Biobased Polymers in Europe PDF

ISI
Fraunhofer Institute
Systems and
Innovation Research
Techno-economic Feasibility of Large-scale

Production of Bio-based Polymers in Europe
(PRO-BIP)
Final Report
Prepared for the European Commission’s Institute for Prospective

Technological Studies (IPTS), Sevilla, Spain
Manuela Crank, BE Chem Utrecht University (UU)

Department of Science, Technology and Society
Dr. Martin Patel
(STS)
Heidelberglaan 2
NL-3584 CH Utrecht, Netherlands
Tel. +31 (30) 253-7600, Fax +31 (30) 253-7601
[email protected], [email protected]
Dr. Frank Marscheider-

Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and
Weidemann
Dr. Joachim Schleich Innovation Research (FhG-ISI)
Dr. Bärbel Hüsing Breslauer Strasse 48
Dr. Gerhard Angerer D-76139 Karlsruhe, Germany
Tel. +49 (721) 6809-0, Fax +49 (721) 689152
[email protected]
Utrecht/Karlsruhe, October 2004

Techno-economic Feasibility of Large-scale Production of Bio-based Polymers in Europe (PRO-BIP)
Preliminary Remark
Bio-based polymers are in their infancy. There are success stories and very promising
developments but failures and serious problems also exist. This report attempts to give
the full picture and to draw fair conclusions.
Given the still early stage of development of bio-based polymers the information basis
used in this report may be less complete than for analyses on mature materials (here:
conventional polymers). The quality of the information used and presented differs by
chapter:
• Most of the information given in Chapter 2 can be considered as solid. This applies
not only to the description of the production process and the material properties but
by and large also to the environmental impacts (by polymer). To a lesser extent, it
applies to the expected developments in cost structure and selling price. The
estimation of maximum technical substitution potential at the end of the chapter
should be considered as indicative only.
• The projections for future prices and production volumes of bio-based polymers,
which are presented in Chapter 3, are subject to large uncertainty. To account for this
difficulty, various scenarios are distinguished.
• The assessment of the environmental impacts at the EU level, as reported in
Chapter 4, is based on assumptions about the implementation of advanced
technology (with lower environmental impact) and on the projections discussed in
Chapter 3. At this early stage of development of bio-based polymers, many impacts
which are likely to be significant cannot yet be assessed; other impact categories will
only be identified as the transition from petroleum-based polymers to bio-based
polymers progresses. The choice of reference product (1 tonne bulk polymer) and
simplifying assumptions made in relation to the system boundaries do not allow for
taking into account all end products; nor all combinations of factors including
locality, time, modes of transportation used and waste treatment technologies
employed. The individual results of Chapter 4 are thus subject to large uncertainties.
However, this uncertainty is inevitable since it is not feasible to account for all
possible combinations of materials, end products and waste management, which,
ideally, would need to be weighted with their respective future penetration rates.
In Chapter 5 and 6, the authors attempt to summarise the results, to present a balanced
discussion and to draw sound conclusions for the key decision makers, i.e. for policy
makers and for companies. Before making use of any results in this report the reader
should, however, be aware of the underlying limitations intrinsic in both the techno-
economic and the environmental assessment – and especially concerning the
projections. In particular, the reader is advised to read the methodology and notes
(Chapter 2, subsections ‘environmental impacts’; Sections 3.4 and 4.1 to 4.4) in
addition to the concluding chapters 5 and 6. This report is based on information on
commercialised and emerging bio-based polymers. Other bio-based polymers which are
currently in an earlier phase of R&D are not taken into account even though some of
them might be produced on a respectable scale towards the end of the projection period
Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI Final Report

of this report (year 2020). Bio-based chemicals that are not used for polymer production
(e.g. solvents, lubricants and surfactants and other intermediates and final products) are
outside the scope of this report; if they develop favourably, this could reinforce also the
growth of bio-based polymers.
Final Report Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI

Executive summary
For several decades, plastics derived from fossil fuels have grown at a faster rate than
any other group of bulk materials, and expectations are that this high growth trend will
continue until 2020. This study is motivated by the idea that bio-based plastics, being
derived from renewable resources, could serve to offset to a certain extent the non-
renewable energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of the EU plastics industry, as well
as having other advantageous socio-economic effects such as diversifying agricultural
land use.
An overview of the types of bio-based polymers, their producers (including their

location), the production processes applied and the types of uses shows that bio-based
polymers is an emerging field which is characterised by new synergies and
collaborations.
In order to obtain a better understanding of the importance of this emerging sector

estimates have been made firstly for the technical substitution potential and then for
more realistic production scenarios which implicitly take into account price differentials
and other influencing factors. The technical substitution potential, which can be
derived from the material property set of each bio-based polymer and its petrochemical-
based equivalent is estimated at 15.4 million tonnes for EU-15, or 33% of the total
current polymer production. A more detailed analysis taking into account economic,
social, ecological and technological influencing factors relating to the bio-based
polymer value chain leads to the identification of three scenarios: WITHOUT P&M
(policies and measures), WITH P&M and HIGH GROWTH. In absolute terms, bio-
based polymers are projected to reach a maximum of 1 million tonnes by 2010 in the
scenario WITHOUT P&M and max. 1.75-3.0 million tonnes by 2020 in the scenarios
WITH P&M and HIGH GROWTH respectively. These (physical) amounts are
equivalent to an estimated maximum (monetary) production volume of roughly 1-2
billion EUR by 2010 (scenarios WITH P&M and HIGH GROWTH) and 3-6 billion
EUR by 2020 (scenario HIGH GROWTH).
While these are sizable quantities, they are modest compared to the expected production
increase of petrochemical polymers by 12.5 million tonnes by 2010 and 25 million
tonnes by 2020. Thus, the market share of bio-based polymers will remain very
small, in the order of 1-2% by 2010 and 1-4% by 2020. This means that bio-based
polymers will not provide a major challenge, nor present a major threat, to
conventional petrochemical polymers.
Energy and GHG emission savings from bio-based polymers in specific terms were
found to be 20-50 GJ/t polymer and 1.0-4.0 t CO2eq/t polymer respectively (in Chapter
4.2.1). Bio-based polymers are thus very attractive in terms of specific energy and
emissions savings. In absolute terms, savings are rather small: as a proportion of the
total EU chemical industry, energy savings amount to 0.5-1.0% by 2010, up to a
maximum of 2.1% by 2020; compared to the total EU economy the figures are 0.1%
until 2010 and 0.2% until 2020 (Chapter 4.3.1). Greenhouse gas emissions savings
amount to 1-2% by 2010, up to a maximum of 5% by 2020; compared to the total EU
economy the figures are 0.1% until 2010 and 0.2% until 2020. Bio-based polymers
therefore cannot offset the additional environmental burden due to the growth of

petrochemical polymers (there is a gap of a factor of about 20 to 40). It is also out of

the question that, within the next two decades, bio-based polymers will be able to
meaningfully compensate for the environmental impacts of the economy as a whole.
However, it is not unthinkable that the boundary conditions for bio-based polymers and
the energy system will change dramatically in the decades after 2020, e.g. due to
substantially higher oil prices. If, ceteris paribus, bio-based polymers would
ultimately grow ten times beyond the HIGH GROWTH projection for 2020 (i.e., to
about 30 million tonnes), this could avoid half of the chemical sector’s current GHG
emissions, without accounting for major technological progress (efficiencies, yields) in
the decades after 2020. These considerations for the very long term do not justify any
concrete (policy) action today, they are rather intended to demonstrate the implications
of the comparatively low production volumes until 2020 (compare also per capita
values in Table 3-7).
The results of the calculations on land use requirements (Chapter 4.3.1) show that by
2010 a maximum of 125,000 ha may be used for bio-based polymers in Europe and by
2020 an absolute maximum of 975,000 ha (High Growth Scenario). Comparing this
with total land use in EU15 for various purposes, shows that if all bio-based polymers
were to be produced from wheat, land requirements as a percentage of total land used to
grow wheat range from 1% WITH P&M to 5% in the case of HIGH GROWTH. As a
proportion of total cereals these figures are a factor 2 lower. Compared to total set-aside
land (1997 values), the percentage of land required ranges from 3.6% to 15.4%; as a
percentage of industrial crops the range is similar. Bio-based polymers are thus seen
to have modest land requirements and will not cause any strain within the EU on
agricultural land requirements in the near future. As a consequence the
employment potential in the agricultural sector is also very limited until 2020.
The assessment of the environmental impacts at the EU level is based on assumptions

about the implementation of advanced technology (with lower environmental impact)
and on the projections just discussed. At this early stage of development of bio-based
polymers, many impacts which are likely to be significant cannot yet be assessed; other
impact categories will only be identified as the transition from petroleum-based
polymers to bio-based polymers progresses. The choice of reference product (1 tonne
bulk polymer) and simplifying assumptions made in relation to the system boundaries
do not allow for all end products to be taken into account; nor for all combinations of
factors including locality, time, modes of transportation used and waste treatment
technologies employed. The assessment of the environmental impacts is thus subject to
large uncertainties. However, this uncertainty is inevitable since it is not feasible to
account for all possible combinations of materials, end products and waste management,
which, ideally, would need to be weighted with their respective future penetration rates.
To develop a deeper understanding of the possible effects of policies and measures

(P&Ms) the society’s willingness to pay for green electricity (from biomass) is
translated to bio-based polymers; a level of 0.1-0.2 EUR per kg of bio-based polymer
is found. It is concluded that this level of financial support would help to improve
the competitiveness of bio-based polymers. A thorough discussion about the effects of
P&Ms would actually require a comprehensive overview of all existing fiscal measures
and subsidies. A first attempt is made to quantify the effect related to the tax
exemptions for the feedstock use of fossil fuels. According to our rough estimates this
leads to an equivalent of 0.10 to 0.15 EUR/kg polymer, which – if verified – would
have a number of important implications.
Final Report Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI

The interviews and workshop held within the scope of this project also showed that it is
not sufficient simply to lower the cost of bio-based polymers production and facilitate
their market introduction. It is equally important to accompany this with R&D activities
in the field of polymer processing: Processors also must have access to the relevant
additives which should be biodegradable, in order for the biopolymer to be fully
biodegradable (examples given: dyes, anti-static additives). The report ends with an
overview of relevant P&Ms including brief explanations of the experience made to
date in the EU and elsewhere. Finally, recent developments in policy making at the EU
level are reported.

Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 MATERIALS, PLASTICS AND POLICY 1
1.2 LOOKING BACK 3
1.3 LOOKING AHEAD 5
1.4 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE 6
1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT 8
2. EXISTING AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR BIO-BASED
POLYMERS IN BULK CHEMICAL APPLICATIONS 9
2.1 STARCH POLYMERS 13
2.1.1 Production of starch polymers 14
2.1.2 Properties 17
2.1.3 Technical substitution potential 19
2.1.4 Applications today and tomorrow 19
2.1.5 Current and emerging producers 21
2.1.6 Expected developments in cost structure and selling price 22
2.1.7 Environmental impacts 23
2.2 POLYLACTIC ACID (PLA) 25
2.2.1 Production of PLA 26
2.2.2 Properties 29
2.3 OTHER POLYESTERS FROM POTENTIALLY BIO-BASED MONOMERS 41
2.3.1 PTT from bio-based PDO 42
2.3.1.1 Production 43
2.3.1.2 Properties 45
2.3.1.3 Technical substitution potential 47
2.3.1.4 Applications today and tomorrow 48
2.3.1.5 Current and emerging producers 48
2.3.1.6 Expected developments in cost structure and selling price 49
2.3.1.7 Environmental impacts 50
2.3.2 PBT from bio-based BDO 51
2.3.2.7 Environmental impacts 53
2.3.3 PBS from bio-based succinic acid 54
Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI page I Final Report


2.4 POLYHYDROXYALKANOATES (PHAS) 56
2.4.1 Production of PHAs 59
2.4.2 Properties 60
2.5 BIO-BASED POLYURETHANE PUR 71
2.5.1 Production of bio-based PUR 72
2.5.2 Properties 75
2.6 EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES: BIO-BASED POLYAMIDES (NYLON) 82
2.6.1 Production of bio-based polyamides 82
2.6.1.1 PA 66 from bio-based adipic acid 83
2.6.1.2 PA 69 from bio-based azelaic acid 84
2.6.1.3 PA 6 from bio-based caprolactam 85
2.6.2 Properties 86
2.6.7 Environmental aspects 88
2.7 CELLULOSIC POLYMERS 88
2.7.1 Production 90
2.7.2 Properties 93
2.7.7 Environmental Impacts 95
2.8 CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO EXISTING AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
FOR BIO-BASED POLYMERS 96
2.8.1 Technology development phase 96
2.8.2 Maximum technical substitution potential 97
3. SCENARIOS FOR FUTURE PRICES AND MARKETS OF BIO-BASED
POLYMERS 101
3.1 MAIN INFLUENCING FACTORS AND THEIR INTERRELATION 101
3.1.2 Scenarios for bio-based polymers in Europe 114
3.2 SPECIFIC INFLUENCING FACTORS BY TYPES OF POLYMERS 118
3.2.1 Starch 118
3.2.2 PLA 119
Final Report page II Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI

3.2.3 PHA 121

3.3 PRICE PROJECTIONS 123
3.3.1 Estimations of Experience Curves for the Production of
Petrochemical Polymers in Germany 124
3.3.1.1 Introduction 124
3.3.1.2 Model Specification 125
3.3.1.3 Estimation Results for Petrochemical Polymers 127
3.3.1.4 Experience Curve for an Average Polymer 129
3.3.1.5 Experience Curve for a Technical Polymer 130
3.3.2 Price projections for petrochemical polymers 131
3.3.3 Price projections for bio-based polymers 133
3.4 MARKET PROJECTIONS FOR BIO-BASED POLYMERS 134
4. ASSESSMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC
EFFECTS OF BIO-BASED POLYMERS 145
4.1 GOAL AND METHOD OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 145
4.2 INPUT DATA FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 146
4.2.1 Data basis for estimating energy use and GHG emission data 148
4.2.2 Data basis for estimating land use requirements 153
4.3 RESULTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LARGE-SCALE
PRODUCTION OF BIO-BASED POLYMERS 156
4.3.1 Energy savings and GHG emission reduction by bio-based
polymers 157
4.3.2 Land use requirements related to bio-based polymers 161
4.4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE LARGE-SCALE PRODUCTION OF
BIO-BASED POLYMERS 163
4.5 PRODUCTION VALUE AND POTENTIAL LEVERAGE OF FISCAL
MEASURES/SUBSIDIES 163
4.5.1 Production value 163
4.5.2 Subsidies, fiscal measures and tax reduction 164
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 167
5.1 AN EMERGING SECTOR 167
5.2 LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT 171
5.3 SUBSTITUTION POTENTIAL AND GROWTH PROJECTIONS 174
5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIETAL EFFECTS 176
6. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 178
6.1 CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT THE NEED OF POLICY SUPPORT, AN ADEQUATE
SUPPORT LEVEL AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF IMPLEMENTATION 178
6.2 OVERVIEW OF POSSIBLE POLICIES AND MEASURES TO PROMOTE BIO-BASED
POLYMERS 181
6.3 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 184
7. REFERENCES 186
8. ABBREVIATIONS 204
Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI page III Final Report

9. APPENDICES 206
®
APPENDIX 1: 2001-2002 POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS FOR NODAX BASED ON
PRODUCT ADVANTAGES 207
APPENDIX 2.1: PROPERTY COMPARISON TABLE FOR SOME BIO-BASED POLYMERS 209
APPENDIX 2.2: PROPERTY COMPARISON TABLE FOR SOME POTENTIALLY BIO-BASED
AND MAIN PETROCHEMICAL-BASED POLYMERS 210
APPENDIX 2.3: PROPERTY COMPARISON TABLE FOR COMMERCIALIZED
‘GREENPLAS’ IN JAPAN: BIO-BASED AND PETROCHEMICAL-BASED
BIODEGRADABLE POLYMERS 211
APPENDIX 2.4: KEY PROPERTIES AND APPLICATIONS OF BIO-BASED POLYMERS 213
APPENDIX 2.4: KEY PROPERTIES AND APPLICATIONS OF BIO-BASED POLYMERS 213
APPENDIX 2.5: KEY PROPERTIES AND APPLICATIONS OF PETROCHEMICAL-BASED
POLYMERS 215
APPENDIX 3: SUMMARY OVERVIEW OF LCA DATA FOR BIO-BASED AND
PETROCHEMICAL POLYMERS 216
APPENDIX 4: POLYMERS – PROPOSED POLICIES & MEASURES AND ESTIMATES OF
THEIR POTENTIAL FOR GHG EMISSION REDUCTION 218
APPENDIX 5: U.S. POLICY ON BIO-BASED PRODUCTS 220
A5.1 Biomass R&D Act 220
A5.2 Biomass R&D Initiative 221
A5.3 Title IX of the Farm Security and Rural Development Act of 2002 222
A5.4 Initiative member departments and agencies 223
A5.5 Research portfolios and budgets of DOE and USDA 224
A5.6 Main focus of U.S. technology policy on biobased products 227
A5.7 References for Appendix 5 228
Final Report page IV Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI

List of Tables
Table 2-1: Overview of currently most important groups and types of bio-based
polymers ..................................................................................................... 10
Table 2-2: Current and potential large volume producers of bio-based polymers....... 11
Table 2-3: Properties of starch polymers ..................................................................... 18
Table 2-4: Technical substitution potential for starch polymers ................................. 19
Table 2-5: Main applications for starch polymers – share of interviewed
company’s total production by market sector............................................. 20
Table 2-6: Energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of (Modified)
Starch Polymer pellets and their petrochemical counterparts .................... 24
Table 2-7: CO2 emission reduction potential of tyres with biopolymeric fillers ......... 25
Table 2-8: Properties of PLA ....................................................................................... 30
Table 2-9: Technical substitution potential for PLA according to interviews
with experts from Cargill Dow, Hycail and Biomer. ................................. 33
Table 2-10: Main applications for PLA – share of interviewed companies total
production by market sector ....................................................................... 34
Table 2-11: Cradle-to-factory gate energy requirements and CO2 emissions
for Cargill Dow’s PLA as compared to petrochemical polymers ............. 41
Table 2-12: Estimated cradle-to-factory gate energy requirements for PLA
production from rye and from whey........................................................... 41
Table 2-13: Polyesters from a (potentially) bio-based monomer................................... 42
Table 2-14: Properties of polymers potentially from bio-based monomers and
selected other polymers used in fibre or engineered thermoplastics
applications................................................................................................. 47
Table 2-15: Technical substitution potential for PTT .................................................... 47
Table 2-16: Feedstocks costs for PTT production from PTA and PDO ........................ 49
Table 2-17: Main applications for PBS and PBSA – share of interviewed
company’s total production by market sector............................................. 55
Table 2-18: The structure of basic PHAs and those of commercial interest.................. 58
Table 2-19: Properties of PHAs ..................................................................................... 61
Table 2-20: Comparison of properties for PLA and branched PHA copolymers .......... 63
Table 2-21: Technical substitution potential for PHAs according to interviews
with experts from P&G and Biomer........................................................... 64
Table 2-22: Target cost breakdown for PHA production according to P&G,
2005 and 2030 ............................................................................................ 67
Table 2-23: Energy requirements for plastics production.............................................. 68
Table 2-24: Greenhouse gas emissions from the life cycle of polyhydroxyalkanoates
(PHA) and polyethylene (PE)..................................................................... 69
Table 2-25: World consumption of polyols and isocyanates in thousands of
tonnes per year............................................................................................ 73
Table 2-26: Bio-based polyols for PUR production ...................................................... 73
Table 2-27: Main applications for flexible bio-based PUR-foams produced
by Metzeler Schaum according to market sector....................................... 77
Table 2-28: PUR formulations with a bio-based component and main applications.... 79
Table 2-29: Bio-based monomers for the production of polyamides. ........................... 86
Table 2-30: Main applications for polyamides by market sector -Estimate for
Western Europe .......................................................................................... 87
Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI page V Final Report

Table 2-31: Cradle-to-factory gate energy requirements for cellulosic and

petrochemical polymers.............................................................................. 96
Table 2-32: Technical substitution potential of bio-based polymers (plastics) in
Western Europe .......................................................................................... 98
Table 2-33: Technical substitution potential of bio-based polymers (fibres)
in Western Europe. ..................................................................................... 99
Table 2-34: Innovative product examples using bio-based polymers.......................... 100
Table 3-1: Key influencing factors and characteristics of their impeding or
stimulating impacts................................................................................... 105
Table 3-2 Regression results for experience curves of polymers ............................. 127
Table 3-3 Regression results for experience curves for an average polymer ........... 130
Table 3-4 Regression results for experience curves of polycarbonate...................... 130
Table 3-5: Market potential of bio-based polymers in EU-15 countries by 2000
and 2020 .................................................................................................. 138
Table 3-6: Specification of the projections for the production of bio-based
polymers in PRO-BIP, scenarios “WITHOUT P&M” and
“WITH P&M”........................................................................................... 139
Table 3-7: Total production of bio-based polymers in the PRO-BIP scenarios
“WITHOUT P&M”, “WITH P&M” and “HIGH GROWTH”
in the EU................................................................................................... 141
Table 4-1: Specific energy use and GHG emissions of bio-based and
petrochemical bulk polymers.................................................................... 150
Table 4-2: Energy requirements for bulk materials ................................................... 151
Table 4-3: Energy savings and CO2 emission reduction by bio-based
polymers relative to their petrochemical counterparts ............................. 151
Table 4-4: Heating value of bio-based and petrochemical polymers......................... 152
Table 4-5: Specific land use for bio-based and petrochemical bulk polymers .......... 154
Table 4-6: Land use, yield and production of corn (maize), wheat and selected
other carbohydrate crops. Western Europe averages for 2002................ 155
Table 4-7: Summary of the results on the large-scale production of bio-based
polymers in Europe for the three scenarios WITHOUT P&M,
WITH P&M and HIGH GROWTH ........................................................ 156
Table 4-8: Emission projections for petrochemical polymers and of bio-based
polymers in perspective ............................................................................ 160
Table 4-9: Additional land use for bio-based polymers as a proportion of other
land uses in EU-15 for the three scenarios WITHOUT P&M,
WITH P&M and HIGH GROWTH ......................................................... 162
Table 4-10: Additonal employment in the agricultural sector for the three
scenarios WITHOUT P&M, WITH P&M and HIGH GROWTH ........... 163
Table 4-11: Possible effects of a financial support of bio-based polymers for a
hypothetical producer ............................................................................... 166
Table 5-1: Projected market share of bio-based polymers according to three
scenarios and the maximum (technical) substitution potential................. 176
Table 6-1: Suggested general policies and measures to promote wider use of
renewable raw materials ........................................................................... 181
Final Report page VI Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI

List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Production of bulk materials in Western Europe, mid/end 1990s........ 1
Figure 1-2: Bell-shaped curves representing the shares of bulk materials
used in the EU ...................................................................................... 2
Figure 2-1: A section of the amylose molecule showing the repeating
anhydroglucose unit............................................................................ 13
Figure 2-2: A section of the amylopectin molecule showing the two
different types of chain linkages......................................................... 13
Figure 2-3: Starch polymer production technologies ............................................ 16
Figure 2-4: PLA molecule ..................................................................................... 25
Figure 2-5: Production of PLA from biomass....................................................... 28
Figure 2-6: Producer price estimates for PLA - 2010 and beyond........................ 40
Figure 2-7: PTT molecule ..................................................................................... 42
Figure 2-8: Bioroute to PDO ................................................................................. 44
Figure 2-9: Production of PTT from PDO and PTA or DMT............................... 44
Figure 2-10: Cradle-to-factory gate energy use and CO2 emissions for
petrochemical PET and (partially) bio-based PTT (based on
PDO from glycerol) ............................................................................ 51
Figure 2-11: PBT molecule ..................................................................................... 52
Figure 2-12: PBS molecule ..................................................................................... 54
Figure 2-13: PHA molecule .................................................................................... 57
Figure 2-14: Processing technologies for medium chain length PHA
copolymers by composition and molecular weight ............................ 63
Figure 2-15: Cradle-to-factory gate energy requirements for the production
of PHAs .............................................................................................. 70
Figure 2-16: Generic process for PUR production from a polyol and an
isocyante ............................................................................................. 72
Figure 2-17: Common plant oils (polyols and polyol precursors) .......................... 74
Figure 2-18: Transesterification of castor oil with glycerine to produce a
mixture of polyols with higher functionality...................................... 74
Figure 2-19: Epoxidisation and ring opening of plant oil to obtain a
polyol.................................................................................................. 74
Figure 2-20: Main applications for PUR by market sector (scope: EU 15) ............ 77
Figure 2-21: Conventional route to adipic acid....................................................... 83
Figure 2-22: Biotechnological production of adipic acid........................................ 83
Figure 2-23: Nylon 66 from adipic acid and diamine: conventional step
polymerization route by means of the carbonyl
addition/elimination reaction.............................................................. 84
Figure 2-24: Production of azelaic acid and conventional step polymerization
to nylon 69 (standard route incorporating the renewable
feedstock oleic acid) ........................................................................... 84
Figure 2-25: Biotechnological production of caprolactam and nylon 6 via
conventional ring opening polymerisation ......................................... 85
Figure 2-26: The structure of cellulose ................................................................... 89
Figure 2-27: Production of man-made versus cellulosic fibres since 1970............. 90
Figure 2-28: Production of cellulosic fibres and plastics since 1970...................... 90
Figure 2-29 Process for Viscose, Lyocell (NMMO), Cellulose
carbamate (CC) and Celsol................................................................. 92
Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI page VII Final Report

Figure 3-1: Mindmap of influencing factors ....................................................... 104

Figure 3-2: Value chain of bio-based polymers .................................................. 105
Figure 3-3: Consistency matrix for the WITHOUT P&M scenario.................... 115
Figure 3-4: Consistency matrix for the WITH P&M scenario ............................ 115
Figure 3-4: Consistency matrix for the WITH P&M scenario ............................ 116
Figure 3-5: Consistency matrix for the HIGH GROWTH scenario.................... 116
Figure 3-5: Consistency matrix for the HIGH GROWTH scenario.................... 117
Figure 3-6 Prices for Polypropylene, Propylene and Naphtha in
Western Europe 1995 to 2002 .......................................................... 124
Figure 3-7: Cumulative production of PVC, PP and PE in Germany ................. 125
Figure 3-8: Prices for Polymers and Crude Oil (Base year 2002)....................... 126
Figure 3-9 Estimated experience curve for PVC production in Germany ......... 128
Figure 3-10 Estimated experience curve for PP production in Germany............. 129
Figure 3-11 Estimated experience curve for PE production in Germany ............ 129
Figure 3-12 Estimated experience curve for PC production ................................ 131
Figure 3-13: Sensitivity analyses for petrochemical polymer prices as a
function of oil prices......................................................................... 133
Figure 3-14 Projection of the Price for bio-based polyesters and
petrochemical polymers.................................................................... 134
Figure 3-15: Worldwide projections prepared by IBAW on the development
of bio-based and petrochemical biodegradable polymers ................ 137
Figure 3-16: Development of bio-based polymers in the EU until 2010 –
Scenarios “WITHOUT P&M” and “WITH P&M”.......................... 139
Figure 3-17: Development of bio-based polymers in the EU and
worldwide until 2020 – Scenarios “WITHOUT P&M” and
“WITH P&M” .................................................................................. 140
Figure 3-18: Bio-based polyesters - Number of plants and indicative
allocation to players.......................................................................... 142
Figure 4-1: Overall energy requirements of polymers (cradle to grave) as a
function of the efficiency of energy recovery .................................. 153
Figure 4-2: Production volumes of bio-based polymers for the three
scenarios WITHOUT P&M, WITH P&M and HIGH GROWTH ... 157
Figure 4-3: Energy savings and GHG emission reduction for the three
scenarios WITHOUT P&M, WITH P&M and HIGH GROWTH ... 159
Figure 4-4: Additional land use related to the production of bio-based
polymers for the three scenarios WITHOUT P&M,
WITH P&M and HIGH GROWTH ................................................. 161
Figure 4-5: Specific energy savings and specific GHG emission reduction
for the three scenarios WITHOUT P&M, WITH P&M and
HIGH GROWTH.............................................................................. 161
Figure 5-1: Synergies and collaborations in the emerging bio-based
polymer industry............................................................................... 169
Figure A5-1: Overview of DOE research portfolios and budgets.......................... 225
Figure A5-2: Biomass R&D Initiative Figure........................................................ 226
Final Report page VIII Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI

Acknowledgements
We herewith thank all experts who have contributed to this report by providing
information about their products and processes. Particular thanks are addressed to the
reviewers Dr. Robert Anex (Iowa State University, USA) and to Prof. Dr. Ulrich
Stottmeister (University of Leipzig, Germany) for their very valuable comments and
suggestions for changes to the report. We thank Ms. Arancha Pera Gilaberte for her
contributions to the environmental analyses and Ms. Sonja Mohr for bringing this report
into a good form. We are also very grateful to Mr. Ludo R. Andringa for permitting the
chapter “U.S. technology policy on biobased products” to be reprinted as Appendix 5 of
this report. This piece of text about the steps taken in the U.S. is very instructive and
may help European policy makers when developing further suitable boundary
conditions for bio-based products.
Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI page IX Final Report

1. Introduction
1.1 Materials, plastics and policy
Polymers are the newcomers among the bulk materials used in modern economies. They
have been used in substantial quantities for only five to seven decades. In contrast,
wood and clay have been used since the existence of mankind, glass for 5500 years,
steel for 3500 years, paper for 1900 years, cement for 180 years and pure aluminium for
120 years. In high-income countries, polymers have overtaken aluminium and glass in
terms of quantities used (mass) and now account for roughly 10% of the total amount of
bulk materials (see Figure 1-1).
Figure 1-1: Production of bulk materials in Western Europe, mid/end 1990s
Roundwood Plastics
Bricks & tiles 13% 7%
Crude steel
10% 24%
Aluminum
1%
Glass
Cement
4%
29%
Paper &
board
12%
The fact that plastics are in a comparatively early stage of their product life cycle
explains the particularly high growth rates of plastics production worldwide. For
example, plastics production in the EU grew by 4.4% p.a. between 1985 and 2000,
while the total production of all bulk materials (without roundwood and bricks/tiles)
increased merely by 1.4% p.a. (compare Figure 1-2). High growth is also projected for
the future: According to the IPTS study “Clean technologies in the material sector”,
plastics represent the fastest growing group of bulk materials, with growth rates
outpacing GDP until 2020 and slightly lower rates in the period 2020-2030 (Phylipsen
et al., 2002). In the next three decades plastics are expected to gain important segments
of the glass market and to substitute, to a lesser extent, steel (Phylipsen et al., 2002).
Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI page 1 Final Report

Figure 1-2: Bell-shaped curves representing the shares of bulk materials used in
the EU
60
Percent (%) of total material use in Western Europe ( t/t)
50
40
30
20
10
0
55
58
61
64
67
70
73
76
79
82
85
88
91
94
97
00
03
06
09
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
plastics steel aluminium
glass paper cement
Trend cement Trend crude steel Trend polymers
This graph is limited to the materials given in the legend. Other bulk materials (most importantly wood and bricks/tiles) have not been included due
to lack of data for early years. Data projections until 2030 have been taken from the "Clean Technologies report" (Phylipsen et al, 2002).
The same study comes to the conclusion that the environmental impacts of current
plastics are rather high compared to other materials. This concerns both a comparison in
specific terms (per tonne of material) and in absolute terms for the EU. The study
results are based on the Ecoindicator ‘99 method (Pré Consultants, 2000) which
incorporates the environmental impact categories climate change, summer smog, winter
smog, carcinogenics, acidification/eutrophication, ozone depletion, radiation,
ecotoxicity, land use, minerals depletion and fossil fuel depletion (Phylipsen et al.,
2002). These results indicate that a business-as-usual development in the plastics sector
may be in conflict with the pursuit of sustainable production and consumption. It is a
limitation of the study by Phylipsen et al. (2002) that it does not account in quantiative
terms for the differences in functionality across the materials; for example the amount
of polymers needed for a given packaging task may be lower for polymers than for
paper which may lead to an overall environmental advantage for polymers.1 On the
other hand, the fact that the polymer industry as a whole and the production of the
largest polymer groups leads to rather high environmental impacts in absolute terms
(also compared to other materials) justifies an analysis of options to reduce these
adverse side effects. This approach is in line with the goals formulated in the 6th
Environmental Action Programme of the European Commission, which emphasizes
the need to fight climate change, to protect the environment and human health in
general, and to promote the further “greening” of products and processes. Another
1
It should be kept in mind here that it is practically impossible to account for all differences in
functionality in all applications.
Final Report page 2 Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI

important cornerstone was the EU Report “Environmental Technology for Sustainable

