due
to the distribution to storage stage, and 40.1% due to the bottle
manufacturing stage. Respiratory organics was primarily due to
the disposal stage in the ENSO bottle, with a value of 0.00167 kg
C2H4 eq. The high impact during the disposal stage was likely
due to the release of organic chemicals into the atmosphere during
the decomposition of the bottle in a landfill.
3.1.2. Ozone layer depletion
The ozone layer lies in the Earth’s atmosphere and plays a crit-
ical role in protecting live forms from strong ultraviolet radiation
emanating from the sun. Ultraviolet radiation has the capacity to
destroy organic matter and, in humans, can lead to cancer and cat-
aracts. Certain substances break down the ozone layer, which is
6 N. Horowitz et al. / Waste Management xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Fig. 2. Life cycle impacts in life cycle stages of the four bottles. A. Impact category percent composition for each PLA bottle. B. Impact category percent composition for each
100% recycled PET bottle. C. Impact category percent composition for each regular PET bottle. D. Impact category percent composition for each ENSO bottle.

composed of three oxygens bonded together. These substances are
popularly known as Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODS), and typi-
cally contain anthropogenic chemicals composed of chlorine and
bromine. In this study, the PLA bottle was found to have the high-
est impact in this category with a value of 1.78  10 7 kg CFC-11
eq. The second highest bottle in this category was the regular PET
bottle, with a value of 1.23  10 7 kg CFC-11 eq. The ozone layer
depletion of the PLA bottle was 130 times the impact of the ENSO
bottle and 2.2 times the impact of the recycled PET bottle. The pri-
mary stage responsible for the high value is the bottle manufactur-
ing stage, with a value of 87.0% of the impact category for the PLA
bottle, and 63.9% for the regular PET bottle. This is because the
polymer manufacturing raised high ODS.
The ENSO bottle was the lowest in this category, containing a
value of 1.36  10 9 kg CFC-11 eq. The stage that contributed the
most positive impacts in the category for the ENSO bottle was bot-
tle manufacturing, which constitutes more than 80% of the positive
impacts for the ENSO bottle. The egregiously high value in the
bottle manufacturing stage is due to the electricity use for bottle
manufacturing. However, the disposal stage accounted a value of
1.00  10 7 kg CFC-11 eq, without which, the total impact for
the bottle would be 1.02  10 7, as opposed to 1.36  10 9. The
enormous negative impact in the disposal stage has on the
environment may have occurred because the methane was
captured during the decomposition of the bottle which generates
electricity and thus reduced the amount of ODS released into the
environment when generating electricity.
3.1.3. Aquatic and terrestrial ecotoxicity
Aquatic ecotoxicity and terrestrial ecotoxicity are poisonous
substances released into the environment that are toxic to organ-
isms. Aquatic ecotoxicity was highest for the PLA bottle, followed
closely by the recycled PET bottle and the ENSO bottle, with values
of 1138, 1118 and 1110 kg TEG water. These results demonstrated
that the four bottles contributed very closely in quantity to the
impact category of aquatic ecotoxicity. The life cycle stage which

Please cite this article in press as: Horowitz, N., et al. Life cycle assessment of bottled water: A case study of Green2O products. Waste Management (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.02.043
 N. Horowitz et al. / Waste Management xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
contributed the most to the aquatic ecotoxicity was the distribu-
tion to storage, which was 77.8% of aquatic ecotoxicity for the recy-
cled PET bottle, 76.5% of the PLA bottle and 80.3% of the regular PET
bottle. This was caused by the use of transportation fuels in the
product distribution. The results showed the aquatic ecotoxicity
raised by the ENSO bottle was the highest in the distribution to
storage stage, which was 79% of the category. However, there
was also a negative impact of 47.4 kg TEG water for the ENSO
bottle in the disposal stage, which was raised by the electricity
generation from biogas.
Terrestrial ecotoxicity was highest for the PLA bottle, with a
value of 52.3 kg TEG soil. The high value was mainly due to the bot-
tle manufacturing stage, which was 85.6% of the total impact cat-
egory. Factors, such as pesticide runoff from corn production
contributed to the PLA having high quantities in the impact cate-
gories of ecotoxicity. In contrast, the recycled PET bottle was the
lowest in the terrestrial ecotoxicity category with a value of 17.0
kg TEG soil. This is mainly because recycled material was reused
after consumption, which diverted the wastes that can raise eco-
toxicity in the landfills. The ENSO bottle was the second to lowest
in terrestrial ecotoxicity, because it contained a negative impact
value of 9.04 kg TEG water in the disposal stage. The negative
value was caused by the electricity generation from biogas.
