Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 785e794

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Review

Carbon footprint considerations for biocomposite materials for

sustainable products: A review
Juan P. Correa*, Juan M. Montalvo-Navarrete, Miguel A. Hidalgo-Salazar

noma de Occidente, Cali-Valle, Colombia
Research Group for Manufacturing Technologies (GITEM), Universidad Auto

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

Article history: Bio-based materials have emerged in the last years as an attractive alternative for sustainable products
Received 23 November 2017 elaboration. Nevertheless the environmental performance of these materials should be quantified
Received in revised form through representative and reliable indicators. This study provides a bibliographic review of the envi-
21 August 2018
ronmental considerations regarding bio-based materials. It scope was focused on bio composites as raw
Accepted 9 October 2018
Available online 12 October 2018
material for the elaboration of sustainable products and the application of the carbon footprint as a
comprehensive indicator to assess environmental burdens of these products.
Following the review, all the major stages of a product life cycle were analyzed in order to establish the
Keywords:
Sustainable product
main considerations for a carbon footprint assessment following a case based scenario. In order to
Bio composite validate the impact of the incorporation of bio composites on the development of products, every Carbon
Life cycle assessment footprint evaluation should be reported for each case scenario highlighting the applied variables, the
Carbon footprint stages boundaries and the carbon quantification used for the study.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 785
2. Methods and scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 786
3. Challenges for bio based materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 787
4. Environmental aspects of bio-based materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 787
5. Carbon footprint indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 788
5.1. Raw material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789
5.2. Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 790
5.3. Energetic demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 790
5.4. Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 790
5.5. End of life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791
6. Carbon footprint evaluation of a bio based material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791
7. Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 792
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 792
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 792

1. Introduction interest, mostly related to the world's continued population growth

which as direct consequence is consuming resources at an alarming
The development of new products has become an issue of global rate turning the ecological system unsustainable (Ashby, 2012).
Traditional product fabrication and application exert direct pres-
sures that affect the environmental balance, which have led that
markets change their demands regarding product development.
* Corresponding author.
This is a reason why product development must be considered
E-mail address: jpcorrea@uao.edu.co (J.P. Correa).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.099
0959-6526/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
786 J.P. Correa et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 785e794
under the perspective of sustainability. Most companies have an
approach to sustainability by reactive practices. These attempts are
direct consequence from both regulatory and market drivers.
However industries such as metallurgical, foundry and
manufacturing are opting for more proactive strategies based on
their long trajectory working on product design under a product life
cycle assessment perspective (Alayo
n et al., 2017).
Bearing this in mind, life cycle assessment has become an
indispensable tool for new product designs. Development of new
products and materials would be barely sustainable to greater
extent without considering all the impacts through its life cycle
(Gmelin and Seuring, 2014). Therefore biocomposites materials
emerge as a striking alternative for the manufacture of new sus-
tainable products. Several investigations has shown that materials
as Tetra Pack can be recycled for the elaboration of biocomposites
with enhanced mechanical properties (Hidalgo-Salazar et al., 2013,
2015; Mun ~ oz-Velez et al., 2014). This biocomposites can be made
from diverse types of natural fibers. One such example of these
researches comprehends studies with fibers as abaca (Takagi et al.,
2014), kenaf (Xia et al., 2015), hemp (Scarponi, 2015) and flax
(Ravandi et al., 2016).
Biocomposites have several industrial applications, most of
them on the automotive industry. Nevertheless there are not bio-
based materials on commercial use or development that are fully
considered sustainable (Korol et al., 2016). Due to its renewable
nature, research and development of biocomposites has been
constantly increasing and its applications are spreading to multiple
areas. Being its main attractive the combination of low price,
biodegradability, availability and their capability to substitute other
compounds that use regular reinforcements as glass or carbon fi-
bers (Ramesh et al., 2017; Va €isa
€nen et al., 2017).
It is a fact that products derived from renewable resources tend
to be competitive in the market if they prove to be similar, or better,
than other products regarding performance and price. In fact,
(Reinders et al., 2017) said that full bio-based brands usually have
stronger purchase intentions than other brands, including those
that are partially composed by bio-based products. However, the
fact that a product has a renewable origin does not mean that its
environmental performance is better when comparing it to tradi-
tional products in the market. It is necessary a case based evalua-
tion to define the environmental aspects of a product (Wall-
Markowski et al., 2004).
One main concern regarding product life cycle impacts is the
greenhouse gases (GHG) generation, mostly CO2. International
commitments have led companies to become more aware of social
and environmental responsibility. Most of this responsibility is
related to the consequences of CO2 emissions derived from their
activities. An indicator to measure the impact of these emissions is
the carbon footprint. Nonetheless, due to the limitations of this
indicator, its applicability must be documented for each particular
case. Limitations as unstandardized and diverse methods for
analyzing life cycles in addition to uncertainties around the in-
ventory data, are the main challenges for applying this indicator
under the scope of a Life Cycle Assessment approach (Korol et al.,
2016). Also (Pawelzik et al., 2013) found that regarding biomass,
uncertainties as the underlying data, projections of the location and
type of land use changes could affect the type of variables for the
material assessment. The documentation has to be made in order to
objectively determine the extent and representativeness of the
environmental data related to the impacts associated to an evalu-
ated product (Laurent et al., 2010).
Some approaches have been done regarding comprehensive
studies that describe objectively the environmental performance of
bio based materials determining that the use of natural organic raw
material allows obtaining several environmental benefits in com-
parison to mineral inorganic equivalent materials (Weiss et al.,
2012; La Mantia and Morreale, 2011). Nevertheless, when
defining procedures regarding carbon footprint evaluation, some
stages among the life cycle assessment are usually omitted or not
evaluated properly while assessing biocomposite materials. On
many cases the consequences of replacing fossil material are not
usually quantified on the impacts derived from an additional use of
soils or the impacts derived from some pre-treatments of natural
fibers are not considered on the evaluation. Both this scenarios can
contribute to decrease the environmental performance of the bio-
composite material when compared to traditional materials (Weiss
et al., 2012). Also studies have found that for biocomposites, the
selection of impact categories have a direct influence on results
related to eco efficiency performance. Usually the most significant
impact categories related to biocomposites are fossil depletion,
climate change, agricultural land occupation, particulate matter
formation and human toxicity (Korol et al., 2016). This consider-
ations may help defining the boundaries surrounding the carbon
footprint evaluation under the perspective of life cycle assessment
tools.
The objective of this article is to make a review regarding the
relevant information associated to the evaluation of the carbon
footprint, including the calculation method for a product made
with biocomposites materials and identifying the most critical
environmental aspects during the life cycle of the product. As this
article is related to sustainable products, social, technical and
economic aspects are going to be partially mentioned, but are not
being considered as an important part of the discussion. Never-
theless, in order to properly define the sustainability of the mate-
rials or products, these aspects should be considered among a
comprehensive evaluation. Criteria as purchase behavior (eco-
nomic aspects), industrial applications (social aspects) and me-
chanical properties (technical viability) can be used as potential
examples of how these materials affects the other dimensions of
sustainability, but won't be treated as a central point of discussion
for this review.
2. Methods and scope
This review is based on worldwide literature, aiming to collect,
filter and analyze relevant papers related to environmental per-
formance of bio based materials and the application of carbon
footprint as environmental indicator. Most of the papers were
selected from journals written in English, published from 2000 to
2017. Papers were found through combined keyword searches on
acknowledged databases and publisher websites, such as Google
Scholar, Elsevier ScienceDirect, Scopus, Ebsco, Wiley Interscience
and Springerlink. Main keywords as “Bio-based material”, “Polymer
processing”, “Biocomposite”, “Sustainable product”, “carbon foot-
print”, “Greenhouse gas emission”, “Life Cycle Assessment”,
“Biodegradability” were used in order to collect the related
information.
Assessment methodology was the most important aspect taken
into account, being variables as boundary definition and raw ma-
terial selection the most important aspects for paper selection.
Regarding to concept definitions and processing techniques, the
selected information was taken from peer reviews in scientific
journals, in order to determine the most appropriate methodology
to evaluate the carbon footprint of a product manufactured with
bio-based materials. Furthermore this review also took into account
papers which analyze mechanical properties of these materials, as
well as green purchase behavior, and applications in industrial
sectors, as the automotive sector, as a complement for the sus-
tainable criteria analysis of the product.
 J.P. Correa et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 785e794
This selection filter was designed in order to identify the critical
points of the life cycle of a biocomposite material and provide
important information related to the main considerations for a
comprehensive carbon footprint assessment. Both this aspects can
lead to determine the sustainable nature of a product developed
with these materials and objectively ensure if it can be more sus-
tainable than products made with traditional materials. 130 articles
were studied in order to fulfill these requirements and only 45 were
selected to evaluate the life cycle assessment methods.
Regarding environmental performance, it is important to keep
in mind that life cycle assessment is a complex tool that needs to
analyze each case as a system. This is why before evaluating a
product or a service through this tool; all the concepts and situa-
tions related to it have to be well understood. In the case of bio
based materials, challenges and concerns related to their devel-
opment and performance have to be well addressed before iden-
tifying which parts of the life cycle can be considered critical for
evaluation, mitigation and control.
3. Challenges for bio based materials
Every material is related to a life cycle which in turn is attached
to several supply risks and diverse environmental impacts. This
condition makes a challenging task for science to make more effi-
cient materials by replacing nonrenewable elements with more
sustainable and abundant ones (Helbig et al., 2017). Sustainability
isn't a condition that can be easily quantified or objectively defined
in a product design process. There are many variables involved and
their assessment requires the acceptance of this complexity. Indi-
vidual features can be analyzed systematically but the integration
of them to reach a final assessment requires reflection, judgment
and debate in order to establish comprehensive status of
sustainable.
Bio materials have emerged as an alternative to fulfill this sce-
nario. Being materials mostly based on natural and renewable el-
ements that can help improve the sustainability of products. The
criteria a product should comply are shown in Fig. 1.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA, 2005) de-
fines bio-based products as a commercial or industrial good
(different than feed or food) composed in a whole or significant
Fig. 1. Criteria for sustainable product.
787
part of biological products, forestry material or renewable domestic
agricultural materials, including plant, animal or marine materials.
Currently bio-based materials cover the definition of bio-based
plastics. These materials can be the result of petroleum based
polymeric matrixes blended with bio-based raw materials (such as
natural fibers). Nevertheless bio-based plastics are not necessarily
sustainable materials; its applications could just transfer the
environmental burdens from one part or the life cycle to another.
This basically depends on several variables, like the material source,
processing methods and end of life management of the product