Development” from the Commission to the European Council of Barcelona which led to
the decision that the Commission will develop an Action Plan for promoting clean
technologies, as announced in the Synthesis Report to the European Council. A part of
this plan is the use of clean technologies in the bulk material sector. Given the
importance of plastics among the bulk materials it is not surprising that plastics are
among the materials that are studied in more detail. This report entitled "Techno-
economic feasibility of large-scale production of bio-based polymers in Europe (PRO-
BIP)” is hence intended to support the Institute of Prospective Technological Studies
(IPTS) in developing this Action Plan.
There are several options to reduce the environmental impacts related to polymer
production and use, many of which are also relevant for other bulk materials. Important
strategies are
• increased energy efficiency and material efficiency (yields) in all processes in the
production chain leading to polymers,
• increased end-use material efficiency, i.e., ensuring the same product service by
lower amounts of material (e.g. by use of thinner plastic films),
• improved waste management by recycling of materials, re-use of product
components, energy recovery in waste-to-energy facilities (incineration) and - in the
case of biodegradable polymers – digestion (with energy recovery) and composting,
• replacement of petrochemical feedstocks by bio-based feedstocks.
This study focuses on the latter option which, in principle, offers wide scope for change
since bio-based polymers now account for less than 0.1% of the total production of
polymers in the EU (ECCP, 2001). Bio-based polymers have been attracting more and
more attention in the last few years. While, for example, EU policy on renewable
resources was until recently typically limited to energy supply issues, the use of
renewable raw materials for the production of bio-based materials was taken into
account by the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP, 2001). The goal of the
ECCP, which ran from mid-2000 to mid-2001 was to help identify the most cost-
effective and environmentally beneficial measures enabling the EU to meet its target
under the Kyoto Protocol (UNFCCC, 1997). Bio-based materials – including bio-based
polymers, lubricants, solvents and surfactants – were found to be an interesting option,
albeit with limited emission reduction potentials for the short term (until 2010). It was
also found that bio-based materials offer clearly higher emission reduction potentials in
the longer term, especially by application of novel technologies.
1.2 Looking back
The first man-made polymers were derived from biomass resources (animal bones,
horns and hooves, often modified; celluloid; casein plastics, shellac; Stevens, 2002).
However, they were more and more displaced by petrochemical polymers parallel to the
growth of the petrochemical industry since the 1930s. While the oil price shocks of the
1970s led to renewed interest in the possibilities offered by non-petrochemical
feedstocks, this did little more than temporarily slow the pace of growth in

petrochemical polymers. Since the 1980s and especially in the 1990s, however, a
comeback of bio-based polymers is observable in certain application areas. One of the
main drivers for this development in the last two decades was the goal to provide the
market with polymers that are biodegradable. In principle, biodegradable polymers can
also be manufactured entirely from petrochemical raw materials. But bio-based
polymers, defined here as polymers that are fully or partially produced from renewable
raw materials, have so far played a more important role in the domain of biodegradable
polymers. These developments have also been a stimulus for R&D on bio-based
polymers which are not biodegradable.
In Europe, biodegradable polymers were originally developed and introduced to the

markets for two main reasons. Firstly, the limited volume of landfill capacity became
more and more a threat and secondly, the bad general public image of plastics called
for more environmentally friendly products. While the first issue has largely
disappeared from the top of the public agenda due to the introduction of plastics
recycling schemes and due to newly built incineration plants, the environmental
performance is an important argument for bio-based polymers, including their
biodegradable representatives. Apart from consumer demand for environmentally
friendly polymers ("market-pull"), technological progress ("technology push")
represents a more and more important driver.
For many decades, cellulose polymers played a key role in a wide range of
applications, for example apparel, food (e.g. for sausages) and non-plastics (e.g.
varnishes). In the meantime, these bio-based polymers have lost important markets
mainly to polyolefins. On the other hand, attempts are being made to develop new
cellulose polymer markets in the areas of films, fibres, non-plastics and for natural fibre
composites (N.N., 2002).
Since the 1980s, more and more types of starch polymers have been introduced. To
date, starch polymers are one of the most important groups of commercially available
bio-based materials. At the outset, simple products such as pure thermoplastic starch
and starch/polyolefin blends were introduced. Due to the incomplete biodegradability of
starch/polyolefin blends these products had a negative impact on the public attitude
towards biodegradable polymers and they damaged the image of the companies
involved. It took many years to repair this damage, which was achieved largely by
introduction of more advanced copolymers consisting of thermoplastic starch and
biodegradable petrochemical copolymers.
Widespread R&D activities were conducted to develop cheaper and simpler ways of
producing polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), reaching from production by fermentation
to direct synthesis in crops. While considerable progress was undoubtedly made,
Monsanto terminated their activities in this area in 1999 since the envisioned PHA
yields for the production in crops (e.g. maize) were not reached. Being one of the most
important players in the field at that time, Monsanto's retreat revived principal doubts
about the feasibility and the sensibleness of commercializing large-volume bio-based
polymers (e.g. Gerngross and Slater, 2000). Nevertheless R&D has continued in public
and private organisations.
In the meantime major progress has been made in industrial production of other types of
bio-based polymers. Most importantly, Cargill Dow, a joint venture of Cargill and Dow

started up a plant in Nebraska in 2001 for the manufacture of polylactic acid (PLA)
with a total capacity of 140 kt per year. Apart from being the monomer for PLA, lactic
acid has also the potential to become a new (bio-based) bulk chemical from which a
variety of other chemicals and polymers can be produced (acrylic acid, propylene
glycol, propylene oxide and others).
1.3 Looking ahead
Commercialisation is underway in several other cases. Among the important industrial

players are DuPont, Metabolix, Novamont and Proctor & Gamble. Important milestones
expected for the short to medium term are the large-scale production of bio-based
polytrimethylene terephthalate (PTT) by DuPont and Proctor & Gamble’s initiative
in polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) - a product family, which many experts in the field
had already given up with regard to industrial production. In both cases the production
is based on biotechnology (as also for PLA) which is a key driver for the development
and commercialization of large-scale bio-based processes (“technology-push”). This is
in line with the high expectations linked to biotechnology with regard to its potential
contribution to building a sustainable bio-based economy which combines eco-
efficient bio-processes with renewable bio-resources (OECD, 2002; COM (2002) 27
final, 2002). Another technological driver is the progress in nanotechnology which also
offers new possibilities for bio-based polymers.
Regarding the supply of bio-based resources, the possibility of providing domestic

agriculture with a new source of income could turn out to be an important driver for
the production and use of bio-based materials. Additional impetus could come from the
Newly Associated States (NAS) of the European Union with their vast agricultural and
silvicultural areas and large potential for improvement in agricultural practice. Last but
not least, energy and environmental policy (including climate policy) could
substantially influence the future development of bio-based polymers.
To summarise, bio-based polymers might offer a way forward in satisfying future

material demand while at the same time reducing corresponding negative
environmental impacts and providing income to the agricultural sector. An
additional important impact associated with bio-based polymers is a reduction in
economic risk/uncertainty associated with reliance on petroleum imported from unstable
regions such as the Middle East, Angola, and Venezuela.
In addition to the examples given above there are numerous other developments in
the chemical industry aimed at bringing bio-based polymers to the market. Several
large chemical companies are making considerable efforts to develop, test and launch
bio-based polymers which are targeted not only for niches but also for bulk applications
(see, for example, the website of the BREW project; BREW, 2003). Important activities
are also being undertaken by small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) active in
polymer production and processing. There are several examples of commercialised and
prototype products made from bio-based products giving an indication of the wide
range of possibilities and activities in this field (see Section 2.8.3). As this report will
show in more detail, there are good reasons to assume that bio-based polymers represent
an emerging group of materials. This raises numerous technical, environmental,
economic and political questions.

1.4 Objectives and scope
This study investigates the technical, economic and environmental potential of bio-
based polymers in comparison with petrochemical plastics. The ultimate objective is to
develop projections for bio-based polymers in Europe and to discuss them in terms
of market boundary conditions and environmental impacts.
In the first instance, the geographical scope of the study is the EU 15 plus the
Accession Candidate Countries. In cases where promising technologies or products
developed in the U.S., Japan or elsewhere serve to illustrate further opportunities for the
EU, these are also taken into account. In addition, a global viewpoint will be taken in
addition to the EU perspective in order to obtain a feeling for the dynamics of the sector
as a whole.
The time horizon of this prospective study is the year 20202. The base years chosen for
the analysis are 2000, 2010 and 2020. Relevant historical developments are studied
both for bio-based and for petrochemical polymers.
With regard to the type of products and their production the scope of this study can
be described as follows:
• The focus is on bio-based polymers and not on biodegradable polymers. Bio-based
polymers can be, but are not necessarily, biodegradable. For example, starch
polymers are generally biodegradable while crystalline PLA is virtually
nonbiodegradable. Moreover, several petrochemical (co-)polymers exist that are
biodegradable. Biodegradability is therefore not a selection criterion for inclusion in
this study.
• Neither is the share of biogenic carbon in the product a selection criterion: As a
consequence, both polymers with a high share of embodied biogenous carbon (max.
100%) and polymers with a low share are taken into account. The rationale behind
this decision is that high shares of embodied biogenous carbon may lead to relatively
high polymer prices which limit their market volume and the attendant
environmental benefits. In contrast, allowing polymers with a lower content of
renewable carbon to enter the market without restriction could lead to more cost-
effective solutions (greater environmental benefits at lower cost).
• When biodegradable polymers were introduced in the 1980s, blends of starch with
non-degradable petrochemical polymers were also introduced to the market. Since
this type of product is only partially biodegradable, it led to complaints from the
environmental community and subsequently to a poor public image. As a
consequence these products now play a subordinate role (in the EU). They are
therefore excluded from this study.
• Cellulosic polymers have been on the market for decades but – as a whole – they are
losing market share to petrochemical polymers. Cellulosic polymers are therefore
discussed rather briefly.
2
According to original plans the time horizon for this study was the year 2030. However, in the course
of work the conclusion was drawn that such a long time period would lead to too speculative
statements. The temporal scope was therefore restricted to the period 2000-2020.

• Natural fibres and composites of natural fibres with petrochemical polymers are
not studied in this report since they are generally not included when reference is
made to bio-based polymers. It should, however, be noted that the industrial use of
natural fibres is growing and that first analyses show low environmental impacts
compared to their synthetic counterparts (Patel et al., 2003). This indicates also very
interesting possibilities for combining natural fibres with bio-based polymers. While
this group of composites is, in principle, within the scope of this study only very few
commercialised examples are known (see also Section 2.8.3).
• There are three principal ways to produce bio-based polymers, i.e.
i) to make use of natural polymers which may be modified but remain intact to a
large extent (e.g. starch polymers),
ii) to produce bio-based monomers by fermentation which are then polymerized
(e.g. polylactic acid) and
iii) to produce bio-based polymers directly in microorganisms or in genetically
modified crops.
• While all three pathways have been taken into account in this study, the third
pathway is currently only relevant for PHAs and although commercialisation efforts
are underway, bulk volume applications appear to be still many years off. This study
therefore focuses on the first two pathways of which the latter seems to be gaining
importance.
• The key selection criterion for the bio-based polymers covered by this study is the
proximity to or the realization of commercialization. This means that polymers
and polymer precursors that have been discussed in literature as potential bulk
products but for which there are no evident signs of “take-off” have not been
included in this study (examples are levulinic acid and ethylene from bioethanol).
For their inclusion a very detailed analysis would be required which is beyond the
scope of this study.
• Depending on their materials properties, bio-based polymers can be used for plastics
products (manufactured by extrusion, injection molding, blow molding, vacuum
forming etc.) and for non-plastics such as varnishes, or lubricant additives. Since
only little information is available on non-plastic polymer applications, this report
focuses on bio-based polymers used as plastics.
The environmental assessment is based on information from the open literature with
the consequence that the results might not be fully comparable across the products in
terms of the methodology used. Moreover, information on environmental impacts is not
or only partly available for some products covered by this study (PBT, PBS, PUR, PA).
These problems could only be avoided by conducting original life-cycle assessments for
all products, which is again beyond the scope of this study.
To summarise, the approach taken in this study obviously results in some limitations
which need to be taken into account in the interpretation phase. However, the analyses
presented in the following do allow us to generate a first estimate of economic and
environmental potential of bio-based polymers in comparison with petrochemical
plastics and to derive some conclusions for policy makers.

1.5 Structure of the report
Apart from the introductory chapter (Chapter 1) this report is divided into five chapters,
with each chapter corresponding to a research task as identified in the project
implementation plan.
The main purpose of Chapter 2 is to provide an overview of the technologies for the
production of seven major groups of bio-based polymers, of their properties, the
technical substitution potential, the product prices and the environmental impacts. This
has been achieved by conducting an in-depth literature survey (printed publications,
internet) and by interviewing experts in the field.
The overall goal of Chapter 3 is to develop projections for the production of bio-based
polymers until 2020. As the first step, the influencing factors and boundary conditions
for the future production and use of bio-based polymers are identified and discussed
(Section 3.1). Since prices are key factors for future market development the purpose of
the following sections (3.2 and 3.3) is to prepare projections for the prices of
petrochemical and of bio-based polymers. In Section 3.2, regression analyses for three
petrochemical bulk polymers are performed in order to distinguish the contribution of
technological learning, the scale of production and the oil price on the historical
development of polymer prices. This insight is firstly used to project future prices of
petrochemical polymers for various scenarios (oil price, polymer production). Secondly,
in Section 3.3, the relationships found are translated to bio-based polymers and the
prices of these materials are projected. Using the results of Section 3.2 and 3.3, market
projections for both groups of polymers are presented in Section 3.4. Various scenarios
are distinguished, in order to reflect different trajectories for economic growth, fossil
fuel prices, crop prices and policy conditions.
In Chapter 4 the environmental effects related to the wider use of bio-based polymers
are assessed for the projections developed in Chapter 3. Two aspects are studied.
Firstly, the impacts on the use of fossil fuels on land use and on greenhouse gas
emissions (GHG) are assessed; particular attention is paid to the enlargement of the
European Union and the accompanying changes in the European agricultural sector.
Secondly, the question of whether the avoidance of environmental impacts due to the
introduction of bio-based polymers can compensate (or even over-compensate) for the
additional environmental impacts caused by expected high growth of petrochemical
plastics is analyzed.
Chapter 5 finally discusses the question to which extent the diffusion of bio-based
polymer technologies in industry can be stimulated through policy measures at EU
level. Suitable policy measures are discussed and their effects analysed.

2. Existing and emerging technologies for bio-based

polymers in bulk chemical applications
This chapter discusses seven emerging groups of bio-based polymers. For each of
these, an overview is given of current production technologies, of their properties, the
technical substitution potential, the production cost and the environmental impacts. The
order followed in this chapter roughly represents the current importance of each group
of bio-based polymers in terms of production volumes in Europe (see Tables 2-1 and 2-
2). Starch polymers and polylactic acid (PLA) are now clearly the most important types
of polymers. Starch polymers have been the frontrunners in the bio-based polymer
business, but could be surpassed in Europe rather soon (in terms of production). At the
global level, PLA might be about to overtake starch polymers due to Cargill Dow’s
large-scale plant. Some of the other bio-based polymers that are not yet manufactured
commercially are rather close to industrial production (PTT and PHA respectively).
Other bio-based polymers listed in Table 2-1 are already produced commercially but
they serve niche markets and therefore are produced only at very low levels (PUR; see
also Table 2-2). The remaining polymers have been or are being discussed but it is often
unclear how far from commercialization they might be; it should be noted that there
may be further bio-based polymers belonging to these groups which, however, were
deemed to be less important.
As shown in Table 2-1, the seven groups of bio-based polymers belong to four types of
polymers, namely polysaccharides, polyesters, polyurethanes and polyamides.
• The polysaccharides covered generally represent modified natural polymers (see
Table 2-1). Bacterial cellulose, which is a novel production process, is an exception
since it is produced in a natural or genetically modified organism.
• In the case of the polyesters, the monomer (which may be an alcohol or an acid) is
generally produced by fermentation from a renewable feedstock. The polyester may
be composed of only one type of monomer. Wherever this is not the case, the
copolymer is a petrochemical product for the products given in Table 2-1.
Polyhydroxyalkanoates represent a special case since they can be either produced by
fermentation or in a (genetically modified) crop, e.g. potatoes.
• In the case of polyurethanes, the polyols used are bio-based while the isocyanate
component is synthesized by petrochemical processes.
• The three representatives of the fourth group, i.e. polyamides, are produced by
fermentation or by conventional chemical transformation of a crop-derived feedstock
(depending on the type).
Bio-based polymers that are not covered in this study are chitin (a polysaccharide;
mainly produced from shellfish waste), proteins (such as collagen, casein and zein; the
latter two are mainly used for non-plastic applications), amino acids (e.g. polyaspartic
acid; mainly used for non-plastics) and natural fibres (Stevens, 2002; Hüsing et al.,
2003). The potential volumes of these products are considered too small to be included
in this study.

Table 2-1: Overview of currently most important groups and types of bio-based
polymers
N Type of
Bio-based polymer (group) Structure/Production method
o. polymer
1. Starch polymers Polysaccharides Modified natural polymer
2. Polylactic acid (PLA) Polyester Bio-based monomer (lactic acid) by

fermentation, followed by
polymerisation
3. Other polyesters from bio-based Polyester

intermediates
Bio-based 1,3-propanediol by fermen-

a) Polytrimethyleneterephthalate (PTT) tation plus petrochemical terephthalic
acid (or DMT)
b) Polybutyleneterephthalate (PBT) Bio-based 1,4-butanediol by fermen-

tation plus petrochemical terephthalic
acid
c) Polybutylene succinate (PBS) Bio-based succinic acid by

fermentation plus petrochemical
terephthalic acid (or DMT)
4. Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) Polyester Direct production of polymer by fer-

mentation or in a crop (usually genetic
engineering in both cases)
5. Polyurethanes Polyurethanes Bio-based polyol by fermentation or

chemical purification plus petro-
(PURs) chemical isocyanate
6. Nylon Polyamide
a) Nylon 6 Bio-based caprolactam by

fermentation
b) Nylon 66 Bio-based adipic acid by fermentation
c) Nylon 69 Bio-based monomer obtained from a

conventional chemical transformation
from oleic acid via azelaic (di)acid;
7. Cellulose polymers Polysaccharides a) Modified natural polymer

b) Bacterial cellulose by fermentation

Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI
Table 2-2: Current and potential large volume producers of bio-based polymers

Producer Region Polymer type and trade name(s) 2002 2003 2010 2002 2003 2010 2003 2010
Production Capacity Capacity Production Capacity Capacity Price Price
(kt p.a.) (kt p.a.) (kt p.a.) (kt p.a.) (kt p.a.) (kt p.a.) (/kg) (/kg)
EU-15 EU-15 EU-15 global global global global global
Starch polymersc 30 62 (200-250) 30 (77-200) (200-300) (€3.00)k
Novamont, Italy EU Mater-Bi® 253,e 203 >20 253,e 353,f >20 €1.50-€4.503,h
Rodenburg, Netherlands EU Solanyl® 3 (0-7)10,o 4010 40 3 (0-7)10,o 4010 40 €1.0010
National Starch and Chem., US Ecofoam® (20)9,g (20) (>20)
U.S.
Chinese company Asia Thermoplastic starch (100)6,I (100) €0.606
BIOP, Germany EU BIOpar® (10 in 2004)20 15020 10 (~2004)20 15020
Biotec, Germany EU Bioplast® TPS 26 26 26 26
®
Japan Corn Starch, Japan Asia Cornpol
Nihon Shokuhin Kako, Japan Asia Placorn®
Potatopak, Avebe, Earthshell Baked starch derivatives
Polylactic acid (PLA) 1 250-500 30 143.5 530-1150 (€3.00) €1.50
Cargill Dow LLC, U.S. US Natureworks® (Mitsui Lacea® in Japan) 150-25012 3024 14012 280-50012 €2.20-€3.4012,j €1.3512
13
Hycail, Netherlands EU Hycail HM, Hycail LM 1 100-25013 113 100-25013 €1.8013
page 11
Toyota, Japan Asia (Toyota Eco-Plastic) 50 (in 2004)15 150-40012