3.1.4. Aquatic and terrestrial acidification/nutrification
Aquatic and terrestrial acidification occurs when the environ-
ment is affected by certain chemicals which leads to a lower than
normal pH in that environment. Aquatic acidification regularly
occurs when gases, such as CO2 or SO2, are absorbed by the water
and react to forms acidic compounds. When there is a higher than
normal concentration of gases in the atmosphere, the ocean
absorbs more gases and becomes more acidic. In aquatic acidifica-
tion, the PLA, recycled PET and typical PET contained values of
0.0223, 0.0222 and 0.0217 kg SO2 eq. The aquatic acidification of
the ENSO bottle was not significant lower than other three. For
all four bottles, the highest contributing stage was the distribution
to storage, followed by bottle manufacturing. This was due to the
fact that during distribution to storage the transportation fuels
were consumed, which affected the ocean’s acidity by releasing
gases, such as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Those gases
have the potential to be absorbed by the ocean and lower the pH
of the water.
Terrestrial ecotoxicity impact quantities for four bottles were
not different significantly. Identical to aquatic acidification, all
three bottles contained the highest contributing stage in the distri-
bution to storage stage, with the second to highest being the bottle
manufacturing stage.
3.1.5. Land occupation
Land occupation was the highest for the PLA bottle with a value
of 0.233 m2org
arable, approximately 4–5 times to other three bot-
tles. The stage contributed the greatest to this high quantity for the
PLA bottle was the bottle manufacturing stage with a value of
0.218 m2org
arable, or 93.5% of the total PLA bottle land occupa-
tion impact. Since the PLA polymer is corn based, which requires
extensive arable land to grow and harvest a crop of corn, the bottle
manufacturing stage of the PLA bottle was the biggest contributing
factor to this impact. The ENSO bottle contains the smallest quan-
tity in the category with a value of 0.0418 m2org
arable. The low
impact was due to the fact that the ENSO bottle is able to fully
degrade once it is disposed of. In addition, the electricity genera-
tion created a benefit in land occupation, which attributed to a
negative impact 9.08  10 3 m2org
arable in the bottle disposal
stage.
Please cite this article in press as: Horowitz, N., et al. Life cycle assessment of bottled water: A case study of Green2O products. Waste Management (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.02.043
7
3.1.6. Aquatic eutrophication
Aquatic eutrophication occurs when there is an abundance of
nutrients in a body of water, typically due to runoff, which results
in an egregious amount of plant growth, and the death of zoologi-
cal organisms from oxygen deprivation. Aquatic eutrophication
was the highest for the recycled PET bottle, followed by the regular
PET bottle, the PLA bottle, and lastly, the ENSO bottle, with values
of 4.57  10 4, 3.82  10 4, 3.72  10 4 and 2.92  10 4 kg PO4
P-lim. The main stage that contributes to the recycled PET bottle
having a higher magnitude in the category was the bottle manufac-
turing stage, which is 80.2% of the impact category for the bottle.
The processes of bottle sorting and cleaning contributed to the high
eutrophication impact of recycled PET bottle. Out of expectation,
the PLA bottle was not the highest in the eutrophication, although
the fertilizers used to grow corn cause eutrophication.
3.1.7. Global warming potential
Greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as carbon dioxide and methane,
are frequently released into the atmosphere by natural causes (i.e.
volcanoes, respiration), and anthropogenic origins (i.e. automobiles
and smokestacks), where they then become part of Earth’s atmo-
sphere and help capture heat to warm the planet, therefore, the
GHGs are used to evaluate the global warming impact. The ENSO
bottle contained the highest quantity, 6.42 kg CO2 eq, in this cate-
gory. A very likely explanation for the high GWP was the release of
greenhouse gases as it decomposed in landfills, which contributed
46.8% of the total GWP for the ENSO bottle. The PLA bottle con-
tained the second to lowest impact, 3.58 kg CO2 eq, in this cate-
gory, which was only 55% of the ENSO bottle. This is because the
PLA bottle consists of corn, which is a plant that extrapolates CO2
from the atmosphere for photosynthesis, thereby reducing the
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere causing global warming.