(Alvarez-Ch
vez et al., 2012). Still it is important to establish that
a
bio-based does not necessarily means biodegradable, some exam-
ples of this characteristics are shown in Fig. 2. Bio-based only refers
to the origin of the material and whether if its raw materials
correspond to natural renewable materials. Table 1 summarizes
these aspects for the most common used bio-based materials.
Material origin and biodegradability establish a set of environ-
mental, social, economic and technical considerations that de-
termines the sustainable essence of the material. Under the scope
of this review only the environmental aspects related to sustain-
ability are going to be studied, emphasizing on the carbon footprint
evaluation through the life cycle of a product made using bio-
composite materials.
4. Environmental aspects of bio-based materials
Life cycle assessment helps understand how material selection
has repercussions in the product, guiding manufacturers to decide
which material substitutions are favorable to improve the envi-
ronmental benefits of the material. For example biocomposites
provide lightweight components which help to improve energy
demands and lower greenhouse gasses emissions on automotive
applications. For this type of applications composites made of cel-
lulose fiber resulted on energy savings on a 6.5%e16.4% range and a
greenhouse gas emission reduction around a 16.0%e16.4% (Boland
et al., 2016). However for automotive applications, and for further
research on biocomposites at all, it is important to take into account
issues related to the improvement of thermal and mechanical
properties, and to evaluate the cost effectiveness attractive,
resulting in one of the main concerns for this kind of materials in
comparison with regular composites (Bogoeva-Gaceva et al., 2007).
Regarding environmental performance, (Joshi et al., 2004) found
that natural fiber composites were environmentally superior to
Fig. 2. Bio-based plastics according to origin and biodegradability.
788 J.P. Correa et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 785e794

Table 1
Bio based plastic materials according to origin and biodegradability.

Material Origin Biodegradable References

Starch Plastics Bio based Yes Broeren et al., 2017; De Graaf and Janssen, 2000; Ismail et al., 2016; Dagang Liu et al., 2010; Ma et al., 2005
Cellulose Plastics Bio based Yes Boland et al., 2016; Kumari et al., 2007; Dagang Liu et al., 2010; Mohanty et al., 2004
Poly (Lactic Acid) Bio based Yes Garlotta, 2001; Martin and Averous, 2001; Narayanan et al., 2016; Suryanegara et al., 2018; Tsuji, 2013
Polyhydroxyalkanoates Bio based Yes Anjum et al., 2016; Jendrossek and Handrick, 2002; Ong et al., 2017; Suriyamongkol et al., 2007
Polyvinyl alcohol Bio based Yes Avella et al., 2012; Han et al., 2009; Marvdashti et al., 2017; Sahoo et al., 2002; Tang and Alavi, 2011
Bio PE BIo based No Castro et al., 2017; Tsiropoulos et al., 2015
Bio PVC Bio based No Avril et al., 2012; van den Oever et al., 2017
Bio PUR Bio based No Endres, 2017; La Rosa, 2016; Vojtova
et al., 2007
Bio PET Bio based No De Almeida et al., 2014; Saviello et al., 2017; Storz and Vorlop, 2013
Thermoset Biocomposites Bio based No Abdelmouleh et al., 2005; John and Anandjiwala, 2008; O'donnell et al., 2004; Thakur and Thakur, 2014
Thermoplastic Bio based Yes/No** Korol et al., 2016; Lei et al., 2007; Ma et al., 2005; Shanks et al., 2004; Zampaloni et al., 2007
Biocomposites
Bionanocomposites Bio based Yes Correa et al., 2017; Darder et al., 2007; Mousa et al., 2016) (Botana et al., 2010; Correa et al., 2016
PCL Fossil Based Yes Takayama and Todo, 2006; Todo et al., 2007
PBAT Fossil Based Yes Oliveira et al., 2017; Palsikowski et al., 2017; Weng et al., 2013
PBS Fossil Based Yes Hu et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2009; Wu et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2005
*
This characteristic will depend on the type of matrix used for the elaboration of the biocomposite.