Project in China Asia Conducted by Snamprogetti, Italy 2.5 (mid 2003)16
Other potential BB-polyesters (currently petrochemical-based) 3-44 (€2.00-€5.00)
In near future
Dupont US Poly(trimethylene terephthalate) PTT SoronaTM 10 (in 2004)17,q (41)17 (€2.30)
Mitsubishi Chemical, Japan Asia Poly(butylene succinate) (3 by 2006)22 3 (€5.006)
No clear time frame
Showa HighPolymer, Japan Asia Poly(butylene succinate) Bionolle 1000® and (3, €3.506 €3.006
Poly(butylene succinate adipate) Bionolle 3000® (6 in 2004)22
Poly(butylene terephthalate) PBT €2.177
Dupont, Japan Asia Poly(butylenesuccinate terephthalate) Biomax® (1-56) (906,m) €2.00l
Eastman, Japan Asia Poly(butylenesuccinate terephthalate) (1522) (€2.00l)
EastarBio®
BASF, Japan Asia Poly(butyleneadipate terephthalate) Ecoflex® (822, 30 in 2004) (€2.00l)
Polyhydroxyalkanoates
PHAs)
PHA homopolymers €20.004 (€2.00-
€3.00)
Final Report
Metabolix, U.S. US P(3HB), P(3HO) €2.206

Biomer, Germany EU P(3HB) Biomer® (0.05)p (0.05)p (0.05)p (0.05)p €20.004 €3.00-€5.004
Mitsubishi Gas, Japan Asia P(3HB) Biogreen®
PHA copolymers 0.05 1.4 30-60 €10.00-€12.00 €2.50-€3.00
Final Report
Producer Region Polymer type and trade name(s) 2002 2003 2010 2002 2003 2010 2003 2010

Production Capacity Capacity Production Capacity Capacity Price Price
(kt p.a.) (kt p.a.) (kt p.a.) (kt p.a.) (kt p.a.) (kt p.a.) (/kg) (/kg)
EU-15 EU-15 EU-15 global global global global global
Metabolix, U.S. US P(3HB-co-3HV) Biopol® (0.05)p 1.15,b not known (€10.00-12.00)14 €3.00-
€5.0014
P&G, U.S. (& Kaneka, Japan) US/Asia P(3HB-co-3HHx) Nodax® 0.000511 0.2511 20-506 €2.506
PHB Industrial, Brazil S.Am P(3HB-co-3HV)a 0.058 0.058 10 (in 2006)8
BB-polyurethanes (PUR) (€2.30)
Metzeler-Schaum, Germany EU PUR from bio-based polyol (€2.27)7,n
BB-polyamides (PA) (€2.75)
No commercialised products (€2.74)7,n
Cellulosic polymers
Plant cellulose-based Tot vol (4000)19,r, not included in summations (4000)19,r (4000)19,r (€3.30)
Lenzing EU Regen cellulose Lyocell® (€3.36)7,n
Accordis EU Regen cellulose Tencell® (€3.36)7,n
Eastman US Cellulose acetate Tenite® (€3.31)7,n
IFA EU Cellulose acetate Fasal® (€3.31)7
Mazzucchelli EU Cellulose acetate Bioceta® (€3.31)7
UCB EU Cellulose acetate Natureflex® (€3.31)7
Bacterial cellulose (€20)
page 12
Weyerhauser, US US Bacterial Cellulose Cellulon® negl. negl. negl. negl. (€20)21

Ajinimoto, Japan Asia Bacterial Cellulose negl. negl. negl. negl. (€20)21
Mixed, other
Borregard, Germany EU Lignin-based Lignopol®
2B Biorefineries, Switzerland EU Cellulose-based 2B Gratec®
Total bio-based polymers (from this table) 30 63 450-750 60 222 760-1560
(other estimates/projections) 6002 2262 500-10001
Total polymers 47,65023 (56,900)23,d 53,0001 187,00018 (230,000)18,d (260,000)23,24
Refs: 1ECCP (2001); 2Windels (2003).- IBAW data.; 3Novamont (2003b); 4Biomer (2003b); 5Metabolix (2003); 6Showa HP (2003), 7PlasticsNews (2003); 8PHB (2003); 9Gross and Kalra (2002); 10Rodenburg (2003);
11
P&G (2003); 12Cargill Dow (2003); 13Hycail (2003); 14Petersen et al. (1999); 15TMC (2003a); 16ENI (2001); 17Genencor (2003); 18VKE (2003), 19UNICI (2002); 20BIOP (2003); 21Weber (2000); 22Nandini (2003);
23
APME (2003); 24own est.
a k
Also producing some P(3HB). Novamont average (upper value of range) taken as rough estimate of category average.
b l
Based on 50,000L fermentor, batch time 40 h, yield (assumed) 100 g/L. Based on CEH estimates.
c m
Includes blends with biodegradable synthetics such as PCL, PVOH. includes PET production; no separate figure available.
d n
Capacity 2003 = projected production 2003/(load factor 0.85) Upper price in range “category II - annual volumes 2 to 5 million pounds”.
e o
In-house production 2002 ~12 kt.p.a.; licensed production elsewhere (assumed outside EU) ~13 kt.p.a. Exception: current production volume is an estimate since no figures have been released;
f
Capacity 2003 ~20 kt.p.a.; licensed production elsewhere (assumed outside EU) ~15 kt.p.a. real value lies between 0 and 7 kt.p.a., the latter being the capacity of the pilot plant.
g p
Not known if this figure is included in Novamont licensed production. Assume typical scale-up is 20x pilot plant; take current production = est. pilot plant
h
Lower price foams, upper price films & specialty, average price (weighted) is estimated to be in the range of €2.50-€3.00. capacity
i q
Estimate, could not be verified. Initial capacity 10.8 kt.p.a.; capability to expand to 45 kt.p.a.
j r
Lower price for large volume sales, upper price for samples/small quantities. 1985 data – latest available.
2.1 Starch polymers
The frontrunners of the renaissance of bio-based polymers in the market today are those
based on starch. A starch polymer is a thermoplastic material resulting from the
processing of native starch by chemical, thermal and/or mechanical means. Starch
polymers are biodegradable and incinerable and can be fabricated into finished products
such as mulch film and loose fills through existing technology. Because of their
relatively low cost, polymers based on starch are an attractive alternative to polymers
based on petrochemicals. When starch is complexed with other co-polymers, the result
can vary from a plastic as flexible as polyethylene to one as rigid as polystyrene.
Starch is the major storage carbohydrate (polysaccharide) in higher plants and is

available in abundance surpassed only by cellulose as a naturally occurring organic
compound. It is composed of a mixture of two polymers, an essentially linear
polysaccharide – amylose (Figure 2-1) and a highly branched polysaccharide –
amylopectin (Figure 2-2) . The building block for both consituent polymers of starch is
the glucose monomer. A starch chain is typically made up of between 500 and 2000
glucose units linked in the 1,4 carbon positions (Nolan-ITU, 2002). The level of
amylopectin (typically 70%) varies between different starch types, as does the level of
amylose (Hedley, 2002).
Figure 2-1: A section of the amylose molecule showing the repeating

anhydroglucose unit.
HOCH2 HOCH2 HOCH2

O O O
H H H
H H
O O
HO OH
OH H OH H OH H
H OH H OH H OH
n
Figure 2-2: A section of the amylopectin molecule showing the two different
types of chain linkages.
HOCH2
O
H
Side chain
OH H O
H OH
HOCH2 HOCH2 HOCH2

O O O
H H H
Main chain O O
OH H OH H OH H
H OH H OH H OH

Starch is unique among carbohydrates because it occurs naturally as discrete granules.

This is because the short branched amylopectin chains are able to form helical structures
which crystallise (UC, 2003). Starch granules exhibit hydrophilic properties and strong
inter-molecular association via hydrogen bonding due to the hydroxyl groups on the
granule surface. The melting point of native starch is higher than the thermal
decomposition temperature; hence the poor thermal processability of native starch and
the need for conversion to a starch polymer which has a much improved property
profile.
Commercialised during the last few years, starch polymers today dominate the bio-
based polymer market. In 2002, about 30,000 metric tonnes per year were produced and
the market share of these products was about 75-80% of the global market for bio-based
polymers (Degli Innocenti and Bastioli, 2002). 75% of starch polymers are used for
packaging applications, including soluble films for industrial packaging, films for bags
and sacks, and loose fill. Leading producers with well established products in the
market include Novamont, National Starch, Biotec and Rodenburg.
The starch crops used include corn, wheat, potato, tapioca and rice. Currently, the
predominant raw material for the production of starch polymers (as used by Novamont)
is corn. Other sources of starch are also being utilised where price and availability
permit. Examples include the use of potato starch by BIOP Biopolymer Technologies in
Germany and a process based on a potato starch waste stream at Rodenburg
Biopolymers in the Netherlands.
Today, co-polymers used for blending or complexing may consititute up to 50% of the
total mass of the starch polymer product (Novamont, 2003b). These co-polymers are
generally derived from fossil feedstocks. It is envisaged by Novamont that by 2020 it
will be possible to produce a polymer based 100% on starch having a similar property
profile as these blends of thermoplastic starch and petrochemical copolymers. It is
expected that this will be achieved by the development of more efficient chemical and
biological starch modification processes (Novamont, 2003b).
The genetic modification (GM) of plants to alter the nature of starch, e.g. the
amylopectin potato developed in the mid-1990s by Avebe (Oeko-Institut, 2001) is
another possible pathway. However, starch polymer producers in the EU are currently
employing a GM-free feedstock policy due to ongoing debate and adverse public
opinion relating to GM crops.
2.1.1 Production of starch polymers
Figure 2-3 illustrates the main proprietary technologies and processing steps leading to
commercial starch polymer products as found in literature and obtained from private
communications with producers. Figure 2-3 is necessarily open to interpretation; e.g.
the addition of chemicals leading to alteration of the structure of starch is described
variously as ‘chemical modification’ when the starch is in its native form and as
‘reactive blending’ and ‘blending’ when the starch is thermoplastic.
With reference to Figure 2-3, we may distinguish between three main groups of starch
polymers emerging from the primary processing step, namely: Partially Fermented
Starch Polymers; Pure Starch Polymers and Modified Starch Polymers.

In the production of Partially Fermented Starch Polymers (a term used here to refer
specifically to the product manufactured by Rodenburg Biopolymers) (Rodenburg,
2003), the raw material is potato waste slurry originating from the food industry. This
slurry mainly consists of starch (72% of the dry matter, DM), with the remainder being
proteins (12%DM), fats and oils (3%DM), inorganic components (10%DM) and cellulose
(3%DM). The slurry is held in storage silos for about two weeks to allow for stabilisation
and partial fermentation. The most important fermentation process occurring is the
conversion of a (smaller) part of the starch to lactic acid (via glucose) by means of lactic
acid bacteria that are naturally present in the feedstock. The product is subsequently
dried (10% final water content) and extruded (described below) to obtain thermoplastic
properties. To improve the product properties, palm oil and additives such as titanium
dioxide (TiO2) and calcium carbonate (CaCO3) are added in the extrusion step. Finally
the material is stabilised by another drying step.
The production of other types of starch polymers begins with the extraction of starch.
Taking the example of corn (maize), starch is extracted from the kernel by wet milling.
The kernel is first softened by steeping it in a dilute acid solution, coarse ground to split
the kernel and remove the oil-containing germ. Finer milling separates the fibre from
the endosperm which is then centrifuged to separate the less dense protein from the
more dense starch. The starch slurry is then washed in a centrifuge, dewatered and dried
prior to extrusion or granulation (National Starch and Chemical Company, 2003).
Either prior or subsequent to the drying step, and often at a separate location to the
starch production plant, the starch may be processed in a number of ways to improve its
properties. Modified starch is starch which has been treated with chemicals so that
some hydroxyl groups have been replaced by e.g. ester or ether groups. High starch
content plastics are highly hydrophilic and readily disintegrate on contact with water.
Very low levels of chemical modification can significantly reduce hydrophilicity, as
well as change other rheological, physical, and chemical properties of starch.
Crosslinking, in which two hydroxyl groups on neighbouring starch molecules are
linked chemically is also a form of chemical modification. Crosslinking inhibits granule
swelling on gelatinization and gives increased stability to acid, heat treatment, and shear
forces (Foodstarch, 2003). Chemically modified starch may be used directly in
pelletised or otherwise dried form for conversion to a final product.
Pure Starch Polymers are those materials which are not altered (in the primary
processing step, see Figure 2-3) by fermentation or chemical treatment. As for the
Rodenburg (partially fermented starch) material, these polymers are always subject to
further processing by extrusion and/or blending to obtain a thermoplastic material.

Figure 2-3: Starch polymer production technologies
Starch crop
Primary application
(food/feed industry) Wet milling
Starch waste slurry Starch slurry
Crosslinking,
esterification,
PRIMARY fermentation etherification, Chemical modification
PROCESSING
PARTIALLY FERMENTED STARCH PURE STARCH MODIFIED STARCH
Washing, dewatering, first drying
+ plasticiser e.g. water, glycerol, + copolymers e.g.

SECONDARY polyether, urea Reactive blending PCL, PVOH,
Extrusion
PROCESSING + compatabilisers (extrusion + blending) Other bio-based
+ other additives e.g. bleaching, polymers
colouring agents
Destructurised starch®; TPS®;

other thermoplastic starch
+ copolymers e.g.
PCL, PVOH, Blending
Other bio-based
polymers Complexed starch®
Baking Final drying and pelletising
Baked starch Pellets for conversion by:

Film blowing, thermoforming injection moulding, Nanoparticle starch fillers
foaming, extrusion coating, sheet extrusion. for tyres.
After the first drying step (Figure 2-3), a secondary processing stage may be identified.
This is the stage during which starch is converted to a thermoplastic material either by
extrusion only, by sequential steps of extrusion and blending, or by a combined
extrusion/blending step. The first group of materials emerging from the secondary
processing stage – thermoplastic pure starch polymers, e.g. TPS from Biotec - are of
somewhat limited usefulness due to the hydrophilicity and mechanical properties of
pure thermoplastic starch. The second group thermoplastic starch blends – complexed
starch - is most widespread and is produced by a few companies (e.g. Novamont) based
on a variety of patents. The third group, products of reactive blending, is listed
separately but it is not known if this technology is used commercially.
Starch may be extruded with a plasticiser in a single or twin screw extruder to produce
a thermoplastic material with greatly enhanced processability compared to granular
starch. The increase in temperature during extrusion increases the mobility of starch
granules and leads to melting of the crystalline structures. The granules swell and take
up the plasticiser, shear opens the granule, the starch dissolves and fragments, and
intramolecular rearrangement takes place (Hood, 2003). Compounders (fillers, additives
etc.) can be integrated into the extrusion process to provide the final resin product in one
step. During the extrusion process, plasticisers such as glycerol, polyethers and urea
may be added to reduce the intermolecular hydrogen bonds and to stabilize product
properties. By lowering the water activity, plasticisers also limit microbial growth
(Weber, 2002).

Blending, meaning the addition of other polymers to thermoplastic starch, may take
place during extrusion (‘reactive blending’) or after extrusion. To illustrate: a
technology has been developed for blending of starch with poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL)
by sequential extrusion steps (SINAS, 2003): ε-caprolactone is polymerised, the
resulting polymer is reactively blended with thermoplastic starch, then in a third
extrusion step, compatabilisers are added to obtain plastic starch dispersed in a
continuous PCL matrix phase. The properties of the resulting film are comparable to
low density polyethylene film (LDPE) and better than pure PCL film.
Another important use of blending is to formulate soluble polymers. Starch blended

with poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVOH) exhibits water solubility in approximately 3 minutes
and is typically used to produce loose fills (Nolan-ITU, 2002).
Novamont, the major producer of starch polymers, has patented certain aspects of starch
extrusion technology. Destructured starch is formed during the extrusion process
under certain conditions of temperature, pressure, shear, limited water and sufficient
time such that the native crystallinity and granular structure of amylase & amylopectin
are almost completely destroyed. The resulting material is called a "molecular
dispersion of starch and water" (MDS) (Degli Innocenti and Bastioli, 2002). MDS
products are molecularly homogeneous (with both amylose and amylopectin dispersed
uniformly throughout the material), have no native crystallinity and essentially no
granular structure, have relatively high molecular-weight amylopectin, are not brittle or
friable and have superior mechanical properties. Complexed starch is formed when
destructurised starch is blended with certain macromolecules (e.g. PCL) which are able
to form a complex with amylose. The complexing agent forms a single helix with
amylose, while the amylopectin does not interact and remains in its amorphous state.
The starch ‘supramolecules’ are specified by the ratio of amylose to amylopectin, the
nature of additives, processing conditions and the nature of complexing agents (Degli
Innocenti and Bastioli, 2002).
Conversion technologies
Starch polymers can be converted into finished product on slightly modified standard
thermoplastic resins machinery. Conversion technologies in use include film blowing,
extrusion, thermoforming, injection moulding and foaming. Novamont is also looking
into extrusion coating of fibres and diapers and sheet extrusion (Novamont, 2003).
Apart from other applications, complexed starch is used as a biopolymeric filler to
substitute partially carbon black in tyres (between 5-10 % w/w; replacing carbon black
and silica: 10-20% w/w). This technology has been jointly developed by Goodyear and
Novamont and it is being applied by Goodyear for the production of a certain type of
tyre (see Chapter 2.1.4).
2.1.2 Properties
The majority of starch polymers are produced via extrusion and blending of pure or
modified starch (see Figure 2-3). The chemical, mechanical and thermal properties of a
number of these are given in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3: Properties of starch polymers
Starch (>85%)/ Starch/ Starch/ Starch/ Modified

co-polyester PCL cellulose acetate cellulose acetate Starch
Mater-Bi® Mater-Bi® Mater-Bi® Bioplast® Cornpol®3
NF01U1,4 ZF03U/A1 Y101U1 GF105/302
Physical properties
Melt flow rate
2-8b 5-9 5-6
(g/10 min)
Density (g/cm3) 1.3 1.23 1.35 1.21 1.2
Transparency (%)
Mechanical
properties
Tensile strength at
25 31 26 44, 38a 30
yield (MPa)
Elongation at yield
600 900 27 400, 500a 600-900
(%)
Flexular Modulus
120 180 1700 10-30
(MPa)
Thermal properties
HDT (°C) 85-105
VICAT Softening
65 105-125
point (°C)
Melting Point (°C) 110 64
1 4
Gross and Kalra (2002): Basitoli (2003)
a
2 Biotec (2003); MD, TD respectively;
3 b
Japan Corn Starch (2003); unspecified grade of Mater-Bi for film.
Chemical and physical properties

Starch polymers are partially crystalline but much less so than cellulosics. The density
of starch polymers is higher than most conventional thermoplastics and also higher than
most bio-based polymers, decreasing its price competitiveness on a volume basis.
Thermoplastic starch and starch blend films have reasonable transparency. Starch
polymers have low resistance to solvents and oil (Petersen et al. 1999) although this
may be considerably improved by blending e.g. with PCL.
Mechanical and thermal properties

The mechanical properties of starch polymers are in general inferior to petrochemical
polymers. Starch polymers are reasonably easy to process but are vulnerable to
degradation. In starch blends, the glass transition point generally decreases
(corresponding to increasing softness) with increasing content and/or chain length of the
polyester component.
Other Properties
The range of possible applications for starch polymers is restricted by their sensitivity to
moisture and water contact and high water vapour permeability. Other barrier properties
(oxygen and carbon dioxide) are moderate to good. Starch polymers are biodegradable;
although too high a copolymer content can adversely affect biodegradability due to the
complex interaction of starch and polyester at the molecular level (Degli Innocenti and
Bastioli, 2002). Starch polymers are intrinsically antistatic.