Finally, the recycled PET bottle had the lowest global warming
impact with a value of 3.57 kg CO2 eq. because it used recycle
PET polymer and reduced the use of petroleum, a major contribu-
tor to GHG emissions.
3.1.8. Non-renewable energy
Non-renewable energy is energy utilized that cannot, within a
reasonable duration of time, be reused again, i.e. petroleum and
coal. The typical PET bottle had the highest impact in this category,
with a value of 69.4 MJ primary. The recycled PET and the ENSO
bottle contained almost identical lowest impacts in this category,
with values of 55.5 MJ primary. The distribution to storage and
the bottle manufacturing were two stages contributing to this
impact category, because electricity was used for polymer manu-
facturing and fossil fuels were used for transportation.
3.1.9. Mineral extraction
Mineral extraction is a measurement of the amount of resources
required to create each bottle. The bottle with the highest impact
in the category of mineral extraction was the regular PET bottle
with a value of 0.0840 MJ Surplus. The PET required continuous
extraction of fossil fuels to create the bottle, which was confirmed
by the highest stage impact being bottle manufacturing, and thus is
likely why the regular PET bottle contained the highest impact in
the category of mineral extraction. The PLA and ENSO bottles con-
tained the median amount of impact in this category, likely due to
the fact that they also required continuous extraction of resources.
The recycled PET was the lowest in this category, with a value of
0.0236 MJ Surplus, because the polymer was a reused material,
and thus required less mineral extraction than the other three
bottles.
8 N. Horowitz et al. / Waste Management xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
3.2. Examination of four bottles in the life cycle stages
The results showed the recycled PET bottle was the lowest in
impact categories of carcinogens, terrestrial ecotoxicity, global
warming potential, non-renewable energy, and mineral extraction.
The PET recycling and reuse contributed significantly to reduce
environmental impacts. Low values in carcinogens and terrestrial
ecotoxicity occurred because the plastic was being reused, and
thus less petroleum and additional chemicals were required to cre-
ate the bottle. The non-renewable energy was lowest because less
fossil fuel was required to make the polymer. In addition, the study
assumed the PET bottles were recycled locally, which reduced fos-
sil fuel use in polymer transportation and thus lowered down the
non-renewable energy use. Land occupation of the recycled PET
bottle may be second to lowest because the bottle was reused,
and so no land was required as a landfill during the disposal stage.
The recycled PET bottles resulted in three categories being the
highest for the bottle manufacturing stage, four categories being
the highest in the packaging of the recyclable PET bottles, and eight
categories being the highest for the distribution to storage stage.
The carcinogens may be higher for packaging than recycled PET
manufacturing, because the recycled PET bottles are being made
from recycled material, whereas the packaging is new raw material
which must be extracted. Packaging may also be highest in mineral
extraction since the materials to make the packaging must be new,
whereas the material to make the bottle is previously extracted
recycled material. The distribution to storage is highest in eight
categories possibly due to the pollution emitted from automobiles
in the distribution process. The recycled PET bottle manufacturing
stage may be the highest in the remaining categories due to the
energy required to assemble and form the bottle.
The typical PET bottle was the highest in the categories of car-
cinogens, respiratory inorganics, non-renewable energy, and min-
eral extraction. It was also the second highest in other seven
categories. The impacts of the regular PET bottle were raised
mainly in the bottle manufacturing stage and product distribution
stage, in which the petroleum was used for polymer manufacturing
and for product transportation. The typical PET bottle resulted in
seven of the highest categories being impacted by the bottle man-
ufacturing and the remaining seven categories being the highest in
the distribution process of the PET bottles. Contrary to the recycled
PET, the regular PET does not contain the highest impacts from the
packaging because the bottles are made from scratch each time in
the bottle manufacturing stage as opposed to the 100% recycled
PET bottles.