glass fiber composites for some specific applications. During his
study it was found that natural fibers help to reduce environmental
issues related to fiber production processes and lower the amount
of contaminating burdens from the base polymers used as the
composite matrix. Even though, the environmental performance of
natural fiber composites can be compromised if their lifespan is
significantly shorter compared to other fiber composites, this im-
plies that their applications can be limited in function of its us-
ability, and thus the social benefits of the material can be strongly
reduced.
In addition, research has shown that bio-based material has
positive repercussions on specific areas most of them related to
four environmental issues: Global warming potential (GWP), fossil
fuel demand, acidification of soil and eutrophication of water
bodies. A study made on 2016 (Miller et al., 2016) stated that burlap
textile reinforcements have a lowered environmental impact on all
of these areas except for eutrophication, mainly related to the fiber
production impacts that can be derived from the crop management
and indirect uses of land.
Also there are some cases in which bio-based plastics turned out
to be less ecological than ordinary plastics. This phenomenon can
be explained through the development of their manufacturing
processes. The elevated optimization of the processing perfor-
mance for regular composites of industries is superior to the
techniques used for biocomposites elaboration (Vidal et al., 2009).
This condition allows the processing techniques to be more eco-
friendly according to the level of assessment developed for each
task, by material savings through the process and optimized energy
usage.
Concerning assessment tools, a study made by (Pawelzik et al.,
2013) established that one critical aspect for environmental
assessment of bio-based materials is the lack of standardized ap-
proaches for biogenic carbon storage accounting. Due the
complexity of this kind of material, it is estimated that a much
longer time has to pass until assessment tools related to bio-based
materials become mainstream. This represents a major difficulty
among the identification of environmental impacts related to the
application of bio-based materials. Biogenic storage can represent a
considerable percentage of the carbon accounting for a product,
and for each product this storage can vary depending on the pro-
duction techniques and raw material acquisition. Unstandardized
methods for defining this storage can lead to miss calculations and
consequently lead to an inaccurate report of the carbon balance of
the product.
On the other hand, plastic industries represent potential
greenhouse gas generators. Most plastic resins are made from pe-
troleum and natural gas derivatives, which involve GHG emissions
from energy consumption and non-energy related tasks. Processes
as extraction, refining, transportation and transformation are the
most critical during the plastic resin production regarding GHG
generation (Sabaliauskaite_ and Kliaugaite, _ 2014). Natural fiber
composites can enhance the properties of the plastic resins and
replace a great percentage in terms of volume fractions which in
exchange reduces the amount of polluting base polymer and allows
reduce the overall environmental impact as well.
Moreover, experiences with biocomposites have had satisfac-
tory results on GHG reduction during processing and trans-
formation stages (Cheung et al., 2017). It was shown for
thermoformed trays that by replacing talc fillers with starch fibers
the carbon footprint of the product could be reduced in about a 20%
in relation to gas emissions, being the thermoforming process the
largest contributor to the global score of this activity (Pang et al.,
2014).
Also, when comparing wood plastic composites with PVC in wall
panel making, it was found that wood plastic composites can
reduce the carbon emissions of this product in about a 37%, being
production and disposal processes the primary contributors to
minimize the GWP related to PVC (Sabaliauskaite_ and Kliaugaite, _
2014). Other experiences of carbon savings with biocomposites
were registered in Table 2.
Even though GHG generation contemplates emissions released
during the processing and transportation stages, most of the
emissions can also be generated during the transportation and
disposal of the plastic products. To assess the totality of these
emissions, carbon footprint indicator is the most applied tool
worldwide.
5. Carbon footprint indicator
Carbon footprint is one part of the footprint family, a group of
Table 2
Carbon savings on the application of some biocomposites.
Biocomposite Carbon savings References
Hemp fiber Biocomposites 10%e50% Haufe and Carus, 2011
35%e45% Pervaiz and Sain, 2003
Kenaf fiber Biocomposites 9.2%e10.7% Boland et al., 2016
Cellulose fiber Biocomposites 16.3%e18.7% Boland et al., 2016
Cotton fiber Biocomposites 40% Vidal et al., 2009
 J.P. Correa et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 785e794
indicators designed to assess the environmental burdens imposed
by anthropogenic activities (Alvarez et al., 2016). This indicator al-
lows the evaluation of both products and services of a specific ac-
tivity quantifying the amount of CO2 released to the atmosphere
per functional unit. Several uncertainties and discussions have
emerged around this indicator, most of them regarding the type of
inputs allowed to asses and the possibility of making a double
counting of emissions during a study case. For some scenarios the
application of this indicator can be biased if there is not enough
awareness of these concepts, which can lead to uncertainties when
assessing a product or service.
Concerning the type of inputs allowed, (Wiedmann and Minx,
2008) stated that it is important for carbon footprint to incorpo-
rate in its analysis all the direct and indirect CO2 emissions quan-
tified in terms of functional unit, and also that other greenhouse
gases should not be taken into account for this type of indicator. On
the other hand, several authors consider that carbon footprint
should include the other greenhouse gasses as an input in terms of
equivalent carbon (Allen et al., 2011), among other variables as the
area of land required for carbon sequestration (Browne et al., 2009),
and the cumulated mass of CO2 emissions among a supply chain or
a product life cycle (Hertwich and Peters, 2009). These consider-
ations may have a great consequence on the carbon balance of the
product, lowering the possibility to apply an accurate study among
the real emissions related to the material or product developed.
When referring to double counting, calculations are mostly
susceptible to be mistaken due to the application of life cycle ap-
proaches in which supply chain overlaps can be found among
different entities or as feedback loops within the supply chain of a
specific entity (Lenzen, 2008). A study conducted between 2006
and 2007 pointed that for a complete quantification of a carbon
footprint, the study frame should include methodologically the
stages for identification of objectives, organizational and opera-
tional limitations and carbon footprint quantification and moni-
toring. Although, this procedure still have difficulties related to the
possible subjectivity during the definition of the operational
boundaries and the data source (Scipioni et al., 2012).
In relation to bio-based products, the embodied carbon is usu-
ally from biogenic origin. On these cases the carbon quantification
can be made by two main approaches: Biogenic carbon can be
excluded from the analysis considering CO2 emissions neutral; or
biogenic carbon can be considered carbon storage regarding the
CO2 emissions retained during photosynthesis processes (Pawelzik
et al., 2013). For each application of the indicator, this approaches
must be taken into account in order to understand the carbon dy-
namics beneath the product. Natural fiber composites can
contribute to lower the carbon emissions, due to their considerable
potential to absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide, acting as a sus-
tainable storage for these emissions and contributing to lower the
CO2 concentration on the environment (Pervaiz and Sain, 2003).
Therefore to make a complete and representative evaluation of
the carbon footprint of the product, all the stages of the life cycle
Table 3
Emission factor for some fiber during production and treatment processes. For Hemp fiber processes were considered with a) mineral fertilization and b) organic fertilization
(Barth and Carus, 2015).
Processes Greenhouse gas emission factors (Kg CO2-Eq/t fiber)
Fiber Field operations Seeds Fertilizer Fertilizer induced N2O emissions
Flax 156 32 250 85
a)
Hemp 100 11 366 131
b)
Hemp 110 11 259 96
Jute 41 2 306 114
Kenaf 32 9 296 111
789
and the process boundaries shall be well defined to consider all of
the possible activities that contribute to carbon emissions to the
atmosphere. In this case, by not having a defined case, the general
parts of a life cycle of a biocomposite material will be addressed in
order to identify the critical points among these stages regarding
carbon footprint considerations.
5.1. Raw material
Raw material acquisition is the first stage of the product life
cycle. For natural fiber biocomposites the main materials used for
elaboration are polymers and natural fibers, used as matrix and
filler respectively. Natural fibers are mostly residues from the
agricultural production. In the process of agricultural foot printing
the most critical aspects to take into account are related to tillage,
sowing, harvesting and fertilization processes, among others, being
fertilization the largest contributor to GHG emissions representing
around 42%e76% of the total emissions from crop production (Al-
Mansour and Jejcic, 2016). This emission mostly depends on the
type of fertilizer used for the crop and the weather conditions
surrounding the crop area. Other emissions derived from the
agricultural activities have to be added to the global generation in
order to have a comprehensive result for the natural fiber emission
factor. Table 3 show emission factor for some natural fiber during its
production and treatment processes.
CO2 dynamics on the atmosphere mostly depends on the
interaction between soil, plants and atmosphere, in which plants
store carbon emissions via photosynthesis and soil stores carbon in
its organic form. Even though, depending on the type of vegetation,
climate and specific soil, some crops may have a negative contri-
bution to the carbon balance, releasing emissions at a higher rate
than they can store (Cerri et al., 2004). This peculiarity may cause
an imbalance between the embodied carbon during the cultivation
process and the resulting emissions of the fiber production, thus
canceling the avoided emissions form carbon savings.
Regarding polymers, the production of these materials uses a
large amount of resources, chemicals, water and energy, and during
production, they release a large amount of wastes and emissions
causing significant impact on human health and environment
(Rahim and Abdul Raman, 2017). Since there are many techniques
for the manufacture of this polymers each particular process may
consider some parts of the production line that affects the cir-
cumstantial conditions of the material So for assessing this raw
material it is suggested to use emission factors evaluated in a cradle
to gate life cycle (Franklin associates, 2011). This approach con-
siders average emissions for the different types of polymers
contributing to a comprehensive analysis for the base material
emissions. Even though when referring to bio based materials
compostable or biodegradable matrixes should be considered as
the most appropriate alternative regarding environmental sus-
tainability and ecological impact.
Pesticides Transport (Field to Processing) Fiber Processing
75 10 124
13 10 137
13 10 137
9 11 90
30 11 90
790 J.P. Correa et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 785e794
5.2. Processing
Aspects related to product manufacturing are often not taken
into account in present systems for sustainability assessment. This
can be attributed to the low development of measurement science,
standards and methodologies to evaluate and improve sustain-
ability of manufacturing processes (Madan et al., 2013). The lack of
this information can hinder management processes and limit the
ability of companies to report the impacts derived from these ac-
tivities, ignoring important aspects related to the carbon footprint.
Processing and manufacturing should include in its regular evalu-
ation the identification of possible environmental burden sources.
Plastics reinforced with natural fibers are mostly manufactured
by traditional processing techniques such as compounding, extru-
sion, compression molding and injection molding. These processes
usually possess a well-developed experience on manufacturing
manners, and as a consequence, allow the elaboration of compos-
ites through controllable parameters, ensuring that the composite
material meets required specifications. Some examples of these
processes applied to natural fibers are shown on Table 4.
Nevertheless during the elaboration of natural fiber composites
some processes are not considered. Fiber substructure processes as
mat production, fiber yarns, granule production, fiber preparation
and fiber treatment should be taken in account as a part of the
composite production processes (Faruk et al., 2014). On the same
way processes as harvesting, cutting and drying, retting, baling and
storage can be determining on the mechanical properties of the
composite and also on the environmental general performance
(Munder et al., 2005). Over sighting these activities can have re-
percussions on the material performance, but also these activities
can represent a large portion of the emissions contributed by the
transformation processes during the assessment and if they are not
taken into account some of the emissions can be omitted from the
carbon footprint evaluation.
5.3. Energetic demand
Energy is one of the main aspects related to sustainability.
Different typologies for energy source can reduce the amount of
environmental burdens derived from product development,
depending on the type of energy resource used. However, during
the product elaboration, energy's environmental impacts will
depend on the energy matrix configuration of the place where the
product is being developed. So, in order to reduce the impact of
energy use, it is necessary to appeal to the reduction of the ener-
getic consumption through energy efficiency strategies.
According to (Pervaiz and Sain, 2003), natural fiber composites
consume around 63% less energy than glass fiber composites dur-
ing its entire life cycle. The reduction of the polymeric material
contributes to the total saving of energy, since this reduction
Table 4
Regular used processes for biocomposite elaboration.
Process Fiber Matrix
Compression molding Jute PP
Jute PE
Bagasse PET
Fique LLDPE
Extrusion Bagasse PE
Cuarua PE
Injection molding Hemp PP
Kenaf PP
Resin transfer molding Kenaf Epoxy Resin
Hemp Epoxy Resin
Fique Epoxy Resin
implies less energy used to melt a similar volume and consequently
the average consumption of energy is reduced. For automotive
parts, natural fiber composites can reduce the material mass
lowering energy consumption during production about an 80%
compared to glass fiber composites (Mohanty et al., 2002).
The processing temperatures of natural fiber reinforced com-
posites and natural based polymers usually are limited to 200
C
due to the natural components of the fiber (Vilaplana et al., 2010).
This characteristic may reduce energy consumption of bio-