2.1.3 Technical substitution potential
Modified Starch Polymers

The potential for starch polymers (mainly: Modified Starch Polymers) to substitute for
other polymers, as indicated in Table 2-4, is seen to be greatest for the polyolefins,
namely low density polyethylene (LDPE), high density polyethylene (HDPE) and
polypropylene (PP). Blends of thermoplastic starch with synthetic polyesters in
particular come closest to achieving the mechanical properties of LDPE and HDPE, as
well as polystyrene (PS).
Table 2-4: Technical substitution potential for starch polymers (Modified

Starch Polymers)
++ full substitution + partial substitution - no substitution
PVC PE- PE- PP PS PM- PA PET PBT PC POM PUR ABS non-
HD LD MA poly
Novamont1 (-) + + + + (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) + (-) +
2
Japan
Corn + + + + + - - - - - - - + -
Starch1
1
Novamont (2003b),
2
Japan Corn Starch (2003).
Good mechanical performance and the ability to resist static cling, combined with
biodegradability and water solubility, have enabled starch loose fill for packaging,
which is a blend of TPS and PVOH to successfully compete for a number of years
already with expanded polystyrene (EPS) products (USDA, 1996). In the production of
foams and soluble items there is further potential for substitution for EPS, polyurethane
(PUR) and paper (Novamont, 2003b). Another established and growing area for
substitution is the use of starch as a filler for automobile tyres (Novamont, 2003b; see
below).
Partially Fermented Starch Polymers

Partially Fermented Starch Polymers have so far been used mainly for less demanding
applications (in terms of mechanical properties, appearance etc.) for which virgin
polymers are not necessarily required.
2.1.4 Applications today and tomorrow

As shown in Table 2-5, packaging is now the dominant application area for Modified
Starch Polymers, amounting to 75% of the total market share for starch polymers.
Starch-PCL blends are used in applications including biodegradable film for lawn and
leaf collection compost bags. They are also used to laminate paper, cardboard and
cotton and other natural fibres. Starch blends are also used for packaging films,

shopping bags, strings, straws, tableware, tapes, technical films, trays and wrap film
(Biotec, 2003). The relatively high water vapour permeability of starch polymers is
useful in applications such as fog-free packaging of warm foodstuffs.
Applications in the agricultural sector include starch-PCL blends for agricultural

mulch film, planters, and planting pots. Further novel applications include materials for
encapsulation and slow release of active agents such as agrochemicals (Degli Innocenti
and Bastioli, 2002).
Other small-volume or emerging applications include starch-PVOH blends for diaper

backsheets, soluble cotton swabs and soluble loose fillers. Other starch blends are used
for cups, cutlery, edge protectors, golf tees, mantling for candles and nets.
In the transportation sector, Goodyear has been using the starch Mater-Bi filler
BioTRED since 2001 in its GT3 tyre (sold as EcoTyre). Starch filler is also used in tyres
for the Ford Fiesta in Europe and in BMWs (Degli Innocenti and Bastioli, 2002).
Benefits include lower rolling resistance, noise reduction, reduced fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions, and reduced manufacturing energy requirements (Ilcorn, 2003). There is
very high potential for further growth of starch polymers in this application (Novamont,
2003b). Based on a variety of sources we have estimated the amount of carbon black
used as filler in tyres to lie in the order of magnitude of 1 million tonnes in the EU
(between 0.5 and >1.2 million tonnes). In the case of 20% (50% seems also technically
possible) weight replacement of carbon black by starch polymers its total market
potential would be in the order of 0.5 million tonnes starch polymers. Hence, for
example a 50% penetration rate by 2020, would translate into 250 kt of starch polymers
for this purpose.
Table 2-5: Main applications for starch polymers – share of interviewed

company’s1 total production by market sector (scope: EU 15;
without starch as filler)
% of total production % of total production

Sector
today in 20202
Packaging 75 % N/A
Building 0% N/A
Agriculture 25 % N/A
Transportation ?% N/A
Furniture 0% N/A
Electrical appliances and electronics (E&E) 0% N/A
Houseware 0% N/A
Others 0% N/A
Total 100 % 100%
1
Novamont (2003);
2
Data not available(N/A) for 2020.


Rodenburg’s material Solanyl is currently used practically exclusively in injection
moulding. Apart from the production of flower pots it is used for packaging and
transport (e.g. CD covers) and for certain leisure articles that make use of the feature of
biodegradability (e.g., golf pins).
2.1.5 Current and emerging producers
Novamont S.p.A., located in Novara, Italy, is the leading European company and
pioneer in the field of bio-based polymers and now works in starch polymers.
Novamont started its research in the area of starch materials in 1989 as part of the
chemical group Montedison. Novamont’s objective was to develop materials from
natural sources, with in-use performances similar to those of conventional plastics and
compostability similar to pure cellulose.
In 1996 Novamont was acquired by Banca Commerciale Italiana and Investitori

Associati II. From 1994 to 1997 Novamont increased its turnover by factor of more than
5, reaching actual sales of approximately USD 10 million. In 1997 a new production
line was added, doubling production capacity of Mater-Bi® from 4,000 t p.a. to 8,000 t
p.a. More recently a new 12,000 t p.a. line was added, bringing total on-site production
capacity to 20,000 t.p.a. An additional 15,000 t.p.a. (mostly loose fills) is produced off-
site under license agreements for which Novamont shares the technology license
agreement with the National Starch and Chemical Company. Novamont’s direct sales
in 2002 amounted to €25 million and it is expected that sales will increase to €30
million in 2003 (Novamont, 2003b).
Novamont has invested in total more than €75 million in R&D and technology
(Novamont, 2002). It holds more than 60 patents relating to starch materials
technologies, particularly in the area of complexing of starch with synthetic and natural
polymers and additives. Its patent portfolio also covers destructurised starch
technologies developed by Warner Lambert and acquired by Novamont in 1997.
Novamont also acquired the film technology of Biotec in 2001, including an exclusive
license of Biotec’s patents on thermoplastic starch in the films sector (Degli Innocenti,
2002).
The German company Biotec produces about 2000 t.p.a. of thermoplastic starch resins
and owns a large number of patents for extrusion technologies, blending and modifying
of thermoplastic processable starch (TPS). Biotec has pilot scale facilities for blown
film extrusion, sheet extrusion, thermoforming and injection molding, and production
lines for compounding, granulating and mixing. It produces a range of plasticiser-free
thermoplastics under the brand-name Bioplast®, and a pure thermoplastic starch,
Bioplast® TPS (Biotec, 2003).
BIOP Biopolymer Technologies in Dresden, Germany, manufactures a pure granulate

and blends from potato starch under the trade name BIOPar®. It has commissioned a
10,000 t.p.a. production facility and is targeting scale-up to 150,000 t.p.a. between the
end of 2004 and 2006 (BIOP, 2003).

Potatopak, a UK company, manufactures starch derivative replacement products for

polystyrene and various plastic packaging items (Potatopak, 2003). Avebe and
Earthshell manufactures a product containing limestone, starch and cellulose fibre
using similar starch baking technology.
In Japan, Japan Corn Starch produces a modified starch under the brand name
Cornpol®. The company is involved in basic R&D as well as pilot/demonstration
projects. The interviewed representative was not at liberty to disclose any
commercialisation plans, nor the target production scale (Japan Corn Starch, 2003).
Also in Japan, Nihon Shokuhin Kako produces a starch synthetic with the name
Placorn® - again, no production volume data could be obtained. According to Japan’s
Biodegradable Plastic Society, starch polymers, including Mater-Bi imported from
Novamont, currently comprise about 30% of the total consumption of biodegradable
plastics in Japan, i.e. 3 kt of a total 10 kt in 2002.
Rodenburg Biopolymers is to its knowledge the only manufacturer of Partially

Fermented Starch Polymers. The company is located in Oosterhout, the Netherlands,
and produces as their sole product Solanyl®, an extruded granule of thermoplastic potato
starch. Rodenburg’s aim is to profitably utilize potato by-products by converting them
into polymers. Research began in 1997 and by 2001 a 7000 t.p.a. pilot plant was in use.
A 40,000 t.p.a. plant is currently being brought on line. At full capacity, Rodenburg will
be the world’s largest producer of starch polymer in tonnage terms. The company is
targeting applications where biodegradability is a key requirement, as for example in
plastics goods for the horticultural industry. At €1 per kg, Solanyl® is price-competitive
with conventional oil-based plastics. For most applications it is, however, blended with
synthetic or bio-based polyesters (to reduce hydrophilicity and improve processability;
INFORRM, 2003) which increases the total cost per kg of polymer blend.
2.1.6 Expected developments in cost structure and selling price
Selling price
The current price for Modified Starch Polymers ranges from €1.50 per kg for injection
moulding foams to €4.50 per kg for films and specialty products; an averaged price is
around €2.50-3.00 per kg (Novamont, 2003b). Rodenburg’s Partially Fermented Starch
Polymer “Solanyl” is sold at a price of €1.00 per kg (Rodenburg, 2003).
Cost structure
The cost of starch in Europe is twice as high as in the US. According to Bastioli (2003),
the cost of native starch is not a driver. The main cost component is rather the
modification of starch (complexing, destructurising), an area in which there is
considerable potential for improvement.
Expected price developments

The price is expected to follow the cost of modification of starch; thus there is also
considerable scope for the price to decrease in the future.

2.1.7 Environmental impacts

For starch polymers, Dinkel et al. (1996), Würdinger et al. (2001), Estermann et al.
(2000) and Patel et al. (1999) conducted environmental assessments for pellets (i.e.,
primary plastics) and/or for end products, especially films, bags and loose-fill packaging
material. Table 2-6 compares starch polymer pellets with different shares of
petrochemical copolymers. Information about the composition of the blends was
provided by starch polymer manufacturers (Novamont, Biotec). It was assumed that
both the starch polymers and polyethylene are burned in municipal solid waste
incineration (MSWI) plants after their useful life. No credits have been assigned to
steam and/or electricity generated in waste-to-energy facilities. According to Table 2-6
starch polymers offer saving potentials relative to polyethylene in the range of 24-52
GJ/t plastic and 1.2-3.7 t CO2/t plastic depending on the share of petrochemical co-
polymers3. These values are confirmed by the other studies mentioned above (for details
see Appendix 3 in Chapter 8). These other studies show similarly broad ranges which
are caused not only by different starch/copolymer blends but also different waste
treatment and different polyolefin materials used as reference (Appendix 3). For starch
polymer pellets energy requirements are mostly 25%-75% below those for
polyethylene (PE) and greenhouse gas emissions are 20%-80% lower. Except for
eutrophication starch polymers (both TPS and copolymers) score better than PE also for
all other indicators covered by the LCA being the sole exception.
As Table 2-6 further shows, the environmental impact of starch polymers generally
decreases with lower shares of petrochemical copolymers. However, the application
areas for pure starch polymers and blends with small amounts of copolymers are limited
due to inferior material properties. Hence, blending can extend the applicability of starch
polymers and thus lower the overall environmental impact at the macroeconomic level.
Ideally, the environmental impacts should be determined for final products in order to
account for differences in efficiencies in the conversion stage, differences in material
properties (e.g. density). This, however, necessitates limiting study to a few end
products only. LCA results for important starch polymer end products are given in
Table 2-6 (for more details see Appendix 3). The results for starch polymer loose fills
differ decisively depending on the source. Much of these differences can be explained
by different assumptions regarding the bulk density of the loose fills (see second
column in Appendix 3) and different approaches for the quantification of the ozone
depletion potential (inclusion versus exclusion of NOx). It therefore seems more useful
to compare the results of each study separately. One can conclude from both Estermann
et al. (2000) and Würdinger et al. (2002) that starch polymer loose fills generally score
better than their equivalents made of virgin EPS. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
represent an exception where the release of CH4 emissions from biodegradable
compounds in landfills results in a disadvantage for starch polymers (only according to
Würdinger et al., 2002). The other sources reviewed may not have taken this emission
source into account.
3
The savings are more than 4 GJ higher if pure LDPE (80.6 GJ/t according to Boustead, 1999) is
chosen as the petrochemical counterpart. It should be borne in mind that there are still considerable
uncertainties also for these petrochemical polymers (Patel, 2003).

By analogy to loose fills, the range of results for starch polymer films and bags is to a
large extent understandable from the differences in film thickness. Taking this factor
into account, the environmental impacts of the starch films/bags are lower with regard
to energy, GHG emissions and ozone precursors. The situation is less clear for
acidification. For eutrophication, PE films tend to score better.
Since all data in Table 2-6 and in Appendix 3 refer to the current state-of-the-art,
technological progress, improved process integration and various other possibilities for
optimisation are likely to result in more favourable results for biopolymers in the future.
Table 2-6: Energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of (Modified)
Starch Polymer pellets and their petrochemical counterparts
(Patel et al., 1999)
1) 2)
Energy in MJ/kg GHG emissions in kg CO2 eq./kg
Pchem. Bio-based Energy Pchem. Bio-based Emission

3) 3)
Polymer polymer savings Polymer polymer savings
TPS 76 25 51 4.8 1.1 3.7

TPS + 15% PVOH 76 25 52 4.8 1.7 3.1
TPS + 52.5% PCL 76 48 28 4.8 3.4 1.4
TPS + 60% PCL 76 52 24 4.8 3.6 1.2
Starch polymer foam grade 76 34 42 4.8 1.2 3.6
Starch polymer film grade 76 54 23 4.8 1.2 3.6
TPS = thermoplastic starch
1)
Non-renewable energy
2)
Emissions refer to incineration in all cases. Exception: Composting has been assumed for
starch polymer film grades.
3)
50% LLDPE + 50% HDPE according to Boustead (1999).
As mentioned above the use of starch polymers as fillers in tyres is a special

application of Modified Starch Polymers. These tyres are reported to have various
functional advantages, the most important being controlled stiffness, improved wet skid
performance, lower weight and reduced rolling resistance. As Table 2-7 shows,
especially the latter feature leads to lower CO2 emissions: Savings due to lower rolling
resistance, which result in fuel savings in the use phase, exceed cradle-to-factory gate
emission reduction by factors of 23 to 26. The total savings according to Table 2-7
represent about 2% (for 3.53 g CO2/km) to 5% (for 9.52 g CO2/km) of the average CO2
emissions of a passenger car (Corvasce, 1999).

