1 Introduction
In viticulture, every winter after pruning, large quantities of vine wood are produced that are currently underutilized. Pruning of vine shoots (ViShs) is necessary in order to improve growing conditions for the plant, as well as to increase the yield and quality of grapes. Vine shoots can be from 1 to 2 m long, and production amounts to between 1 and 2.5 t of dry matter per hectare per year (Galanakis
2017). The productivity of the vine plant depends on the region where it grows, the pruning method, and the vine species. In Languedoc-Roussillon (LR), a wine region in the south of France, ViSh production amounts to 500,000 t per year (IFN, FCBA, Solagro
2009). Currently, management of vine shoots in France is done by either collecting and burning the ViSh or leaving them on the vineyards where they are rough-cut and used as organic fertilizer (FranceAgriMer
2016). When used as biofertilizers, ViSh should be considered by-products and not waste. However, their use as soil amendment can be problematic, as decomposing ViSh may serve as vector for diseases for the following vine crop (Chambre régionale d’agriculture Nouvelle-Aquitaine and DRAAF/SRAL Nouvelle-Aquitaine
2017). Furthermore, it is worth noting that ViSh is not the most judicious biofertilizer since its biodegradation, i.e., mineralization in soil, competes with the vine’s growth with regard to nitrogen consumption (Keller
2015). Less commonly, ViShs are used as fuel wood or compost, which are considered low-value uses for this potential resource. Regarding the ambitious goals set by the European community for a bioeconomy, which include the decarbonization of the economy through an 80-95% decrease of CO
2 emissions by 2050 (Scarlat et al.
2015), ViShs present a valuable resource for implementing decarbonizing recovery strategies. These strategies can be achieved in a biorefinery context, where cascading treatments of ViSh are investigated to produce value-added products, including the production of lignocellulosic fillers for biocomposite applications (Kilinc et al.
2016; David et al.
2019,
2020a). Lignocellulosic fillers from agricultural residues present the advantages that, in addition to their fully biodegradability in natural conditions, they have a lower density than conventional inorganic fillers and are highly available at a low price, with no competition from the food sector (Mohanty et al.
2001). ViShs present a great opportunity in the field of biocomposites, with a potential application being rigid food packaging that is biodegradable in natural conditions (David et al.
2020c; Guillard et al.
2018).
On the other hand, the global plastic market is continuously growing having reached 350 million tons in 2018, with 40% of the production used in the packaging sector (PlasticsEurope
2018). The massive amount of plastics used each year results in a constant accumulation of plastic wastes in our environment (Geyer et al.
2017). The associated effect of this on ecosystems, wildlife, and humans is worrying, if not yet fully understood. For this reason and the concern about global warming, fully bio-sourced and biodegradable materials such as biocomposites are emerging as a possible solution to tackle the problem of accumulation of plastic in our environment and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate), called PHBV, is a promising bacterial biopolymer that is biodegradable in the soil and ocean, and that can be synthetized from many types of carbon residues. PHBV can be combined with natural fillers to create fully biodegradable biocomposites, e.g., for application in rigid trays (Berthet et al.
2015a; Lammi et al.
2018). Moreover, PHBV displays similar mechanical and barrier properties as polyprolylene (PP) and can therefore act as a viable substitute for this fossil-derived and non-biodegradable conventional polymer (Chodak
2008). A competitor to PHBV is polylactic acid (PLA), which is the most widely commercialized bio-sourced plastic currently in the market. However, it is worth noting that PLA is not fully biodegradable in natural conditions, but only compostable in industrial conditions (Gurunathan et al.
2015), which requires collection and sorting in order to achieve a valuable end of life management and does not avoid concerns related to plastic accumulation from littering or leakage.
The development of biocomposites is largely motivated by either an improvement of the overall technical performance, the need for specific mechanical properties, a decrease of the overall cost of materials, and the improvement of the carbon footprint, by replacing a part of non-renewable fossil resources (Mohanty et al.
2005). Biocomposites are thus generally presented as eco-friendly materials. However, most of the time, the environmental benefit is not quantitatively proven (Civancik-Uslu et al.
2018). It is thus necessary to ensure that the biocomposites are actually capable of mitigating the abovementioned environmental problems, as the use of bioplastics and natural fillers to produce biocomposites does not automatically make them sustainable. In order to quantitatively verify environmental claims made about biocomposites and other innovative materials, it is possible to carry out environmental assessments.
Life cycle assessment (LCA), which is a holistic tool capable of measuring environmental impacts of products and services, can be applied to emerging biomaterials (Hauschild et al.
2018). It investigates the inputs (i.e., resources and energy) and outputs (i.e., waste gases, wastewater, and solid waste) across the entire life cycle stages (cradle-to-grave). LCA allows location of “hot spots” in the life cycle and avoids the shifting burdens from one life cycle stage to another while accounting for all types of emissions and resource consumption (Qiang et al.
2014). Its main limits are the collection of data, which can be difficult, and the initial assumptions that need to be justified. Most of the LCAs carried out for biocomposites focus on the comparison of natural fillers with synthetic fibers (Kim et al.
2008; Le Duigou et al.
2011; Civancik-Uslu et al.