composite processing by extrusion or injection molding, and indi-
rectly can lower the carbon emission depending on the energy
source. For extrusion processes, energy consumption and extruder
efficiency are two of the more important concepts, directly related
to feed rate, screw speed and the ratio between them (Liang et al.,
2002). These parameters in composite elaboration could be defined
by the type of fiber that is going to be processed, since feed ratio
and screw speed are directly related to the fraction in volume that
the fiber is going to represent in the biocomposite material. Ac-
cording to this, when assessing the energy consumption in extru-
sion processes for biocomposites the amount of fiber has to be
assessed as a function of the amount of fiber incorporated in the
final product.
5.4. Transportation
Transportation is a major contributor to global climate change
representing approximately 20% of the world total CO2 emissions
from fossil fuel combustion in 2013 (IEA, 2014). Quantification of
emissions related to the product transportation often present
several difficulties, most of them related to factor as the emission
sources selected for the study, the fuel consumption quantification
and the fuel emission factor among others (Lindstad and Eskeland,
2015).
Environmental impact of freight transport operations repre-
sents a worldwide concern. To establish the emissions related to
transport activities usually there are three type of data that is
representative to make the estimation of the amount of GHG
released to the environment: a) amount of fuel consumed during
transportation, b) economic value related to the fuel consumption,
and c) traveled distance, type and model of the transport vehicle
(del Canvi Clima tic, 2012). However, supply chain structure and
vehicle utilization strongly influence the environmental perfor-
mance of freight transport sector and CO2 emissions are clearly
becoming significant factors in logistical decision-making. This can
be seen on such way that over 50% of companies involved in road
freight transport operations are likely to see their activities affected
by climate change effects in the years to come (Piecyk and
McKinnon, 2010). Thereby, decision making on product develop-
ment should consider application of regional natural fibers on the
design of biocomposite materials, reducing costs and relieving
Reference
Chand and Dwivedi, 2006
Kumar et al., 2005
Corradini et al., 2009
Hidalgo-Salazar and Correa, 2018
Mulinari et al., 2009
Araujo et al., 2008; Santos et al., 2007
Beckermann and Pickering, 2008; Bourmaud and Baley, 2007; El-Sabbagh et al., 2016
Chaitanya and Singh, 2016; Subasinghe et al., 2015
Xia et al., 2015
Rouison et al., 2006
Hidalgo-Salazar and Correa, 2018
 J.P. Correa et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 785e794
environmental pressures derived from raw material transportation.
5.5. End of life
By 2009 around 90% of plastics on the market came from
nonrenewable resources and most of them were disposed on
landfills. This type of disposal involves increasing costs and
decreasing spaces available for waste management. Several man-
agement strategies have been implemented ever since, including
among them practices as reusing, sorting, primary recycling, me-
chanical recycling, chemical recycling and incineration (Al-Salem
et al., 2009). In addition disposal of plastic wastes to landfills
generates around 5.1t of CO2 every year (Eriksson and Finnveden,
2009).
Hence, it is highly important to increase plastics' lifespan to
reduce plastic waste loads in landfills or incinerators, this can be
accomplished through recycling activities (Pacheco et al., 2012).
Besides, the use of recycled plastics to replace virgin plastics is one
of the initiatives to protect the non-renewable natural resources.
One of the biggest concerns related to plastic products is the
amount of waste generated during its entire life cycle, which is
directly attached to the world's population growth. Methods as
material flow accounting, modelling of energy, material and waste
flows, eco efficiency and cleaner production (Cheung et al., 2017)
are used to relieve the environmental pressure of solid wastes. Eco
design of products should incorporate in their considerations the
end of life scenario (Badia et al., 2017), in which material selection
will play a fundamental role in terms of how the product will be
disposed. Ideally materials involved in product elaboration should
consider the possibility of being reincorporated in the productive
cycle, avoiding landfills as end of life option. Alternatives such as
remanufacturing, recycling and reuse should be taken into account,
along with the design of the product and the selection of materials
to avoid environmental burdens and optimize the use of energy and
the reduction of the landfill space.
Regarding the products operation life, natural fibers applied to
product development represent the possibility of reducing weight,
enhance performance and avoid material disposal in landfills, as
(dos Santos Pegoretti et al., 2014) demonstrates on their application
of cotton fibers in vehicle applications. These characteristics may
have good influence over the product's durability and energy
consumption which in consequence expands the life cycle of the
product, avoids emissions and delay disposal.
6. Carbon footprint evaluation of a bio based material
In order to exemplify the application of the carbon footprint
evaluation of a bio based material a study case was defined. When
assessing the carbon footprint of a bio based material, the stages of
the life cycle has to be limited to raw material acquisition, transport
and processing stages, the other stages were not taken into account
because the object of study is just the material, not a product made
of it. This type of assessment is known as a cradle to gate assess-
ment. For this case scenario the carbon footprint of the production
of 1000 kg of Polypropylene (PP) is compared with the production
of 1000 kg of 25% wf Kenaf-75% wf Polypropylene biocomposite
(PP þ Kenaf 25%) and 1000 kg of 30% wf Kenaf-70% wf Poly-
propylene biocomposite (PP þ Kenaf 30%). The polypropylene
material was brought from Medellin, Colombia, which is 419.2 km
away from the fabrication place and the fibers were acquired from
nearby plantations located at 12 km from the processing site. Both
transports were made by a heavy good's vehicle with an emission
factor of 0.262 kg CO2eq/kg.km (Defra, 2008).
For PP the stages of the life cycle that could be evaluated were
raw material production and its transport to the fabrication place
791
(final user). On the other hand for the biocomposite material, the
fiber production and transport were added to the evaluation of raw
materials as well as the processing of these materials to create the
biocomposite pellets. For the purpose of this study the evaluation
was made through the emission factors discussed among the pre-
vious sections for each part of the cycle. For PP the emission factor
used was 1.86 kg CO2eq/kg (Franklin associates, 2011) and for the
Kenaf fibers the values used to assess its carbon footprint corre-
spond to the ones showed on Table 3. The results of these evalua-
tions are reported on Fig. 3.
This results shows that the incorporation of 25% wf of Kenaf
fibers on the PP increased the carbon footprint of the material on a
2.62%. However, it can be noticed an important impact that this
biocomposite had over the raw material production stage, where
the addition of the fibers helped reducing the impact of this cate-
gory on a 24.23%, due to the reduction of polymer production, and
even though the emission from the production of Kenaf have to be
added, the overall emission of the compared material are still lower
than the ones of the neat material.
Regarding raw material transport emissions, biocomposite sce-
nario emissions tend to be lower, this because less mass of poly-
meric material has to be transported from a far distance, reducing a
large amount of emissions for this material. Nevertheless, the fiber
transport has to be added to this category and because the fibers
have a regional origin, the emissions are considerably lower
compared to the ones of the polypropylene. This is the reason why
transport of biocomposite raw materials is 24.23% lower than the
transport of neat polypropylene.
Nonetheless, for biocomposite fabrication a secondary process,
as extrusion, is usually needed in order to blend the natural fibers
and the polymer material. This process demands energy con-
sumption at a 1.065 kWh/kg rate. This consumption represents
extra emissions upon the life cycle adding 398.31 kg CO2eq related
to the energy used by the processing equipment. These extra
emissions are the reason why carbon footprint increases for bio-
composite materials, that on the Colombian context, energy pro-
duces carbon emission at a rate of 0.374 kg CO2eq/kWh.
On the other hand by using the same emission factors, but
replacing a 30% wf of the polymer instead of 25% wf with Kenaf
fibers, the carbon footprint could be lowered on a 0.9% compared to
neat PP. This substitution of material reduced the carbon footprint
on raw material production on a 20.66% and transport on a 29.15%.
Fig. 3. Carbon footprint comparison for PP, PP 75% - Kenaf 25% and PP 70% - Kenaf 30%.
792 J.P. Correa et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 785e794
Similarly to the other composite case, the processing stage added
emissions to the indicator, but the savings on the previously
mentioned stages allowed the overall reduction of the emissions by
17.73 kg of CO2eq.
Despite this carbon footprint evaluation for the material does
not vary on significant extents, it is important to emphasize that the
evaluation was made on a cradle to gate approach. This means that
for the transformation of the material into a product, its utilization
among time, and its end of life, the evaluation is still not made, so
benefits of weight reduction, mechanical properties improvement
and recyclability issues are still not assessed and is probably that
this characteristics can enhance the environmental performances
for a product made throughout a natural fiber enforced polymer
depending on the application. Also issues related to raw material
transportation has to be taken into account, in which for this sce-
nario, the raw material was acquired from regional producers, but if
the polypropylene pellets where brought from a foreign country
the transports emissions can be considered significantly higher due
to the emissions related to freight transportation, thus enhancing
the impact over the carbon footprint of adding regional natural
fibers to the material.
For this particular cradle to gate life cycle analysis, when
comparing the carbon footprint of the production of 1000 kg of
Polypropylene (PP) with 1000 kg of 25% Kenaf-75% Polypropylene
biocomposite (PP þ Kenaf 25%) and 1000 kg of 30% Kenaf-70%
Polypropylene biocomposite (PP þ Kenaf 30%) it was found that
by incorporating those fiber fraction to the material, the overall
carbon footprint was not significantly altered for 1000 kg of
material.
7. Concluding remarks
Biocomposite research and development is constantly rising.
Their renewability and abundance exploit their potential to reduce
GHG emissions over the manufacture of plastic products, posi-
tioning them as candidate material for sustainable products;
however, sustainability is a complex concept that involves diverse
types of considerations, and its objectivity can be distorted if the
specific involved factors are not properly defined. Bearing this in
mind, the environmental performance of products will always
depend on particular aspects such as manufacturing techniques,
raw materials selection, and transportation methods, among other
variables that may vary according to the unique conditions in which
the product or material is being developed. Different scenarios have
proven that the incorporation of natural fibers among plastic ma-
trixes have a significant reduction in gas emissions related to the
manufacturing of many different products. This gas reduction
provides meaningful improvement on negative impacts derived
from activities as energy consumption, processing and disposal
processes. Nevertheless, a complete substitution of traditional
fossil based matrices with biodegradable ones should be proposed
in order to really achieve an environmental upgrade. Therefore for a
comprehensive analysis of the sustainable nature of the material,
diverse parts of the life cycle should be methodologically studied in
order to gather enough data for the environmental assessment and
the sustainable characteristics of the material must be addressed.
Additionally, regarding the environmental assessment of a product,
carbon footprint indicator was found to be a suitable assessment
method capable of objectively evaluating the environmental per-
formance of a product during its life cycle.
Under a cradle to gate analysis for a particular case of production
of PP þ Kenaf biocomposites, it was found that by incorporating a
fiber fraction to the material, the overall carbon footprint was not
significantly altered. For the case of PP þ Kenaf 25%, carbon foot-
print was increased by a 2.62% compared to neat PP and for
PP þ Kenaf 30%, this indicator was only reduced on a 0.9%. When
integrating a bigger fiber fraction to the composite, carbon foot-
print tend to be lowered proportional to the amount of fiber added.
Nevertheless, adding a large amount of fibers to the material can
result on a deterioration of the mechanical properties and conse-
quently the performance of the material can be compromised,
turning the material unsustainable. For this particular case emis-
sion where only considered on a regional material acquisition,
however, if the material was brought from a foreign origin the
carbon footprint of the material can be considerable altered,
enhancing the benefits of using natural fibers for the composite
elaboration, due to the avoid emissions from transport activities.
Based on the reviewed studies, we conclude that for the appli-
cation of the carbon footprint indicator it is imperative to define the
boundaries of the life cycle stages in order to do a comprehensive
and representative evaluation of the product. This type of indicator
can present some uncertainties directly associated to the variables
considered during the study and the amount of available infor-
mation, so for every assessment case, the variables involved must
be reported. According to recent advancements of carbon footprint
methodologies, it is a fact that unstandardized methods for
assessment can limit the representativeness of their results and
further development should be made concerning international
policies related to carbon footprint assessment.
Essentially, biocomposites can be considered sustainable ma-
terials compared to traditional composites or fossil based poly-
meric materials. The renewable provenance of these materials and
the availability of the resource can suggest better environmental
performance among its life cycle, easing pressures over the natural
systems. However, critical aspects of the elaboration process during
the materials life cycle can lead to different types of environmental
impacts, which in turn, may be worse than the ones derived from
traditional composite elaboration. Manufacturing techniques
should be strongly studied and refined in order to make them
mainstream and reduce concerns and impacts regarding their
development degree. Therefore, as mentioned before, this is the
main reason why every case of composite material has to be re-
ported on a case based scenario, in order to objectively define the
sustainable nature of products developed with these kinds of
materials.
Acknowledgements