Table 2-7: CO2 emission reduction potential of tyres with biopolymeric fillers
(Corvasce, 1999)
CO2 reduction compared to

1)
conventional tyres
g CO2/km
20% weight 50% weight
replacement of replacement of
carbon black carbon black
Use of starch-based raw materials2) 0.15 0.35
3)
Tyre weight reduction 0.03 0.25
3)
Tyre rolling resistance reduction 3.35 8.92
Total 3.53 9.52
1)
Averaged values over 30 000 km; tread weight 3.0 kg.
2)
Cradle-to-factory gate: Emission of fossil CO2 during processing
minus carbon sequestration in starch during plant growth.
3)
Use phase

A first assessment of the environmental profile of Rodenburg’s polymers Solanyl has
been conducted at Utrecht University (unpublished). This indicates that the primary
energy use for the production of Solanyl is in the range of that required for making
recycled polyethylene (PE) from plastic waste (about 9 GJ/t). This would mean that
Partially Fermented Starch Polymers can be produced with only little more than one
third of the energy needed for the manufacture of Modified Starch Polymers. According
to these preliminary results the production of Solanyl (cradle-to-factory gate primary
energy requirements ca. 9 GJ/t) is about four times less energy intensive than the
production of virgin PE with waste management in a highly efficient waste-to-energy
facility (cradle-to-grave energy requirements at least 34 GJ/t).
2.2 Polylactic acid (PLA)
Since the setup of Cargill Dow’s polylactic acid (PLA) production plant in 2002, PLA
has become the second type of bio-based polymers that has been commercialised and
produced on a large scale. PLA (see Figure 2-4) is an aliphatic polyester produced via
polymersation of the renewable fermentation product lactic acid.
Figure 2-4: PLA molecule
H O
HO C C O H
CH3
n
PLA has excellent physical and mechanical properties, making it a good candidate for
substitution for petrochemical thermoplasts, and it can be processed on existing
machinery with only minor adjustments (Galactic, 2003). While the high price for PLA

has long restricted its use to medical and specialty applications, recent breakthroughs in
lactic acid fermentation technology have opened up possibilities for the production of
PLA in bulk volumes.
Lactic acid, 2-hydroxypropionic acid, is the simplest hydroxycarboxylic acid with an

asymmetrical carbon atom. Lactic acid may be produced by anaerobic fermentation of
carbon substrates, either pure (e.g. glucose, lactose) or impure (e.g. starch, molasses)
with micro-organisms such as bacteria or certain fungi (Galactic, 2003). Lactic acid
produced by fermentation is optically active; specific production of either L (+) or D (–)
lactic acid can be determined by using an appropriate lactobacillus (Chahal, 1997).
The range of raw materials suitable for lactic acid fermentation includes hexoses (6-
carbon sugars, of which D-glucose is the primary example) together with a large
number of compounds which can be easily split into hexoses, e.g., sugars, molasses,
sugar beet juice, sulfite liquors and whey, as well as rice, wheat, and potato starches. In
the future, it is expected that hydrolysis of lignocellulosics - i.e. woody or herbaceous
biomass as it is available from wood, straw or corn stover - will become a viable
pathway through technological advances (e.g. in enzymatic processes), together with
pressures on resources driving the increased utilization of agricultural waste products.
PLA was first synthesized over 150 years ago but due to its instability in humid
conditions, no immediate application was found and it was not until the 1960s that its
usefulness in medical applications became apparent. Efforts to develop PLA as a
commodity plastic were first made in the late 1980s and early 1990s by Dupont, Coors
Brewing (Chronopol) and Cargill. All three companies ran large research and
development programs to explore the possible bulk applications for lactic acid, lactide
and PLA (Södergård and Stolt, 2002). While DuPont and Chronopol terminated their
efforts, Cargill went on to develop a continuous process for high purity lactide
production based on reactive distillation.
The development of PLA for bulk applications began in 1994 when Cargill first
produced PLA in its 6000 t.p.a. semi-works plant in Savage, Minnesota, U.S. In 1997,
Cargill and Dow Chemical formed a joint collaboration agreement to explore the market
potential for PLA. In January 2000 the joint venture Cargill Dow LLC was formed for
the purposes of reaching commercial-scale production of PLA and developing the
market for PLA products.
2.2.1 Production of PLA
Lactic acid from a carbon substrate

The first step in the process is extraction of starch from biomass. This is typically
achieved by wet milling of corn. The starch is then converted to sugar by enzymatic or
acid hydrolysis. The sugar liquor is then fermented by bacteria e.g. of the Homolactic
Lactobacteriaceae family. L-lactic acid is produced from pyruvate under oxygen
limiting conditions via the enzyme lactate dehydrogenase according to the equation
(Pi = inorganic phosphate) (Chahal, 1997):
Glucose + 2 ADP + 2 Pi Æ 2 Lactic acid + 2 ATP

Conversion is typically greater than 95% on carbohydrate substrate (Datta et. al., 1995
in Wilke, 1999). The fermentation can be performed in either a batch or a continuous
process. The lactic acid has to be separated from the fermentation broth and in most
cases purified prior to polymerisation4,5. The most common purification process
involves neutralisation with a base followed by filtration, concentration and
acidification (Södergård and Stolt, 2002). The acidification step involves treating
soluble calcium lactate with sulfuric acid in order to generate the free acid, producing
large amounts of gypsum (CaSO4.2H2O) as a by-product. The free acid is then purified
by carbon treatment and ion exchange which, however, does not yield the thermostable
product quality required for chemical synthesis. Thermostable fermentation lactic acid
is manufactured by esterification, distillation, subsequent hydrolysis of the ester and
recovery of the alcohol by evaporation (Wilke, 1999).
Since the early 1980s several companies have worked on new, energy-saving recovery
technologies to manufacture pure, thermostable lactic acid. Among such concepts,
electrodialysis has been studied in detail but could not be converted to a commercial
scale. A low temperature esterification process using pervaporation has also been
described (Datta and Tsai, 1998 in: Wilke, 1999). Liquid/liquid extraction is another
potential lactic acid recovery route. Separation techniques including ultrafiltration,
nanofiltration, and ion-exchange processes may also be employed to further purify the
lactic acid (Södergård and Stolt, 2002).
Lactic acid may also be produced chemically from petrochemical raw materials such as
acetylene or ethylene. In this case the product is a racemic mixture, having amorphous
properties with possible applications as biodegradable adhesives. In recent years the
fermentation approach has become more successful because of the increasing market
demand for lactic acid which is naturally produced.
PLA from lactic acid

Two main routes have been developed to convert lactic acid to high molecular weight
polymer: the indirect route via lactide, the product of which is generally referred to as
poly(lactide), and direct polymerisation by polycondensation, producing poly(lactic
acid). Both products are generally referred to as PLA (Södergård and Stolt, 2002).
The first route, employed by Cargill Dow, is a continuous process using ring-opening
polymerisation (ROP) of lactide (Gruber and O’Brien, 2002). Condensation of aqueous
lactic acid produces low molecular weight PLA prepolymer (< 5000 Dalton, see
Figure 2-5). The prepolymer is then depolymerised by increasing the polycondensation
temperature and lowering the pressure, resulting in a mixture of lactide stereoisomers.
An organometallic catalyst e.g. tin octoate is used to enhance the rate and selectivity of
4
Losses in the product recovery step amount to approximately 5 to 10%, bringing the overall yield
(carbon basis) on purified lactic acid to about 85-90%, with possibilities for further improvement in
both the fermentation step and product recovery. Assuming 100% conversion of lactic acid to PLA,
yield (mass basis) in the polymerisation step is 72.1/90.1 = 80%, bringing the overall yield (carbon
basis) in the vicinity of 70%.
5
While it is important to keep in mind that there is an economic optimum for each process described in
this report with regard to substrate-related yield, productivity, fermentation broth concentration and %
loss in the product recovery steps; and that this optimum will change with time due to technological
developments. It has therefore been chosen in the present study to take a more meso level approach,
compiling available data at the industry level and projecting this at the industry and macro level with
the use of experience curves (Section 3.3).

the intramolecular cyclisation reaction. The molten lactide mixture is then purified by
vacuum distillation. In the final step, high molecular weight PLA(>100000 Dalton)
polymer is produced by catalysed ring-opening polymerization in the melt. Any
remaining monomer is removed under vacuum and recycled to the start of the process.
By controlling the ROP process chemistry it is possible to select the stereoform of the
lactide intermediate; and thereby also the properties of the resultant PLA. Usually, high
purity L,L-lactide is the desired intermediate for the production of PLA.6
In the second route, used by Mitsui Toatsu, lactic acid is converted directly to high
molecular weight PLA by an organic solvent-based process with the azeotropic removal
of water by distillation. (Gross and Kalra, 2002).
Figure 2-5: Production of PLA from biomass
C6H12O6
Hydrolysis Biomass
Glucose
Fermentation
Purification
H
O
H3C C C
(n-1)H2O OH
OH -H2O
Lactic acid
H O D- or L- or D,L- H O
HO C C O H Racemic mixture HO C C O H
CH3 CH3
n n
n = 30-70 -2H2O
n = 700-15000
Oligomers
Poly(lactic acid)
H O O
H3 C
CH3
O O H
Lactide
Copolymers, blends and composites

To obtain PLA with improved properties, lactic acid may be copolymerised with other
cyclic monomers such as ε-caprolactone (PCL). Reaction conditions are similar to that
for the ROP process (Gruber and O’Brien, 2002).
6
Polymerisation of L,L-lactide results in the stereoisomeric form poly(L-lactide) or poly(L-lactic acid),
more correctly denoted as PLLA but is herein more simply referred to as PLA.

Alloys (blends) of PLA and other bio-based polymers such as starch or

polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) may be obtained by blending. PLA/PHA alloys show
particular promise and are the subject of ongoing investigation (P&G, 2003; as
discussed further in Chapter 2.4.2). Blending of PLA with natural fibres such as kenaf is
another possibility.
Conversion technologies
PLA can be converted to end product using slightly modified standard industrial
machinery for thermoplastics (Gruber and O’Brien, 2002) by techniques including
thermoforming, injection moulding, blow moulding extrusion and importantly, film
extrusion. High-value films and rigid thermoformed containers are the most promising
bulk applications. Fibre extrusion by melt spinning is gaining importance as PLA finds
applications in the nonwovens industry.
Additives
While the bulk of any plastic material is the polymer or resin, a small part is additives.
Additives are used to impart the plastic with properties such as improved flow
characteristics, easy release from the mould, resistance to fire, UV stability, oxygen
stability, strength and flexibility and colour. In the case of PLA, required additives
include anti-statics (to combat electrostaticity of PLA foil); biodegradable organic
pigments, inks and coatings, biodegradable mould detaching agents; and low-cost
vapour deposition to reduce moisture permeability. Some of these additives are not yet
available or require further development to meet performance criteria (Treofan, 2003).
2.2.2 Properties
The property profile of PLA (see Table 2-8) is in certain aspects similar to synthetic
thermoplastics (mechanical strength, elastic recovery and heat sealability); it shares
other properties in common with bio-based polymers (biodegradability, dyeability,
barrier characteristics) while a number of its properties are more typical of non-
polymeric materials; e.g. deadfold/twist retention similar to foil or paper. For this
reason, PLA is sometimes described as a ‘new paradigm’ (Dorgan, 2003) in the bulk
application polymer field.

Table 2-8: Properties of PLA
NatureWorks® Biomer® 1
Data not otherwise
PLA1 L90002 referenced obtained from
Physical properties Cargill Dow (2003);
Melt flow rate (g/10 min) -a 3-6 2
Biomer (2003);
Density (g/cm3) 1.25 1.25 3
Brandrup (1999), p.163;
4
Haze 2.2 Woodings (2000).
a
Yellowness index 20-60 Due to PLA’s moisture
Mechanical properties sensitivity, a more accurate
test RV t-test method 4.3-
Tensile strength at yield (MPa) 533 70
2.4;
Elongation at yield (%) 10-100b 2.4 b
Oriented and sheet
Flexular Modulus (MPa) 350-450 3600 respectively, non-blended;
c
Thermal properties close to GTT;
d
HDT (°C) 40-45, 135d amorphous and crystalline
VICAT Softening point (°C) -c 56 respectively.
GTT (°C) 55-65
Melting point (°C) 120-1704
Chemical Properties
The molecular weight, macromolecular structure and the degree of crystallisation of
PLA vary substantially depending on reaction conditions in the polymerisation process.
Of the three possible isomeric forms, poly (L-lactic acid) and poly (D-lactic acid) are
both semi-crystalline in nature, and poly (meso-lactic acid) or poly (d,l-lactic acid) is
amorphous. By varying the relative content of the stereoforms, the morphology changes
from resins that always remain amorphous to amorphous resins that can be crystallized
during manufacturing. Racemic PLA - synthesised from petrochemicals - is atactic, i.e.
it exhibits no stereochemical regularity of structure, is highly amorphous and has a low
glass transition temperature. Amorphous grades of PLA are transparent. The molecular
weight of PLA varies from 100,000 to 300,000; this range is similar to that for PET
(170,000 to 350,000). With increasing molecular weight of PLA (as for polymers in
general), strength increases due to the decrease in relative motion of the chains as they
become longer. In addition, the resistance to solvents increases and the melt point (Tm)
and the glass temperature (Tg) increase. The melt viscosity increases and the ease of
fabrication (moulding, extrusion and shaping) decreases (McGraw-Hill, 1997).
Physical Properties
The specific gravity of PLA (1.25 g/cm3) is lower than that of PET (1.34 g/cm3), but
higher than HIPS (1.05 g/cm3) and also higher to many other conventional polymers
which have specific gravity in the range of 0.8 to 1.1. PLA is reasonably transparent and
has high gloss and low haze. The optical properties of PLA are sensitive to additive and
fabrication effects (Gruber and O’Brien, 2002); in particular, since the lower the degree
of crystallinity the higher the transparency, highly crystalline PLA has poor optical
properties.

Mechanical Properties
PLA has good mechanical properties, performing well compared to standard
thermoplastics. It has low impact strength, comparable to non-plasticised PVC. The
hardness, stiffness, impact strength and elasticity of PLA, important for applications
such as beverage flasks, are similar to values for PET. Oriented PLA film can hold a
crease or fold or retain a twist, properties inherent to paper and foil but usually lacking
in plastic films. These properties, in combination with PLA’s high flexular modulus and
high clarity, are comparable with those of cellophane films (Gruber and O’Brien, 2002).
Thermal Properties
PLA has a relatively low glass transition temperature (~ 60 °C) and degrades quickly
above this temperature in high moisture conditions. Due to its low Vicat softening point,
PLA is less not suitable for filling at elevated temperatures (similarly to PET). PLA’s
low softening point also poses a problem for warehousing of products and use in
automobiles. On the other hand, PLA’s low heat deflection temperature (HDT) and high
heat seal strength lead to good performance in film sealing. According to Cargill Dow,
the melting point for PLA ranges from 120-170 °C; however, Treofan quotes a much
lower figure of 85 °C (Treofan, 2003).
Other properties
PLA has high odour and flavour barrier. It also has high resistance to grease and oil,
thus finding application in the packaging of viscous oily liquids. It is also suitable for
packaging of dry products and short shelf-life products. It is not suitable for the
packaging of carbonated beverages and other liquids due to its poor O2-, CO2- and water
barrier. In comparison to starch polymers, PLA is superior in terms of moisture barrier,
whereas the gas barrier is inferior (Petersen et al., 1999). In comparison to PP, PLA
pellets are much more hygroscopic (water-absorbing) and therefore must be handled
carefully. PLA foils, however, are not hygroscopic (Treofan, 2003). The low water
barrier can be of interest for some applications; e.g. in clothing where high water
transmission (high wick) for fabrics (Gruber and O’Brien, 2002) is a desirable property.
The hydrolytic stability conditions close to some laundering, dyeing and finishing
processes are borderline (Woodings, 2000). As for polyesters in general, PLA exhibits
good chemical resistance to aliphatic molecules such as mineral oils and turpenes. The
resistance to solvents, acids and bases is average to poor. Having a linear aliphatic
structure, PLA has good UV resistance. This is in contrast to aromatic polymers such as
PET, which are highly sensitive to UV. Since PLA is a polar material it has a high
critical surface energy and is thus easy to print, metallise and dye. Its printability is
similar to PET and better than PE and PP (Hycail, 2003). It is possible to print PLA
using natural dyes and pigments which are heavy metal free and thus eligible for the
DIN norm compostable logo. PLA is largely resistant to attack by microorganisms in
soil or sewage under ambient conditions. The polymer must first be hydrolysed at
elevated temperatures (>58 °C) to reduce the molecular weight before biodegradation
can commence. Thus, PLA will not degrade in a typical garden compost. Under typical
use and storage conditions PLA is quite stable. Additives which retard hydrolysis may
be used for further stabilization (Brandrup, 1999)

Properties of copolymers, blends and composites

Copolymers (such as PLA/PCL) and blends (such as PLA/PHA, PLA/starch) have
improved performance with respect to degradation rate, permeability characteristics,
and thermal and mechanical properties. Overall processability is thus improved and the
range of possible applications for PLA is broadened. Blends of PLA and natural fibres
have increased durability and heat resistance and a lower cost to weight ratio compared
to unblended PLA.
Table 2-9 shows the substitution potential for PLA, according to interviewed
representatives from three companies; namely one bulk producer - Cargill Dow (2003),
one potential bulk producer – Hycail (2003), a joint venture between Dairy Farmers of
America and the University of Groningen, currently looking into the feasibility of EU-
based bulk production of PLA and one small volume/specialty producer – the German
company Biomer (2003b). The two companies interested in the bulk market agree on
the potential for PLA to partially replace PMMA, PA and PET, as well as seeing
possibilities for PLA to substitute for PP. No possibility is seen for substitution for PC,
POM and non-polymeric materials. There was no clear consensus on the other
polymers.
Little or no substitution potential exists for PVC, PC and POM. PVC is already dying
out in packaging uses, although it is used in building, construction and electrical. PC,
with its high toughness coupled with transparency, and a very high Vicat softening
point (120 ºC), holds 65% of the market for transparent plastics. At a price of € 2.5 per
kg, it has entered the commodity market. There is thus very little prospect for PLA to
compete. POM has extreme abrasion resistance for moving parts. PLA compares
favourably to PE/HD & LD in terms of its aroma barrier and grease resistance; also it is
stiffer, has a higher modulus, but is more expensive. PLA compares unfavourably in
terms of it water barrier. A reasonable amount of substitution seems possible. In the
nonwovens sector, PLA should replace PE (also PP) to some extent. Compared to PLA,
PP has a high fatigue modulus so it is, for example, superior for hinges on packaging. It
also has good heat resistance. Still. limited substitution is possible. PLA thin film (foil)
could also replace PP in come applications. Compared to PS crystal clear, PLA is less
transparent while elongation & breakage are comparable. PMMA has super clarity and
transparency combined with good weatherability – important features in some
applications which PLA cannot match. PLA has low abrasion resistance compared to
PA, which is also fibrous and highly crystalline. This limits substitution possibilities.
There are also interesting possibilities for substitution in fibre applications. Compared
to PLA, PET has better printability and better barrier properties for packaging. In
particular, PLA is a poor barrier for water; however this is in some respects a useful
quality for packaging, e.g. for fog-free packaging of warm bread. PLA does not reach
the heat and impact resistance of PET, but the heat resistance is still reasonable. The
melting point of PLA is too low for it to challenge aromatic polyesters in mainstream
textiles; however PLA can be easily blended with PET. When costs for PLA and PET
reach parity, at least partial substitution in fibres and packaging should take place. PBT
is highly crystalline and is used in automotive electrical applications. No substitution for
PLA is possible. PUR foam has flammability requirements so PLA is a problem in this
respect. HI-PS is very tough so only impact-modified PLA could compete. ABS is also

very tough. Comparable impact strength for PLA can be achieved with an engineered
blend. According to PLA foil producer Treophan (2003), PLA foil can replace
cellophane in some applications.
Non-polymeric materials for which some substitution may be possible include wood
and leather (e.g. for clothing), but quantities will not be significant.
Table 2-9: Technical substitution potential for PLA according to interviews with
experts from Cargill Dow, Hycail and Biomer.
PVC PE- PE- PP CC- PMMA PA PET PBT PC POM PUR HI- ABS non-
HD LD PS PS poly
Cargill
- + + + - -/+ + + - - - -/+ - - -
Dow
Hycail + - - + + + + + + - - - + + -
Biomer - - - - ++ - - - - - - - - + -
CC-PS: crystal clear polystyrene; HI-PS: high impact PS
Producers report that potential PLA customers are starting to come forward at
conferences and trade shows, indicating that PLA is gaining market acceptance (Hycail,
2003). In some cases, companies are interested in the possibilities for direct substitution
of PLA for other mainly polymeric materials, while others are interested in exploiting
certain unique properties, e.g. impact strength.
In Table 2-10, interviewed company representatives estimated the current and future
market share of PLA in different sectors and commented on potential applications,
barriers and experiences in relation to the range of possible PLA applications. Cargill
Dow as the primary bulk producer estimates that 70% of PLA produced today is used in
packaging. Hycail quotes a similar figure. Cargill Dow predicts a major shift away from
packaging and towards fibres and fabrics, transportation and electronics. Hycail does
not expect any major shifts in the use structure of PLA compared to the current
situation. Notes pertaining to specific applications follow.