The ENSO bottle had the highest values in the categories of res-
piratory organics and global warming, and lowest in the categories
non-carcinogens, respiratory inorganics, ozone layer depletion,
aquatic and terrestrial acidification, land occupation and aquatic
eutrophication. ENSO contained 99% of same material as regular
PET, but impacts of ENSO were lower than regular PET signifi-
cantly. As the ENSO decomposition can create biogas to generate
electricity, the bottle disposal stage had negative impacts in all cat-
egories. This contributed to the lower impacts of the ENSO bottle
than other bottles. However, when the bottle degrades, it releases
CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere, which in turn intensifies the
greenhouse effect. The bottle degradation in landfills also caused
the highest respiratory organics. Similar to the regular PET, the
ENSO raised impacts in the stages of bottle manufacturing and pro-
duct distribution to storage.
The LCI for the ENSO bottle demonstrated that the process of
bottle manufacturing was the highest in seven categories, distribu-
tion to storage in five categories, and disposal in two categories.
Disposal was the highest in respiratory organics and global warm-
ing because once it was brought into a landfill it degrades, releas-
ing chemicals into the atmosphere. The distribution centers were
Please cite this article in press as: Horowitz, N., et al. Life cycle assessment of bottled water: A case study of Green2O products. Waste Management (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.02.043
highest in non-carcinogens, respiratory inorganics, aquatic ecotox-
icity, aquatic acidification and terrestrial acid/nutria. This may
have occurred due to the pollution emitted from automobiles in
the distribution process. The bottle manufacturing was the highest
in the remaining categories because the ENSO bottle contains
chemicals in order to make the additive, and new PET material to
make the bottle. In this process the disposal was negative for many
categories because some of the carbon dioxide and methane
released is able to be recaptured and used as a co-product to gen-
erate electricity, and thus it positively benefits the environment.
Lastly, the PLA bottles demonstrated the worst environmental
performance with the highest impacts in seven categories. The
results showed that generating a product from natural materials
was not necessary better than petroleum based or synthetic mate-
rials. The PLA bottle resulted in the bottle manufacturing process
and distribution to storage having the highest impacts in almost
every category. The distribution of the PLA bottle to storage was
the highest in non-carcinogens, respiratory inorganics, respiratory
organics, aquatic ecotoxicity, terrestrial acidity/nutrificiation,
aquatic acidification, global warming and non-renewable energy.
This high impact was due to the automobile emissions released
into the environment. Distribution, on the other hand, had abso-
lutely no impact on the impact categories of land occupation or
mineral extraction. A possible cause for the other impact categories
being highest in bottle manufacturing is because the extraction of
the materials, transport of materials to the factory, and assembly of
materials, require an intensive amount of energy. The PLA bottle
manufacturing composes approximately 93.5% of the land occupa-
tion impact because the area to harvest corn requires an expansive
area of land. The eutrophication category was impacted 83.0% from
the bottle manufacturing process, which may be a result of the fer-
tilizers applied to the corn crops. The PLA bottle manufacturing
composes 82.6% of mineral extraction most likely as a result of
the quantity of electricity required to create the bottles.
A past study conducted by Groot and Borén found that PLA bot-
tles resulted in significantly less emissions of greenhouse gases and
usage of non-renewable energy when compared to fossil-based
polymers, such as PET. The results found by Groot and Borén are
consistent with the global warming potential and the non-
renewable energy impacts found in this study. GWP and
non-renewable energy impacts in both studies were lower than
the regular PET alternative impacts. Madival, et al., conducted a life
cycle assessment comparing PLA and PET clamshell containers.
Their results found that PET contained higher impacts than PLA
bottles in the categories of global warming, ozone layer depletion,
aquatic eutrophication, aquatic ecotoxicity and land occupation,
while PLA contained greater magnitudes for aquatic acidification,
respiratory organics and respiratory inorganics. The data similar
between these studies is that the GWP and aquatic eutrophication
in PLA is lower than for the regular PET bottle, as well as that PLA
contains higher impacts in the impact category aquatic acidifica-
tion compared to the regular PET. These results may differ between
each other due to the fact that clamshell containers and water
bottles contain different additional components, such as packaging
and labels, which may have led to contrasting results.
3.3. Analysis of bottles with combined materials
The LCA results showed the recycled PET and ENSO bottles are
more environmental friendly bottles for bottled water production,
whereas, the regular PET and PLA bottle are less environmentally
favorable. Bottles are also able to be made by combining various
materials. This study carried out an analysis to determine whether
a more sustainable PET bottle would be able to be produced if the
recycled PET resin and regular PET resin were mixed together in
certain quantities to produce a bottle.