noma de
The authors would like to thank the Universidad Auto
Occidente and its direction of research and technological devel-
opment (DIDT) for providing the technical and finantial resources
to carry out this research.
References
Abdelmouleh, M., Boufi, S., Belgacem, M.N., Dufresne, A., Gandini, A., 2005. Modi-
fication of cellulose fibers with functionalized silanes: effect of the fiber
treatment on the mechanical performances of celluloseethermoset composites.
J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 98 (3), 974e984.
Alayo
n, C., S€afsten, K., Johansson, G., 2017. Conceptual sustainable production
principles in practice: do they reflect what companies do? J. Clean. Prod. 141,
693e701.
Allen, S., Pentland, C., Korre, A., 2011. Carbon Footprint of Electricity Generation. The
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, London, p. 383.
Al-Mansour, F., Jejcic, V., 2016. A model calculation of the Carbon Footprint of
agricultural products: the case of Slovenia. Energy 136, 7e15.
Al-Salem, S., Lettieri, P., Baeyens, J., 2009. Recycling and recovery routes of plastic
solid waste (PSW): a review. Waste Manag. 29 (10), 2625e2643.
Alvarez, S., Carballo-Penela, A., Mateo-Manteco
n, I., Rubio, A., 2016. Strengths-
Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats analysis of carbon footprint indicator and
derived recommendations. J. Clean. Prod. 121, 238e247.