Table 2-10: Main applications for PLA – share of interviewed companies’1,2 total
production by market sector (scope: EU 15)
Sector % of total production % of total production

today in 2020
Cargill Dow Hycail Cargill Dow Hycail
Packaging 70 % 70 % 20 % 55 %
Building
Agriculture 1% 12 % 6%
Transportation 20 % 2%
Furniture
Electric appliances and electronics
1% 1% 10 % 10 %
(E&E)
Houseware 12 % 6%
Other (fibres and fabrics) 28 % 3-5 % 50 % 21 %
Other (analytics)
Total 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %
1
Cargill Dow (2003),
2
Hycail (2003)
According to Petersen et al. (1999), if prices of approximately €2.00 per kg can be

reached and adequate barrier properties can be met, PLA’s potential for food packaging
applications is very high due to its transparency, good mechanical properties and
suitable moisture permeability for packaging of foods such as bread. Compared to
starch (which has a moisture barrier too low for many applications), PLA has a better
moisture barrier. For liquids such as juice or milk the volume must be accurate during
the shelf life and in this respect PLA’s water barrier is not adequate. Production of a
flexible, water-resistant film, understood to be via a process of vapour deposition with
alumina (Treofan, 2003), has been demonstrated; however this process adds about €1.00
per kg to the cost. PLA’s good performance for packaging fats and oils is reported in
interim results of the project Biopack: Proactive Bio-based Cheese Packaging (Biopack,
2003). It should be noted here that consumers in Germany expect a 4 colour print on
cheese foil packaging, which is possible using biodegradable metal oxides but results in
very ‘colourful’ compost (Treofan, 2003).
Examples of non-food applications include Panasonic’s use of PLA for rigid transparent
packaging of batteries with printed PLA film on the back side. Another possible
application is windows for envelopes. According to Treofan (2003), since PLA is
electrostatic an anti-static additive is required in this application and this has not yet
been found. Somewhat contradicting this information is the reported preferential use of
envelopes with PLA windows by Japanese government utilities (BPS, 2003). Perfume
packaging could be an interesting market, since PLA is alcohol-resistant (Treofan,
2003). For detergents packaging, stress cracking resistance is a problem but this
possibly could be overcome by using impact modified PLA.
The potential for PLA and PLA/fibre blends to be used in building applications will
depend on issues such as adequate performance over a 20 year lifetime and price
competitiveness.
Potential applications in agriculture include incorporation of a timed-release fertiliser

in PLA sheet or molded forms and biodegradable plant clips. PLA is considered too

expensive for mulch film. Also, degradation of mulching foils should occur at 25 ºC,
whereas PLA requires a professional composting process that reaches 60 ºC.
In the transport sector, Toyota is currently developing applications for PLA blends and
fibres in automobile interiors, including head liners, upholstery and possibly trimmings
(e.g. around radios; see also Section 2.2.5) (Cargill Dow, 2003). Toyota is using a
composite of kenaf fibre and PLA for moulded parts (e.g. spare tyre cover) and is also
investigating nanocomposites of PLA with montmorillonite clay, which have been
found to exhibit improved temperature resistance. PLA should be suitable for rugs and
carpets and niche applications such as highly crystalline parts and injection-molded
items but will prove a problem in many other applications (Hycail, 2003). There is no
possibility to use it for external parts. The easy blending of PLA with PET may prove
useful in the case of transport-related and other durables.
In the electronics sector, Fujistsu is making injection molded computer keys. Sony has
produced a walkman with 85% PLA and 15% aliphatics (injection moulded) (Cargill
Dow, 2003). Applications may be slow to develop since electronics is a highly regulated
area, especially for high voltage applications (there are different test requirements for
flammability, short-circuit testing etc.).
In another interesting application, a subsidiary of Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd in Japan

recently announced the development of the world's first commercially viable compact
disc to be manufactured from corn-derived PLA (NEAsiaOnline, 2003). The company
worked jointly with Mitsui Chemicals Inc to develop the PLA until it had plastic
properties that enabled it to be used for making discs. A single disc requires around 85
grains of a corn, so one head of corn could, in theory, be used to produce 10 discs. The
firm plans to start accepting orders in December 2003 and hopes to be producing 5
million CDs in 2005. The plastic cases and film wrappers for the CD will also be made
of natural materials. The discs take 50-100 years to degrade. The projected price is 3
times that of a normal plastic disc, but this is expected to be reduced to 1.2 times as the
discs become more popular (Tech, 2003).
One recent development which should enable wider application of PLA in electronics
products is NEC Corporation’s process for imparting flame resistance to PLA without
the use of halogen or phosphorous compounds that are toxic when burned. NEC’s PLA
product has passed top-level flame resistance standards. The product is reported to have
heat resistance, mouldability and strength comparable to fibre-reinforced polycarbonate
used in desktop-type electronic products (Greenbiz, 2004).
PLA fibre has potential in the furniture sector in applications in which flame resistance
is important, such as hospitality, industry and home furnishings (Cargill Dow, 2004). .
Exploring applications in the houseware sector, Interface Inc. is working with Cargill
Dow on development of carpets. There is a possible small volume market for cutlery
and plates.
Other promising applications include fibres and nonwovens, where garments made from
100% PLA or blends of PLA with wool and cotton are comparable and in some respects
superior to the well-established PET blends (Gruber and O’Brien, 2002. Also under
discussion is the concept of high melting PLA/lyocell (regenerated cellulose) blends
replacing the extremely successful blend of polyester/cotton (Woodings, 2002).

Following the establishment in 2000 of the joint venture Cargill Dow (see Chapter 2.2),
in late 2001, Cargill Dow commenced large-scale production of PLA at a plant with
design capacity 140,000 t.p.a. located in Blair, Nebraska, USA. The scheduled
production was 70,000 t in 2002 and 100,000 t in 2003 is (the actual production is
unknown, see also end of Section 3.4). The plant is currently ramping up to full
production7; with operation at capacity planned for 2004 (Cargill Dow, 2003). In
October 2002, Cargill Dow started up a new lactic acid production facility, based on
own technology. This will lead to reductions in manufacturing costs over the longer
term for feedstock requirement (180,000 t.p.a. of lactic acid) (Cargill Dow, 2003).
Cargill Dow has about 250 persons employed in PLA-related activities part-time. Total
capital investment to date amounts to US $300 million in plant and US $450 million in
R&D, process development and technical support together.
Cargill Dow has business development collaborations with numerous customers from
North America, Europe, Asia and Japan. In Europe, Cargill Dow has issued two licenses
for PLA foil: one to Bimo in Italy (simultaneous stretching process) and one t o the
Treofan Group of Trespaphan GmbH (two stage stretching process) (Treofan, 2003).
While Bimo has stopped the use of PLA because of difficulties in the process, Treofan
(which has a 200 000 t.p.a. business in polypropylene foil) has been selling PLA foil
under the brand name Biophan since mid-2001.
Cargill Dow’s expansion plans are for two additional PLA plants of a similar capacity
to the first, to be built wherever the market develops and in combination with best
manufacturing economics (Cargill Dow, 2003). The combined production capacity will
be 500,000 t.p.a. Both these new facilities should be in operation by 2010.
For its current process, Cargill Dow uses corn (maize) as the feedstock due to its low
price and wide availability in the U.S and its high starch content. The second plant will
also use a crop as feedstock: (maize, cassava or rice depending on location; sugar beets
could be an option for Europe but are probably too expensive). Within the ten-year time
frame planned for construction of a third plant, Cargill Dow intends to be using cheap
biomass as the primary feedstock, e.g. lignocellulosics from corn stover. In the future
(before 2010) the company expects to further improve PLA's sustainability profile by
deriving its process energy from biomass originating partly from the process feedstock
(e.g. corn stover) and partly from wind energy (Cargill Dow, 2003).
Cargill Dow has won several award for its NatureWorks® PLA technology, including in
the US Department of Energy's Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT) Technology-of-
the-Year award (2001) for a technology that demonstrates the potential for improved
energy efficiency along with economic and environmental benefits (Ewire, 2001); and
the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge, Alternative Reaction Conditions Award,
for the development of a revolutionary process to make plastic from corn (Ewire, 2002).
7
Based on interviews with PLA producers and converters, it is estimated that production in 2002 was
about 30,000 tonnes (own estimate).

Hycail BV, a spin off from the University of Groningen, was set up in 1997 to
investigate the production of PLA from lactose in whey permeate, a by-product of
cheese manufacture. In 1998 Dairy Farmers of America (DFA), interested in adding
value to whey permeate from their numerous cheese factories, gained shares in Hycail.
In April 2004, Hycail will operate semi-commercial pilot plant producing 1000 t.p.a. of
high molecular weight PLA (Hycail®HM) for pellets, film and bags and 10-20 t.p.a. of
low molecular weight PLA for hot-melt adhesives and the like. A laboratory and small
pilot plant have been operating since 1995 (Hycail 2003a).
Hycail’s goal is an integrated facility for lactic acid, with lactic acid being produced by
another company in a partnership agreement and PLA being produced by Hycail. By the
end of 2003, the companies expect to have a clear idea of the manufacturing cost of
lactic acid production from whey permeate lactose and other sugar sources. A suitable
process for scale-up of integrated PLA manufacture has already been identified and a
Freedom to Operate opinion has been received. Hycail plans to have the semi-
commercial plant in the Netherlands running in March 2004 and to commence
construction of a full-scale plant with capacity between 50,000t.p.a. and 100,000 t.p.a.
in 2005 and to start up by the end of 2006. A second plant should follow by 2010.
Hycail has not yet decided where the first full-scale plant will be located. The preference
is for the Netherlands; but it could be elsewhere in the EU depending on the availability
of subsidies, permissions regarding partnership operations and cheap sugar sources.
Biomer, a biotechnology company located in Krailling, Germany has recently begun

producing PLA on a small-scale commercial basis. The product is sold to converters for
the production of transparent packaging films and other specialty injection moulding
and extrusion applications. Biomer has also been producing the bio-based polymer
poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) P(3HB) (see Section 2.4) since 1994-5. No plans are known in
relation to upscaling.
Within the European Union, other companies with an interest in large volume
production of PLA include the Belgian company Galactic, a producer of lactic acid and
lactic acid derivatives. Its subsidiary Brussels Biotech is involved in R&D activities for
PLA for industrial applications such as food packaging, non-woven products and
disposables (Galactic Laboratories, 2003).
Inventa-Fischer GmbH is offering turn-key plants with a capacity of 3,000 t.p.a.

(Hagen, 2000). In the year 2000 Inventa-Fischer GmbH & Co KG has developed the
process which promised to reduce the cost price of Polylactide close to other
engineering plastics or fibre materials. The basic engineering for a pilot plant was
supported by the German Federal ministry of Agriculture (Inventa Fischer, 2000). It
was one of the targets of the project to create new sales prospects in the non-food
market to the German farmers which suffer from enforced disuse of agriculture areas.
Rye was selected as the raw material, because of the poor soil quality in the concerned
areas. With some modification the process is able to convert wheat or maize in the same
way. The plant will demonstrate the complete process from rye up to the polylactide
chips in the pilot scale. The future producer of PLA shall be independent from price,
quality and availability of intermediate products like lactic acid. The technological
highlight is the continuous fermentation. Continuous operation reduces the number and
the size of required equipment. In the polymerisation process Inventa-Fischer applies

reactors and equipment which are proven for similar polymers at large-scale industrial
production plants. Therefore, scale –up from the pilot plant to an industrial scale plant
can be made with high reliability.
During the basic engineering of the 3,000 t.p.a. pilot plant also the cost price of the
polylactide could be calculated. The individual costs of all required plant components
including piping, process control, and construction have been summed as well as costs of
services like engineering, design, handling, erection and start-up. Only building site cost
was not included. Fixed costs have been calculated considering depreciation, interest and
insurance. Raw and auxiliary materials together with energy and wearing parts like
membranes make up the main part of the specific cost of PLA. Adding costs of labour,
repair and maintenance a cost price of PLA of 2.20 €/kg resulted. Although there have
been many interested potential producers, no plant has been realised. At present Inventa
Fischer is in negotiation with a client outside Europe (Inventa Fischer, 2003).
The German company food packaging company Apack holds a license for PLA
technology originally developed by Neste Chemicals, now the property of Fortum Ojy,
Finland (Södergård and Stolt, 2002)8. The Italian Engineering company Snamprogetti
is reported to have developed a plant with a capacity of 2,500 t.p.a. for food/polymer
grade PLA by the fermentation of hydrolyzed starch in China. The plant should be
producing polylactates since mid 2003 (ENI, 2001).
In Japan, Mitsui Chemicals produces PLA via the direct polycondensation route and
has been engaged in semi-commercial production (500 t.p.a.) since 1996 (product name:
LACEA). Shimadzu Corporation formerly produced small commercial quantities of
PLA via the ROP route (several hundred t.p.a. in 1997) but has since ceased production.
In the mean time, Toyota has purchased Shimadzu’s PLA technology (Cargill Dow,
2003). Toyota is building a 1000 t.p.a. PLA pilot plant within an existing TMC
production facility in Japan. Using sugarcane as the base material, TMC intends to carry
out the entire process from fermenting and purifying the lactic acid to polymerization of
PLA. The pilot plant, scheduled for startup in 2004, will be used to investigate the
feasibility of reaching mass production cost and quality targets (TMC, 2003a).
Aside from this development work, Toyota is already using a composite of PLA and
kenaf (East Indian Hibiscus) under the name ‘Toyota Eco-Plastic’ for the spare tyre
cover; and PLA fibre for the floor mats in the new Raum, which was launched on the
Japanese market in May 2003 (TMC, 2003).
Selling price
Cargill Dow, currently the only large volume producer of PLA, sells samples at €3.40
per kg and supplies large volume customers (such as Treofan in the EU) at a price of
8
BP is looking into methane-derived lactic acid; however it is expected to be at a disadvantage due to
the petrochemical basis of production. Methane-derived lactic acid could also be formed from purified
biogas as renewable carbon source; however further examination of this is outside the scope of this
study.

€2.20 per kg (Cargill Dow, 2003). The latter price is set at a level at which PLA is able
to compete with a limited number of engineering polymers Cargill Dow views PLA as a
specialty polymer moving toward commodity polymer prices. By way of comparison,
the price of PLA foil is €5.50 - €6.00 per kg; cellophane is in the same price range;
while PP foil is about one third of the price at €1.50 - €2.50 per kg (Treofan, 2003).
According to an internal study by Treofan, a tenfold increase in production of PLA foil
would result in a halving of the price (to €3.00 per kg).
Cost structure
The final cost of producing PLA depends primarily on the efficiency of the initial
fermentation process to produce the lactic acid monomer (Petersen, 1999). Lactic acid
currently comprises around 40 to 50% of Cargill Dow’s total costs. According to Cargill
Dow (2003), for true competitive status of PLA on the engineering polymers market,
the cost of lactic acid should decrease to a level on par with the price of ethylene.
For Hycail the share of lactic acid to total costs is much higher at 60 to 65%, of which
an estimated 40% is due to the production of lactate salt and 60% to acidulation and
purification to polymer grade lactic acid (Hycail, 2003). It must be noted that this is for
pilot plant scale, with externally sourced lactic acid. By 2006-7, in partnership with the
lactic acid producer and almost certainly using whey permeate, Hycail will bring this
cost down to 25% (by 2006-7). World class cost structure will be achieved by Hycail
due to implementation of breakthrough lactic acid technology with its partner, use of
whey permeate and other “waste” sugar sources and novel conversion technology in its
PLA plant as compared to state of the art.

Figure 2-6 shows the expected market price for PLA up until the year 2010, interpreted
from Cargill Dow and Hycail pricing targets. Hycail also suggests a price in the year
2030. Cargill Dow’s goal is to decrease the selling price to be competitive with PET on
a density adjusted basis as soon as possible (Cargill Dow, 2003). After 2010, the use of
renewable energy and alternative biomass feedstocks is expected to generate further
improvements in price competitiveness. Hycail’s predictions are more conservative
(€2.00 per kg in 2007, €1.80 per kg in 2010, €1.50 - €1.60 per kg in 2030), in line with
expected higher costs for lactic acid within the same time frame. Hycail believes that it
will be very hard to compete with PET from a cost point of view, even within a time
frame of 2030. However, Hycail is also of the opinion that for a fully integrated lactic
acid/PLA plant with production capacity in the range of 200,000-300,000 t.p.a., a
selling price of €1.20 - 1.30 per kg is achievable.