 N. Horowitz et al. / Waste Management xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
Mineral extracon
Non-renewable energy
Global warming
Aquac eutrophicaon
Aquac acidificaon
Land occupaon
Terrestrial acid/nutri
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Aquac ecotoxicity
Respiratory organics
Ozone layer depleon
Respiratory inorganics
Non-carcinogens
Carcinogens
-25.00% -20.00% -15.00% -10.00% -5.00%
Recyclable PET Bole Manufacturing 10% R 90% N
Fig. 3. Sensitivity analysis on the recycled PET bottle and the regular PET bottle. Tornado diagram portraying the percent change in each impact category when the
composition of materials each bottle is made with is changed. The base line is 30% R recycled PET and 70% of N normal/regular PET.
The analysis utilized the 30% recycled PET resin mixed with 70%
regular PET as a baseline to compare the 10% recycled PET - 90%
regular PET with the 50% recycled PET - 50% regular PET. Fig. 3
depicts the percent change in impact categories when there is a
percent change in recyclable and regular PET resin. The analysis
demonstrated that the more recycled PET, the greater the improve-
ment for the impacts in the categories of carcinogens, respiratory
inorganics, respiratory organics, terrestrial ecotoxicity, terrestrial
acid/nutri, aquatic acidification, global warming, non-renewable
energy and mineral extraction. Specifically, there were high
improvements (>5%) in the categories of carcinogens, respiratory
organics, global warming, and non-renewable energy, with modifi-
cations of 5.85%, 19.94%, 5.89% and 10.17%. However, some
impacts were increased, including non-carcinogens, ozone layer
depletion, aquatic ecotoxicity, and aquatic eutrophication. The
increases of those impacts were significant by 18%, 1.5%, 21%,
and 24%. Land occupation was the one category that demonstrated
a 0% change between the two variations of bottles. The results also
showed that some impact categories were more likely to change
than others when materials were mixed. Those impacts included
eutrophication, aquatic ecotoxicity, respiratory organics, and
non-carcinogens. The small change of combination ratios would
raise high change of those impacts.
Due to varying results, with some categories lowering while
others increased, it is difficult to determine the best percentage
of polymers to mix together to achieve a bottle with the least
detrimental impacts on the environment since each category can-
not be compared to each other in terms of degree of impact. Cer-
tain impact categories may be more detrimental to the
environment and/or humans, while other categories may cause lit-
tle to no harm. Other measures such as a cost benefit analysis
should be conducted to determine the best ratio of recycled PET
with regular PET.
Please cite this article in press as: Horowitz, N., et al. Life cycle assessment of bottled water: A case study of Green2O products. Waste Management (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.02.043
9
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00%
Recyclable PET Bole Manufacturing 50% R 50% N
4. Conclusion
The study analyzed the Life Cycle Assessment for four types of
water bottles in an effort to determine the impact each bottle
has on the environment. The process found to compose most of
the impacts for each bottle was the bottle manufacturing stage
and the distribution to storage. The bottle manufacturing stage
was composed of creating the materials for the bottles as well as
shipping the material to be molded, which thus may have led to
extremely high impacts for that stage. Distribution to storage
was composed only of transportation, yet contained extremely
high impacts because the transportation was assumed to be fueled
by oil which caused many deleterious environmental impacts.
These results are concordant with a study done by Gleick and Coo-
ley who found that the total energy requirement for manufacturing
and transporting the plastic bottles were both the most energy
intensive stages. The high impacts in these two stages demonstrate
that it may be possible to decrease human impacts on the environ-
ment if material acquisition or transportation were more sustain-
ably carried out. The transportation for the recycled PET and the
regular PET during the bottle manufacturing stage was altogether
900.6 km and 1036 km, with only a 135.4 km difference, yet the
bottle manufacturing stage had a percent difference in carcinogens
of 182% and for mineral extraction of 154%. The continuous re-
extraction of resources for the regular PET resin most likely led
to the extremely high impacts in the bottle manufacturing stage.