Alvarez-Ch

avez, C.R., Edwards, S., Moure-Eraso, R., Geiser, K., 2012. Sustainability of
bio-based plastics: general comparative analysis and recommendations for
improvement. J. Clean. Prod. 23 (1), 47e56.
 J.P. Correa et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 785e794
Anjum, A., Zuber, M., Zia, K.M., Noreen, A., Anjum, M.N., Tabasum, S., 2016. Microbial
production of polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) and its copolymers: a review of
recent advancements. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 89, 161e174.
Araujo, J., Waldman, W., De Paoli, M., 2008. Thermal properties of high density
polyethylene composites with natural fibres: coupling agent effect. Polym.
Degrad. Stabil. 93 (10), 1770e1775.
Ashby, M.F., 2012. Materials and the Environment: Eco-informed Material Choice.
Elsevier.
Avella, M., Cocca, M., Errico, M.E., Gentile, G., 2012. Polyvinyl alcohol biodegradable
foams containing cellulose fibres. J. Cell. Plast. 48 (5), 459e470.
Avril, C., Bailly, P., Njuguna, J., Nassiopoulos, E., De Larminat, A., 2012. Development
of Flax-reinforced Bio-composites for High-load Bearing Automotive Parts. Pa-
per Presented at the Proceeding of European Conference on Composite Mate-
rials (ECCM) (Venice, Italy).
Badia, J., Stro€mberg, E., Kittikorn, T., Ek, M., Karlsson, S., Ribes-Greus, A., 2017.
Relevant factors for the eco-design of polylactide/sisal biocomposites to control
biodegradation in soil in an end-of-life scenario. Polym. Degrad. Stabil. 143,
9e19.
Barth, M., Carus, M., 2015. Carbon Footprint and Sustainability of Different Natural
Fibres for Biocomposites and Insulation Material. Bio-based Economy, Services
of Nova-Institute. Accessed, 18. www.bio-based.eu/ecology.
Beckermann, G., Pickering, K.L., 2008. Engineering and evaluation of hemp fibre
reinforced polypropylene composites: fibre treatment and matrix modification.
Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 39 (6), 979e988.
Bogoeva-Gaceva, G., Avella, M., Malinconico, M., Buzarovska, A., Grozdanov, A.,
Gentile, G., Errico, M., 2007. Natural fiber eco-composites. Polym. Compos. 28
(1), 98e107.
Boland, C.S., Kleine, R., Keoleian, G.A., Lee, E.C., Kim, H.C., Wallington, T.J., 2016. Life
cycle impacts of natural fiber composites for automotive applications: effects of
renewable energy content and lightweighting. J. Ind. Ecol. 20 (1), 179e189.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12286.
Botana, A., Mollo, M., Eisenberg, P., Torres Sanchez, R.M., 2010. Effect of modified
montmorillonite on biodegradable PHB nanocomposites. Appl. Clay Sci. 47 (3),
263e270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2009.11.001.
Bourmaud, A., Baley, C., 2007. Investigations on the recycling of hemp and sisal fibre
reinforced polypropylene composites. Polym. Degrad. Stabil. 92 (6), 1034e1045.
Broeren, M.L., Kuling, L., Worrell, E., Shen, L., 2017. Environmental impact assess-
ment of six starch plastics focusing on wastewater-derived starch and additives.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 246e255.
Browne, D., O'Regan, B., Moles, R., 2009. Use of ecological footprinting to explore
alternative domestic energy and electricity policy scenarios in an Irish city-
region. Energy Pol. 37 (6), 2205e2213.
Castro, D., Passador, F., Ruvolo-Filho, A., Frollini, E., 2017. Use of castor and canola
oils in “biopolyethylene” curaua
fiber composites. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci.
Manuf. 95, 22e30.
Cerri, C., Bernoux, M., Cerri, C., Feller, C., 2004. Carbon cycling and sequestration
opportunities in South America: the case of Brazil. Soil Use Manag. 20 (2),
248e254.
Chaitanya, S., Singh, I., 2016. Kenaf fiber reinforced polypropylene composites
fabricated by injection molding. Innov. Corros. Mater. Sci. (Formerly Recent
Patents on Corrosion Science) 6 (1), 4e9.
Chand, N., Dwivedi, U., 2006. Effect of coupling agent on abrasive wear behaviour of
chopped jute fibre-reinforced polypropylene composites. Wear 261 (10),
1057e1063.
Cheung, W.M., Leong, J.T., Vichare, P., 2017. Incorporating lean thinking and life cycle
assessment to reduce environmental impacts of plastic injection moulded
products. J. Clean. Prod. 167, 759e775.
Corradini, E., Ito, E.N., Marconcini, J.M., Rios, C.T., Agnelli, J.A., Mattoso, L.H., 2009.
Interfacial behavior of composites of recycled poly (ethyelene terephthalate)
and sugarcane bagasse fiber. Polym. Test. 28 (2), 183e187.
Correa, J.P., Bacigalupe, A., Maggi, J., Eisenberg, P., 2016. Biodegradable PLA/PBAT/
clay nanocomposites: morphological, rheological and thermomechanical
behavior. J. Renew. Mater. 4 (4), 258e265.
Correa, J.P., Molina, V., Sanchez, M., Kainz, C., Eisenberg, P., Massani, M.B., 2017.
Improving ham shelf life with a polyhydroxybutyrate/polycaprolactone biode-
gradable film activated with nisin. Food Pack. Shelf Life 11, 31e39.
Darder, M., Aranda, P., Ruiz-Hitzky, E., 2007. Bionanocomposites: a new concept of
ecological, bioinspired, and functional hybrid materials. Adv. Mater. 19 (10),
1309e1319.
De Almeida Oroski, F., Chaves Alves, F., Bomtempo, J.V., 2014. Bioplastics tipping
point: drop-in or non-drop-in? J. Bus. Chem. 11 (1).
De Graaf, R., Janssen, L., 2000. The production of a new partially biodegradable
starch plastic by reactive extrusion. Polym. Eng. Sci. 40 (9), 2086e2094.
Defra, 2008. Guidelines to Defra's GHG Conversion Factors: Methodology Paper for
Transport Emission Factors, p. 2008.
del Canvi Clima tic, O.C., 2012. Guía pra
ctica para el ca