2018), especially for applications in the automotive industry (Joshi et al.
2004; Duflou et al.
2012; Boland
2014). Generally, natural fillers tend to have a better environmental performance than glass fibers, notably thanks to the weight reduction of the composites and their low energy demand for production (Joshi et al.
2004).
There are fewer papers in the literature regarding the environmental advantage of incorporating natural fillers in polymer matrices. In a previous study considering 1 kg of material as functional unit, the environmental impacts of materials made of virgin polyolefins (PP and HDPE) and biocomposites with natural fillers (derived from rice husks and cotton linters) were compared (Vidal et al.
2009). The LCA showed that composites displayed lower environmental impacts in all impact categories, except eutrophication, due to the use of fertilizers for rice cultivation. Similarly, it was shown that the incorporation of either wood flour or wood fiber allowed for reducing the environmental impacts of HDPE (Xu et al.
2008) and PP (Xu et al.
2008), respectively, in proportion to the filler content.
LCAs of vine shoots and their incorporation in composites were not found in the literature. The combustion of ViSh and induced emissions have previously been studied (Spinelli et al.
2012; Picchi et al.
2013) without LCA tools. More recently, Gullón et al. performed a LCA of the valorization of vine shoots into antioxidant extracts, and other bioproducts from a biorefinery perspective (Gullón et al.
2018). They determined that ViSh production-related processes should be burden-free in the biorefinery system since the environmental impacts were entirely allocated to the grape harvesting, as ViShs were considered agricultural waste (Sanchez et al.
2002; Max et al.
2010).
Concerning PHBV, no process data is currently available in the Ecoinvent database. However, as shown by Yates and Barlow (
2013), several LCAs about bioplastics including PHBV are available in the literature. Inventory data from these papers can be used (Harding et al.
2007; Yates and Barlow
2013).
In this context, the objective of the present study was to better understand the potential environmental benefit of using vine shoots as raw resources for the production of lignocellulosic fillers for biocomposite applications. For this purpose, a comparative life cycle assessment was carried out, first on rigid trays made out of virgin PHBV, polylactic acid (PLA), or polypropylene (PP). Then, the effect of ViSh incorporation in these 3 polymer matrices was studied, utilizing a cradle-to-grave approach. The contribution of each life cycle step was identified and discussed. Furthermore, the balance between the environmental and the economic benefits of composite trays was discussed.
4 Conclusion
This study assessed the environmental impacts of composite trays made of PP, PLA, or PHBV, and increasing content of ViSh particle filler, based on a comparative life cycle assessment (LCA). It was shown that bioplastic matrices, i.e., PLA and PHBV, which are considered to be eco-friendly, displayed higher environmental impacts than fossil-based polypropylene. This result should be tempered by the fact that long-term impacts such as plastic accumulation are not considered and that the production of bioplastics is still at a much lower level of technological development. In the case of PHBV, the only truly biodegradable bioplastic among the three studied, it is expected that production processes will be optimized, in such a way to decrease their environmental impacts. It is therefore difficult to draw a general conclusion about the environmental efficiency of bioplastics compared with conventional plastics due to the expected evolution of the bioplastic technologies. As described by Yates and Barlow in a critical review on biopolymers (Yates and Barlow
2013), it is complex to compare their environmental impacts with other studies for different reasons: updated eco-profiles, feedstocks used, sources of energy, etc. There is currently no factor that quantifies the effect of plastic debris on biodiversity (Woods et al.
2016). The biodegradability of PHBV can thus not be assessed in the LCA framework. However, there is ongoing research on this issue (for example, the Marilca initiative supported by the Life Cycle Initiative of the UN Environment (Boulay et al.
2019)). One can only wonder how the conclusions of this work will change when such data become available. The interest of a biodegradable material, compared with a non-biodegradable material that is recyclable may seem low from a short-term life cycle analysis point of view. But, this perspective neglects the fate of the recycled material which, after a few cycles, will eventually be released into the environment, as the recycling of plastic, whether closed short loop or long loop, is limited in time.
The incorporation of increasing contents of ViSh particles in plastic trays resulted in a reduction of environmental impacts despite the additional processing steps required to produce ViSh fillers and the higher density of ViSh compared with the three polymer matrices under consideration. Trays with a higher filler content are therefore heavier requiring that more matter be processed. Despite that fact, this study illustrated the interest of using agro-residues in composites. Concerning global warming, composite trays had less impact than virgin plastic trays from 5 vol% for PHBV or PLA and from 20 vol% for PP. Regarding PHBV, the only biodegradable polymer in natural conditions in this study, the price and the impact on global warming are reduced by 25% and 20% respectively when 30 vol% of ViSh are added. Should the maximum filler content of 30 vol% be increased, there would be even greater potential to reduce the environmental impacts.
Thus, it can be concluded that, if the goal is environmental sustainability while avoiding microplastic accumulation, the majority research efforts should be devoted to the optimization and scale up of bioplastic production, PP production being already optimized. The use of cleaner energy would also help to achieve this goal while additionally reducing the impact of the injection molding step. Finally, the end of life should be also improved by increasing recycling for PP, ensuring separate collection for composting of PLA, and home composting for PHBV.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.