The LCIA of the four bottles showed that overall, each bottle had
high impacts in various categories; however, the ENSO bottles had
the lowest impacts in more categories, with 6/14 of the categories
being the lowest compared to the other three bottles, and 2/14
being the highest. The 100% recycled PET bottle had the overall sec-
ond to lowest impacts, with 4/14 of the smallest impacts in the cat-
egories and 1/14 of the highest impacts, when compared to the
10 N. Horowitz et al. / Waste Management xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
other three bottles. The regular PET bottle contained mainly med-
ian impacts compared to the other three bottles, but was the high-
est in 4/14 of the impact categories and lowest in 1/14 of the
categories compared to the other three bottles. While the PLA bot-
tle was shown to have an extremely low impact in the carcinogens,
respiratory organics and global warming categories, it still con-
tained 7/14 of the highest impacts compared to the other three
bottles. The use of more sustainable bottles, such as biodegradable
ENSO bottles and recycled PET bottles, appears to be a viable
option for decreasing humanity’s carbon footprint on the planet.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.02.
043.
References
British Plastic Federation, 2016. Oil consumption Retrieved from http://www.bpf.
co.uk/Press/Oil_Consumption.aspx.
Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan. 2015. ‘‘Municipal Solid
Waste Factsheet.” Pub. No. CSS04-15.
ENSO Bottles. (2009). Making Plastic Bottles Environmentally Friendly. Retrieved
from http://ensoplastics.com/ENSO/biodegradable-water-bottles.html
Gourmelon, Gaelle, 2015. Global Plastic Production Rises, Recycling Lags. Retrieved
from http://www.worldwatch.org/global-plastic-production-rises-recycling-
lags-0.
Hopewell, J., Dvorak, R., Kosior, E., 2009. Plastics recycling: challenges and
opportunities. Philosoph. Transact. Royal Soc. London B: Biolog. Sci. 364
(1526), 2115–2126.
Please cite this article in press as: Horowitz, N., et al. Life cycle assessment of bottled water: A case study of Green2O products. Waste Management (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.02.043
Huff, Ethan, 2013. ENS Plastic Bottle Breakthrough: These Bottles Decompose in
Landfills and They’re Recyclable, too!. Retrieved from https://
www.naturalnews.com/039809_ENSO_plastics_plastic_bottles_landfill.html#.
Intagliata, C., 2012. Does Recycling Plastic Cost More Than Making It? Retrieved
from http://wwwlivescience.com/32231-does-recycling-plastic-cost-more-
than-making-it.html.
Madival, S., Auras, R., Singh, S.P., Narayan, R., 2009. Assessment of the
environmental profile of PLA, PET and PS clamshell containers using LCA
methodology. J. Clean. Product. 17 (13), 1183–1194.
Muschiolik, G., 1997. The Wiley Encyclopedia of Packaging Technology. Second
Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, Chichester, Weinheim, Brisbane,
Singapore, Toronto. pp 742–745.
Revathi, R., Kumar, T. R., Raman, M. S., Umanath, B., & Student, U. G. (2017). Reuse of
Bottles for Wall Construction and Crafting. International Journal of Engineering
Science, 6693.
Rodwan, John, 2016. U.S. and International Developments and Statistics. Retrieved
from http://www.bottledwater.org/public/BWR_Jul-Aug_2016_BMC%202015%
20bottled%20water%20stat%20article.pdf#overlay-context=economics/industry-
statistics.
Royte, Elizabeth. (2006). Corn Plastic to the Rescue. Smithsonian Magazine.
Retrieved from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/corn-
plastic-to-the-rescue-126404720/.
Shen, L., Worrell, E., Patel, M.K., 2010. Open-loop recycling: A LCA case study of PET
bottle-to-fiber recycling. Resources, Conservat. Recycl. 55 (1), 34–52.
Sinha, V., Patel, M.R., Patel, J.V., 2010. PET waste management by chemical
recycling: a review. J. Poly. Environment 18 (1), 8–25.
Statista, 2017. Per capita consumption of bottled water worldwide in 2016,
by leading countries (in gallons) Retrieved from https://www.statista.
com/statistics/183388/per-capita-consumption-of-bottled-water-worldwide-in-
2009/.
Pros and Cons of the Corn-Based Plastic PLA PLA is Carbon Neutral and Burns Clean,
But Has a Host of Unsolved Problems. Retrieved from News & Issues, http://
environment.about.com/od/greenlivingdesign/a/pla.htm.
Zia, K.M., Bhatti, H.N., Bhatti, I.A., 2007. Methods for polyurethane and polyurethane
composites, recycling and recovery: a review. React. Funct. Poly. 67 (8), 675–
692.