lculo de emisiones de gases de
efecto invernadero (GEI). Generalitat de Catalunya Comisio
n Inter-
departamental del Cambio Clima
tico.
dos Santos Pegoretti, T., Mathieux, F., Evrard, D., Brissaud, D., de França Arruda, J.R.,
2014. Use of recycled natural fibres in industrial products: a comparative LCA
case study on acoustic components in the Brazilian automotive sector. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 84, 1e14.
El-Sabbagh, A., Ramzy, A., Steuernagel, L., Meiners, D., 2016. Flowability and fiber
content homogeneity of natural fiber polypropylene composites in injection
molding. In: Paper Presented at the AIP Conference Proceedings, 1779.
793
Endres, H.-J., 2017. 4 Bio-based Thermoplastic and Thermosets Polymer. Light-
weight and Sustainable Materials for Automotive Applications.
Eriksson, O., Finnveden, G., 2009. Plastic waste as a fuel - CO2-neutral or not?
Energy Environ. Sci. 2 (9), 907. https://doi.org/10.1039/b908135f.
Faruk, O., Bledzki, A.K., Fink, H.P., Sain, M., 2014. Progress report on natural fiber
reinforced composites. Macromol. Mater. Eng. 299 (1), 9e26.
Franklin associates, 2011. Revised Final Report Cradle-to-gate Life Cycle Inventory of
Nine Plastic Resins and Four Polyurethane Precursors.
Garlotta, D., 2001. A literature review of poly (lactic acid). J. Polym. Environ. 9 (2),
63e84.
Gmelin, H., Seuring, S., 2014. Determinants of a sustainable new product develop-
ment. J. Clean. Prod. 69, 1e9.
Han, X., Chen, S., Hu, X., 2009. Controlled-release fertilizer encapsulated by starch/
polyvinyl alcohol coating. Desalination 240 (1e3), 21e26.
Haufe, J., Carus, M., 2011. Hemp Fibres for Green Productsean Assessment of Life
Cycle Studies on Hemp Fibre Applications. EIHA Report, Hürth. www.eiha.org.
Helbig, C., Kolotzek, C., Thorenz, A., Reller, A., Tuma, A., Schafnitzel, M., Krohns, S.,
2017. Benefits of resource strategy for sustainable materials research and
development. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 12, 1e8.
Hertwich, E.G., Peters, G.P., 2009. Carbon footprint of nations: a global, trade-linked
analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (16), 6414e6420.
Hidalgo-Salazar, M.A., Correa, J.P., 2018. Mechanical and thermal properties of
biocomposites from nonwoven industrial fique fiber mats with epoxy resin and
linear low density polyethylene. Results Phys. 8461e8467. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rinp.2017.12.025.
Hidalgo-Salazar, M.A., Mina, J.H., Herrera-Franco, P.J., 2013. The effect of interfacial
adhesion on the creep behaviour of LDPEeAleFique composite materials.
Compos. Part B Eng. 55, 345e351.
Hidalgo-Salazar, M.A., Mun ~ oz, M.F., Mina, J.H., 2015. Influence of incorporation of
natural fibers on the physical, mechanical, and thermal properties of compos-
ites LDPE-Al reinforced with fique fibers. Int. J. Polym. Sci. 2015, 1e8.
Hu, X., Liu, H., Gao, Z., Su, T., Wang, Z., Yang, L., 2017. Blending modification of PHBV/
PBS/PEG and its biodegradation. Polym. Plast. Technol. Eng. 56 (10), 1128e1135.
IEA (International Energy Agency), 2014. CO2 Emissions from Transport (% of Total
Fuel Combustion). data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.CO2.TRAN.ZS.
Ismail, N.A., Tahir, S.M., Yahya, N., Wahid, M.F.A., Khairuddin, N.E., Hashim, I.,
Abdullah, M.A., 2016. Synthesis and Characterization of Biodegradable Starch-
based Bioplastics. Paper Presented at the Materials Science Forum.
Jendrossek, D., Handrick, R., 2002. Microbial degradation of polyhydroxyalkanoates.
Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 56 (1), 403e432.
John, M.J., Anandjiwala, R.D., 2008. Recent developments in chemical modification
and characterization of natural fiber-reinforced composites. Polym. Compos. 29
(2), 187e207.
Joshi, S.V., Drzal, L., Mohanty, A., Arora, S., 2004. Are natural fiber composites
environmentally superior to glass fiber reinforced composites? Compos. Part A
Appl. Sci. Manuf. 35 (3), 371e376.
Korol, J., Burchart-Korol, D., Pichlak, M., 2016. Expansion of environmental impact
assessment for eco-efficiency evaluation of biocomposites for industrial appli-
cation. J. Clean. Prod. 113, 144e152.
Kumar, A.P., Singh, R.P., Sarwade, B.D., 2005. Degradability of composites, prepared
from ethyleneepropylene copolymer and jute fiber under accelerated aging and
biotic environments. Mater. Chem. Phys. 92 (2), 458e469.
Kumari, R., Ito, H., Takatani, M., Uchiyama, M., Okamoto, T., 2007. Fundamental
studies on wood/cellulose-plastic composites: effects of composition and cel-
lulose dimension on the properties of cellulose/PP composite. J. Wood Sci. 53
(6), 470e480.
La Mantia, F.P., Morreale, M., 2011. Green composites: a brief review. Compos. Part A
Appl. Sci. Manuf. 42 (6), 579e588.
La Rosa, A., 2016. Life Cycle Assessment of Biopolymers. Biopolymers and Biotech
Admixtures for Ecoefficient Construction Materials. Woodhead Publishing
Limited, Cambridge, pp. 57e78.
Laurent, A., Olsen, S.I., Hauschild, M.Z., 2010. Carbon footprint as environmental
performance indicator for the manufacturing industry. CIRP Ann. - Manuf.
Technol. 59, 37e40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2010.03.008.
Lei, Y., Wu, Q., Yao, F., Xu, Y., 2007. Preparation and properties of recycled HDPE/
natural fiber composites. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 38 (7), 1664e1674.
Lenzen, M., 2008. Double-counting in life cycle calculations. J. Ind. Ecol. 12 (4),
583e599.
Liang, M., Huff, H., Hsieh, F.H., 2002. Evaluating energy consumption and efficiency
of a twin-screw extruder. J. Food Sci. 67 (5), 1803e1807.
Lindstad, H., Eskeland, G.S., 2015. Low carbon maritime transport: how speed, size
and slenderness amounts to substantial capital energy substitution. Transport.
Res. Part D Transport Environ. 41, 244e256.
Liu, L., Yu, J., Cheng, L., Yang, X., 2009. Biodegradability of poly (butylene succina-
te)(PBS) composite reinforced with jute fibre. Polym. Degrad. Stabil. 94 (1),
90e94.
Liu, D., Zhong, T., Chang, P.R., Li, K., Wu, Q., 2010a. Starch composites reinforced by
bamboo cellulosic crystals. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 2529e2536. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2009.11.058.
Liu, D., Zhong, T., Chang, P.R., Li, K., Wu, Q., 2010b. Starch composites reinforced by
bamboo cellulosic crystals. Bioresour. Technol. 101 (7), 2529e2536.
Ma, X., Yu, J., Kennedy, J.F., 2005. Studies on the properties of natural fibers-
reinforced thermoplastic starch composites. Carbohydr. Polym. 62 (1), 19e24.
Madan, J., Mani, M., Lyons, K.W., 2013. Characterizing energy consumption of the
injection molding process. In: Paper Presented at the ASME 2013
794 J.P. Correa et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 785e794
Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference.
Martin, O., Averous, L., 2001. Poly (lactic acid): plasticization and properties of
biodegradable multiphase systems. Polymer 42 (14), 6209e6219.
Marvdashti, L.M., Koocheki, A., Yavarmanesh, M., 2017. Alyssum homolocarpum
seed gum-polyvinyl alcohol biodegradable composite film: physicochemical,
mechanical, thermal and barrier properties. Carbohydr. Polym. 155, 280e293.
Miller, S.A., Billington, S.L., Lepech, M.D., 2016. Influence of carbon feedstock on
potentially net beneficial environmental impacts of bio-based composites.
J. Clean. Prod. 132, 266e278.
Mohanty, A., Misra, M., Drzal, L., 2002. Sustainable bio-composites from renewable
resources: opportunities and challenges in the green materials world. J. Polym.
Environ. 10 (1), 19e26.
Mohanty, A., Wibowo, A., Misra, M., Drzal, L., 2004. Effect of process engineering on
the performance of natural fiber reinforced cellulose acetate biocomposites.
Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 35 (3), 363e370.
Mousa, M.H., Dong, Y., Davies, I.J., 2016. Recent advances in bionanocomposites:
preparation, properties, and applications. Int. J. Polym. Mater. Polym. Biomater.
65 (5), 225e254. https://doi.org/10.1080/00914037.2015.1103240.
Mulinari, D.R., Voorwald, H.J., Cioffi, M.O.H., Da Silva, M.L.C., da Cruz, T.G., Saron, C.,
2009. Sugarcane bagasse cellulose/HDPE composites obtained by extrusion.
Compos. Sci. Technol. 69 (2), 214e219.
Munder, F., Fürll, C., Hempel, H., 2005. Processing of bast fiber plants for industrial
application. Natural Fibers. Biopolym. Biocompos. 109e140.
Mun ~ oz-Velez, M.F., Hidalgo-Salazar, M.A., Mina-Hernandez, J.H., 2014. Fique fiber an
alternative for reinforced plastics. Influence of surface modification. Biotechnol.
Sector Agropecuario y Agroind. 12 (2), 60e70.
Narayanan, G., Vernekar, V.N., Kuyinu, E.L., Laurencin, C.T., 2016. Poly (lactic acid)-
based biomaterials for orthopaedic regenerative engineering. Adv. Drug Deliv.
Rev. 107, 247e276.
O'donnell, A., Dweib, M., Wool, R., 2004. Natural fiber composites with plant oil-
based resin. Compos. Sci. Technol. 64 (9), 1135e1145.
Oliveira, T.A., Oliveira, R.R., Barbosa, R., Azevedo, J.B., Alves, T.S., 2017. Effect of
reprocessing cycles on the degradation of PP/PBAT-thermoplastic starch blends.
Carbohydr. Polym. 168, 52e60.
Ong, S.Y., Chee, J.Y., Sudesh, K., 2017. Degradation of polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA): a
review. J. Siberian Federal Univ. Biol. 10 (2), 211.
Pacheco, E.B.A.V., Ronchetti, L.M., Masanet, E., 2012. An overview of plastic recycling
in Rio de Janeiro. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 60, 140e146. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.RESCONREC.2011.12.010.
Palsikowski, P.A., Kuchnier, C.N., Pinheiro, I.F., Morales, A.R., 2017. Biodegradation in
soil of PLA/PBAT blends compatibilized with chain extender. J. Polym. Environ.
1e12.
Pang, M.-M., Pun, M.-Y., Chow, W.-S., Ishak, Z.A.M., 2014. Carbon footprint calcu-
lation for thermoformed starch-filled polypropylene biobased materials.
J. Clean. Prod. 64, 602e608.
Pawelzik, P., Carus, M., Hotchkiss, J., Narayan, R., Selke, S., Wellisch, M., Patel, M.K.,
2013. Review: critical aspects in the life cycle assessment (LCA) of bio-based
materials e reviewing methodologies and deriving recommendations. Re-
sources. Conserv. Recycl. 73, 211e228. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.resconrec.2013.02.006.
Pervaiz, M., Sain, M.M., 2003. Carbon storage potential in natural fiber composites.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 39 (4), 325e340.
Piecyk, M.I., McKinnon, A.C., 2010. Forecasting the carbon footprint of road freight
transport in 2020. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 128, 31e42. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijpe.2009.08.027 (Integrating the Global Supply Chain).
Rahim, R., Abdul Raman, A.A., 2017. Carbon dioxide emission reduction through
cleaner production strategies in a recycled plastic resins producing plant.
J. Clean. Prod. 1411067e1411073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.023.
Ramesh, M., Palanikumar, K., Reddy, K.H., 2017. Plant fibre based bio-composites:
sustainable and renewable green materials. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 79,
558e584. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2017.05.094.
Ravandi, M., Teo, W., Tran, L., YONG, M., TAY, T., 2016. Mode I interlaminar fracture
toughness of natural fiber stitched flax/epoxy composite
laminateseexperimental and numerical analysis. In: Paper Presented at the
Proceedings of the American Society for Composites: Thirty-first Technical
Conference.
Reinders, M.J., Onwezen, M.C., Meeusen, M.J.G., 2017. Can bio-based attributes up-
grade a brand? How partial and full use of bio-based materials affects the
purchase intention of brands. J. Clean. Prod. 162, 1169e1179. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.126.
Rouison, D., Sain, M., Couturier, M., 2006. Resin transfer molding of hemp fiber
composites: optimization of the process and mechanical properties of the
materials. Compos. Sci. Technol. 66 (7), 895e906.
Sabaliauskaite,_ K., Kliaugaite,_ D., 2014. Resource efficiency and carbon footprint
minimization in manufacture of plastic products. Efektyvus istekliu˛ naudojimas
_
ir anglies dioksido pedsako mazinimas plastikiniu˛ gaminiu˛ gamyboje. 67 (1),
25e34. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.erem.67.1.6587.
Sahoo, S.K., Panyam, J., Prabha, S., Labhasetwar, V., 2002. Residual polyvinyl alcohol
associated with poly (D, L-lactide-co-glycolide) nanoparticles affects their
physical properties and cellular uptake. J. Contr. Release 82 (1), 105e114.
Santos, P.A., Spinace
, M.A., Fermoselli, K.K., De Paoli, M.-A., 2007. Polyamide-6/
vegetal fiber composite prepared by extrusion and injection molding. Compos.
Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 38 (12), 2404e2411.
Saviello, D., Cespi, D., Sharma, V., Miao, S., Cucciniello, R., 2017. The frontier of
biobased polymers: synthesis, characterization, application, and sustainability
assessment. Int. J. Polym. Sci. 2017, 1e2.
Scarponi, C., 2015. Hemp fiber composites for the design of a Naca cowling for ultra-
light aviation. Compos. Part B Eng. 81, 53e63.
Scipioni, A., Manzardo, A., Mazzi, A., Mastrobuono, M., 2012. Monitoring the carbon
footprint of products: a methodological proposal. J. Clean. Prod. 36, 94e101.
Shanks, R., Hodzic, A., Wong, S., 2004. Thermoplastic biopolyester natural fiber
composites. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 91 (4), 2114e2121.
Storz, H., Vorlop, K.-D., 2013. Bio-based plastics: status, challenges and trends. Appl.
Agric. For. Res. 63, 321e332.
Subasinghe, A., Das, R., Bhattacharyya, D., 2015. Fiber dispersion during com-
pounding/injection molding of PP/kenaf composites: flammability and me-
chanical properties. Mater. Des. 86, 500e507.
Suriyamongkol, P., Weselake, R., Narine, S., Moloney, M., Shah, S., 2007. Biotech-
nological approaches for the production of polyhydroxyalkanoates in micro-
organisms and plantsda review. Biotechnol. Adv. 25 (2), 148e175.
Suryanegara, L., Kurniawan, Y.D., Syamani, F.A., Nurhamiyah, Y., 2018. Mechanical
Properties of Composites Based on Poly (Lactic Acid) and Soda-treated Sugar-
cane Bagasse Pulp Sustainable Future for Human Security. Springer,
pp. 277e285.
Takagi, H., Nakagaito, A.N., Liu, K., 2014. Effect of microstructure on multifunctional
properties of natural fiber composites. Blucher Mater. Sci. Proc. 1 (1), 46-46.
Takayama, T., Todo, M., 2006. Improvement of impact fracture properties of PLA/PCL
polymer blend due to LTI addition. J. Mater. Sci. 41 (15), 4989e4992.
Tang, X., Alavi, S., 2011. Recent advances in starch, polyvinyl alcohol based polymer
blends, nanocomposites and their biodegradability. Carbohydr. Polym. 85 (1),
7e16.
Thakur, V.K., Thakur, M.K., 2014. Processing and characterization of natural cellulose
fibers/thermoset polymer composites. Carbohydr. Polym. 109, 102e117.
Todo, M., Park, S.-D., Takayama, T., Arakawa, K., 2007. Fracture micromechanisms of
bioabsorbable PLLA/PCL polymer blends. Eng. Fract. Mech. 74 (12), 1872e1883.
Tsiropoulos, I., Faaij, A.P.C., Lundquist, L., Schenker, U., Briois, J.F., Patel, M.K., 2015.
Life cycle impact assessment of bio-based plastics from sugarcane ethanol.
J. Clean. Prod. 90, 114e127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.071.
Tsuji, H., 2013. Poly (Lactic Acid). Bio-based Plastics: Materials and Applications,
pp. 171e239.
USDA Departmental Regulation., 2005. Biobased Products Procurement Program.
http://www.ocio.usda.gov/directives/doc/DR5023-002.htm (accessed 19.10.17).
€isa
Va €nen, T., Das, O., Tomppo, L., 2017. A review on new bio-based constituents for
natural fiber-polymer composites. J. Clean. Prod. 149, 582e596.
van den Oever, M., Molenveld, K., van der Zee, M., Bos, H., 2017. Bio-based and
Biodegradable Plastics: Facts and Figures: Focus on Food Packaging in the
Netherlands. Wageningen Food & Biobased Research.
Vidal, R., Martínez, P., Garraín, D., 2009. Life cycle assessment of composite mate-
rials made of recycled thermoplastics combined with rice husks and cotton
linters. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14 (1), 73e82.
Vilaplana, F., Stro€mberg, E., Karlsson, S., 2010. Environmental and resource aspects
of sustainable biocomposites. Polym. Degrad. Stabil. 95 (11), 2147e2161.
Vojtov

vrov

a, L., Va 
a, M., Bebnarík, K., Sucman, E., David, J., Jan
r, J., 2007. Prepa-
ca
ration and ecotoxicity assessment of new biodegradable polyurethane foams.
J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 42 (5), 677e683.
Wall-Markowski, C.A., Kicherer, A., Saling, P., 2004. Using eco-efficiency analysis to
assess renewable-resourceebased technologies. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy
23 (4), 329e333.
Weiss, M., Haufe, J., Carus, M., Branda ~o, M., Bringezu, S., Hermann, B., Patel, M.K.,
2012. A review of the environmental impacts of biobased materials. J. Ind. Ecol.
16 (s1).
Weng, Y.-X., Jin, Y.-J., Meng, Q.-Y., Wang, L., Zhang, M., Wang, Y.-Z., 2013. Biodeg-
radation behavior of poly (butylene adipate-co-terephthalate)(PBAT), poly
(lactic acid)(PLA), and their blend under soil conditions. Polym. Test. 32 (5),
918e926.
Wiedmann, T., Minx, J., 2008. A definition of ‘carbon footprint’. Ecol. Econ. Res.
Trends 1, 1e11.
Wu, Y., Xiong, W., Zhou, H., Li, H., Xu, G., Zhao, J., 2016. Biodegradation of poly
(butylene succinate) film by compost microorganisms and water soluble
product impact on mung beans germination. Polym. Degrad. Stabil. 126, 22e30.
Xia, C., Shi, S.Q., Cai, L., Hua, J., 2015. Property enhancement of kenaf fiber com-
posites by means of vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding (VARTM). Holz-
forschung 69 (3), 307e312.
Zampaloni, M., Pourboghrat, F., Yankovich, S., Rodgers, B., Moore, J., Drzal, L.,
Misra, M., 2007. Kenaf natural fiber reinforced polypropylene composites: a
discussion on manufacturing problems and solutions. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci.
Manuf. 38 (6), 1569e1580.
Zhao, J.H., Wang, X.Q., Zeng, J., Yang, G., Shi, F.H., Yan, Q., 2005. Biodegradation of
poly (butylene succinate) in compost. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 97 (6), 2273e2278.