Figure 2-6: Producer price estimates for PLA - 2010 and beyond
2.5
euros/kg
Hycail
2
Cargill Dow
1.5
1
2000 2010 2020 2030
Year
Publicly available life cycle assessment data for polylactides are scarce. Cargill Dow
has published cradle-to-factory gate energy and CO2 data for PLA from corn (Vink et
al., 2003). As shown in Table 2-11 total fossil energy requirements of PLA are clearly
below the respective values for the petrochemical polymers while the process energy
requirements are higher for the first commercial PLA plant (termed PLA-Year 1 in
Table 2-11). Further energy savings are expected to be achievable by optimization of
the lactic acid production technology (see row “PLA - Year 1, optimized”) and – more
importantly - by using lignocellulosic feedstocks (corn stover) as additional source for
fermentable sugars in combination with energy production from the lignin fraction
(Table 2-11, row “PLA – Biorefinery”; Vink et al., 2003). The estimated cradle-to-
factory gate energy requirements for PLA production from rye and from whey in
Table 2-12 show that also small plants (3 kt p.a. and 4.2 kt p.a. respectively) may be
rather energy efficient (the expected values remain to be proven in commercial plants).
The use of a waste product like whey (Table 2-12) may allow savings up to 35%
compared to production from cultivated crops (rye or corn).

Table 2-11: Cradle-to-factory gate energy requirements and CO2 emissions for
Cargill Dow’s PLA as compared to petrochemical polymers (Vink et
al., 2003; personal communication, Vink, 2003)
Energy and process

Process Feedstock Total fossil CO2 absorption,
related GHG Net GHG emissions
energy, fossil energy, fossil energy plant growth
1) 1)
emissions [kg 3) [kg CO2,eq./t PLA]
1)
[GJ/t plastic] [GJ/t plastic] [GJ/t plastic] 2) [kg CO2/t plastic]
CO2,eq./t plastic]
PLA - Year 1 54.1 0 54.1 3990 -2190 1800
PLA - Year 1, optimised 48.8 0 48.8 3390 -2190 1200
PLA - Biorefinery 29.2 0 29.2 1890 -2190 -300

4)
HDPE 31 49 80 1700 0 1700
4)
PET (bottle grade) 38 39 77 4300 0 4300
4)
Nylon 6 81 39 120 5500 0 5500
1)
Data from Vink et al. (2003)
2)
Emissions for PLA taken into account in this column are mainly CO2 from energy use; other emissions included are methane and
nitrous oxide from fertilizer use. Values for PLA in this column have been determined by deducting from the net GHG emissions (first
column from the right) the quantities of CO2 absorbed during plant growth (second column from the right).
3)
Personal communication with E. Vink, Cargill Dow, 2002. Note that data in this column refer to kg CO2 and not kg CO2,eq.
4)
Data for petrochemical polymers from Boustead (1999/2000).
Table 2-12: Estimated cradle-to-factory gate energy requirements for PLA

production from rye and from whey
Total energy (non-renewable)

in GJ/t PLA
from rye*) from whey**)
Cultivation 8.7 0.0
Milling 6.6 0.0
Transportation 0.0 2.3
Hydrolysis and fermentation 33.9 25.0
Polymerisation 12.8 12.8
Total 62.1 40.1
*) Data for a 3 kt p.a. PLA plant; estimated on the basis of personal communication
with R. Hagen, Inventa Fischer, 2002.
**) Data for a 4.2 kt p.a. lactic acid plant acc. to Börgardts et al., Fraunhofer-IGB
(1998).
2.3 Other polyesters from potentially bio-based monomers
Apart from polylactic acid (PLA) which as described in the preceding section is well
advanced in terms of reaching large-scale production, a number of other polyesters have
the potential to be produced from a bio-based feedstock. The most important of these
are shown in Table 2-13, together with trade names for each and the constituent
monomers. In all cases, the polymer is produced from a diol and one or more
dicarboboxylic acids (diacid). The diol in this scheme is bio-based (PDO or BDO),
while the diacid is either bio-based (succinic or adipic acid) or petrochemical-based
(PTA or DMT). One of these polyesters, PTT, is on the verge of being produced from a
bio-based monomer (PDO) on a commercial scale and there is a reasonable likelihood
that another, PBS, will soon be produced from bio-based succinic acid. The status of the
other polymers in the table with respect to bioroutes is unclear. In this section it has
been decided to take as case studies the first three polymers in Table 2-13, namely PTT,

PBT and PBS, with the assumption that learnings will be applicable to others not
explicitly discussed.
Table 2-13: Polyesters from a (potentially) bio-based monomer
Polymer Monomer Monomer

Chemical Name Trade Name(s) Potentially bio-based petrochemical
Poly(trimethylene terephthalate) SoronaTM PDO PTA/DMT
PTT Corterra®
Poly(butylene terephthalate) various BDO PTA/DMT
PBT
Poly(butylene succinate) PBS Bionolle BDO succinic
1000® acid
Poly(butylene succinate adipate) Bionolle BDO succinic adipic
PBSA 3000® acid acid
Poly(butylenesuccinate Biomax® BDO succinic PTA/DMT
terephthalate) PBST Eastar Bio® acid
Poly(butyleneadipate Ecoflex® BDO adipic PTA/DMT
terephthalate) PBAT acid
2.3.1 PTT from bio-based PDO
Poly(trimethylene terephthalate) (PTT, Figure 2-7) is an linear aromatic polyester

produced by polycondensation of 1,3-propanediol (trimethylene glycol or PDO) with
either purified terephthalic acid (PTA) or dimethyl terephthalate (DMT) (Brown et al.,
2000). While both these monomers – the diacid and the diol component - are
conventionally derived from petrochemical feedstocks, DuPont, Tate & Lyle and
Genencor have recently succeeded in producing PDO using a aerobic bioprocess with
glucose from corn starch as the feedstock (DuPont, 2003), opening the way for bulk
production of PTT from a bio-based monomer. Apart from PTT other acronyms are
PTMT (also for polytrimethylene terephthalate) and PPT (for polypropylene
terephthalate).
Figure 2-7: PTT molecule
O O
HO(CH2 )3O O C C O (CH2)3 H

n
As an engineering thermoplastic, PTT has a very desirable property set, combining the
rigidity, strength and heat resistance of poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) with the
good processability of the poly(butylene terephthalate) (PBT). PTT may be used to
produce fibres for carpets and industrial textiles where it has the good resiliency and
wearability of nylon, combined with the dyeability, static resistance and chemical
resistance of PET. As a spunbond fibre for apparel, its property set includes good
stretch recovery, softness and dyeability. When blended with other resins it can improve
strength, flexibility, and barrier properties in moulding and extrusion applications
(DuPont, 2003).

PTT was first synthesised in 1941. In the late 1960s, Shell attempted commercialisation
but was unsuccessful due to the high cost of one of the starting materials, namely PDO
produced via hydration of acrolein. Thus, while PET and PBT became very successful
commercial polymers, PTT, despite its good physical and chemical properties and
numerous potential applications, was not commercialised. It was not until the 1990s that
commercialisation of PTT was revisited. This time Shell used the more cost effective
process of continuous hydroformylation of ethylene oxide with newly-developed
catalysts. Commercialisation of PTT under the brand name Corterra® followed in 1999.
Shell, in joint venture with SGF Chemie JV, started construction of the first world-scale
PTT plant in Montreal, Canada. The plant is scheduled for completion in 2004 (Shell,
2003) and has a capacity of 86,000 t.p.a. of PTT at a project cost of € 40 million
(Textile World, 2002).
In parallel to the commercialisation efforts of Shell, DuPont has introduced its own
product from PTT (also know as “3GT” 9), SoronaTM. Whereas Shell’s focus for
Corterra® is on industrial fibres and engineering plastics, DuPont is specifically
targeting the high-value apparel market for its Sorona TM fibre. DuPont currently also
produces PDO from petrochemicals (using Degussa technology for hydration of
acrolein) but has firm plans to make the transition to bio-based PDO by 2005. Whereas
Shell concluded that the biotechnological route to PDO (at the time, via fermentation of
glycerol) was unattractive (Chuah, 1999), DuPont continued research in collaboration
with Genencor into metabolic engineering of an organism capable of directly producing
PDO from glucose at acceptable yields and rates. In early 2003 DuPont announced that
a commercially viable process had been attained (DuPont, 2003a) and that bio-based
PDO would soon become the platform chemical for its PTT process. DuPont’s
bioprocess to PDO was awarded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Presidential Green Chemistry award in early 2003 (NREL, 2003).
2.3.1.1 Production
The natural fermentation pathway to PDO involves two steps: yeast first ferments
glucose to glycerol, then bacteria ferment this to PDO. In the bioprocess developed by
DuPont, dextrose derived from wet-milled corn is metabolised by genetically
engineered E. coli10 bacteria and converted within the organism directly to PDO via an
aerobic respiration pathway (Figure 2-8)11. The PDO is then separated from the
fermentation broth by filtration, and concentrated by evaporation, followed by
purification by distillation. The PDO is then fed to the polymerisation plant.
9
DuPont has coined the term “3GT” as the generic name for the family of copolymers of PDO (“3G”)
and terephthalic acid (“T”). By extension, the generic name “4GT” refers to the family of copolymers
of BDO (1,4-butanediol or “4G”) and terephthalic acid (“T”) more generally referred to as PBT.
10
The E. coli, which has 26 gene modifications (Visser de, 2003), was developed by Genencor
International and DuPont is said to have a 500-fold increase in bioprocessing productivity, compared
to the microorganisms whose genes were extracted and incorporated into the modified bacteria
(Dechema, 2003).
11
It is understood that the microorganism currently produces PDO via an anaerobic pathway but DuPont
is also looking into an aerobic pathway since this has a higher theoretical yield; as well as increasing
the size of a theoretical production facility from 25,000 to about 50,000 tonnnes/year of PDO
(Morgan, 1998).

Figure 2-8: Bioroute to PDO
HOCH2 E.coli (GM)

O Enzymatic conversions
H CH2-OH H2C-OH
H H
HC-OH CH2
HO OH CH2-OH H2C-OH
OH H
H OH
glucose glycerol 1,3-propanediol
PTT can be produced either by transesterification of dimethyl terephthalate (DMT) with

PDO, or by the esterification route, starting with purified terephthalic acid (PTA) and
PDO (Figure 2-9). The polymerisation can be a continuous process and is similar to the
production of PET (Thiele, 2001). In the first stage of polymerisation, low molecular
weight polyester is produced in the presence of excess PDO, with water of esterification
(in the case of PTA) or methanol (in the case of DMT) being removed. In the second
stage, polycondensation, chain growth occurs by removal of PDO and remaining
water/methanol. As chain termination can occur at any time (due to the presence of a
monofunctional acid or hydroxyl compound), both monomers must be very pure. As the
reaction proceeds, removal of traces of PDO becomes increasingly difficult. This is
compensated for by having a series of reactors operating under progressively higher
temperatures and lower pressures. In a final step, the highly viscous molten polymer is
blended with additives in a static mixer and then pelletized.
Since PTT production is analogous in many ways to that of PET, it is possible in

general with some modifications to convert existing PET facilities (primarily, batch
plants) to PTT production. The PDO unit needs to be built separately. The cost for
conversion of a PET facility to PTT is between 10% to 20% of the cost of building a
new plant (Norberg, 2003), equating to relatively low startup capital. This also means
that there is the possibility of a reasonably fast increase in global production volumes
over the next few years should PTT prove attractive to current PET producers. Of the
two main players, the approach DuPont has taken is to modify existing PET facilities;
while Shell is constructing an entirely new facility for PTT.
Figure 2-9: Production of PTT from PDO and PTA or DMT
O O
+ HO C C OH
- Water
Purified terephtalicAcid (PTA) - PDO
CH2 -OH O O
C-H2 HO CH2 CH2 CH2 O C O CH2 CH2 CH2 OH
C
CH2 -OH
n
1,3- Propanediol(PDO)
Poly(trimethylene terephthalate) (PTT)
O O - Methanol
- PDO
+ H3 C O C C O CH3
Dimethyl Terephtalate(DMT)

Other products from bio-based PDO

In the future, it is likely that DuPont will also use PDO in the development of
engineering polymers similar to PBT and high performance elastomers such as
copolyester ethers (COPE). PDO could also be used as a chain extender for
thermoplastic polyurethanes instead of 1,4-butanediol (Morgan, 1998).
2.3.1.2 Properties
PTT combines physical properties similar to PET (strength, stiffness, toughness and
heat resistance) with processing properties of PBT (low melt and mould temperatures,
rapid crystallisation, faster cycle time than PET) (Shell, 1997) as well as having
similarities to polyamide (PA 6,6) and polypropylene (PP), for fibre applications and
polycarbonate (PC) for moulding applications (Table 2-14). There is also some overlap
in terms of properties and processability (fibres and films) with PLA and cellophane.
Chemical and physical properties

In general, PTT is similar in molecular weight and molecular weight distribution to
other polyesters (Hwo and Shiffler, 2000). The polyester backbone is saturated and
hence unreactive (Thiele, 2001). As for other linear polyesters it is crystalline, hard,
strong and extremely tough. The density of PTT is slightly lower than PET and similar
to PBT.
PTT has an odd number (three) of methylene units between each of the terephthalates
whereas PBT and PET both have an even number of methylene units. The odd number
of methylene units affects the physical and chemical structure of PTT, giving it elastic
recovery beyond that of PBT and PET and into the range of nylon (Houck et al., 2001).
Mechanical and thermal properties

The tensile strength and flexular modulus decrease between PET, PTT and PBT
respectively. The elongation to break of PTT staple (fibre) is significantly larger than
either PET or nylon, suggesting improved tear strength. PTT’s initial modulus which is
lower than PET or nylon, corresponds to a less rigid and hence softer, more easily
hydroentangled (nonwoven) fibre. PTT has a melting point 37°C and a glass transition
roughly 25 °C lower than PET, thus requiring correspondingly lower processing
temperatures (Hwo and Shiffler, 2000).
Other properties
PTT films have low vapour permeation. Due to the moderate glass transition
temperature, PTT is dyeable with common dispersion dyes at atmospheric boil without
a carrier. Its exhibits uniform dye uptake and with selected dyes, colourfastness
comparable to nylon (Houck et al., 2001), and stain resistance. It also has excellent UV
resistance (British Plastics, 2003) and low static-charge generation; hence its suitability
for carpeting. PTT fibre has been found in consumer tests to have a softer feel than
polyamide and PET, which is a desirable property for apparel.

Conversion technologies, blends and composites

Most interest and development activity relating to PTT lies in filament and fibre
spinning (Thiele, 2001). PTT can be spun and drawn at high speeds, resulting in a fibre
suitable for applications such as sportswear, activewear, and other specialty textiles. It
can be processed on conventional equipment for PET, provided moisture content is kept
below 30 ppm and provisions are made for the lower melt point and glass transition
temperature compared to PET. Unlike PET, undrawn PTT rope will not harden when
exposed to water at temperatures over 60-70 °C and therefore has potentially higher
fibre quality (Hwo and Shiffler, 2000). Its heat-setting properties make PTT particularly
useful in non-woven fabrics (Houck et al., 2001). Interest in developing PTT as an
engineering plastic and for packaging technologies is expected to grow as standard
resins become available on the market (Thiele, 2001).
There is good potential for PTT to be blended with other polymers, in particular PET
and nylon. Chuah et al. (1995) report that PTT can be spun in a PTT/PET bicomponent
(side by side) resulting in a crimp due to differential shrinkage that yields a high loft but
retains other desirable traits. Core-sheath bicomponents are also being produced. PTT
can also serve as a crystallization enhancer (due to its faster crystallisation) for PET
within a lower range of addition (Thiele, 2001).

Table 2-14: Properties of polymers potentially from bio-based monomers and

selected other polymers used in fibre or engineered thermoplastics
applications1
Raw material basis Potential bio-based monomer Petchem-based

Polymer name Poly Poly Poly Poly Poly Poly Poly Poly
(trimethy- (butylene (butylene (amide)-6 (ethylene (amide) (carbo- (propy-
lene tereph- succinate) (nylon-6) tereph- -6,6 nate) lene)
terephthalate) thalate) (nylon-
thalate) 6,6)
Acronym PTT PBT PBS PA 6 PET PA 6,6 PC PP
Polymer structure aromatic aromatic aliphatic poly- aromatic poly- poly- poly-
polyester polyester polyester amide polyester amide carbonate olefin
Physical properties
Density (g/cm3) 1.35 1.34 1.23 1.13 1.40 1.14 1.2 0.91
Hazeb (%) 2-3a 2-5 2-3a 1-4
Mechanical properties
Tensile strength at yield 67.6 56.5 62 80 72.5 82.8, 90 65 28
(MPa)
Elongation at yieldc (%) 710 50-100 20 500
Flexular modulus (MPa) 2760 2340 470 2410 3110 2830 2350 1690
Thermal properties
Heat deflection temp (°C) 59 54 97 55-75 65 90 129
Melting point (°C) 225 222-232 90-120 220 265 265 168
Glass transition temp (°C) 45-75 30-50 -45 to -10 40-87 80 50-90 -17 to -4
1
Refs: Hwo & Shiffler (2000); Grothe (2000); Brandrup et al. (1999); Leaversuch (2002); Galactic
(2003); Chuah (1999); Morgan (1998); Brydson (1989); Brandup (1989); Brikett (2003); Kubra
Kunstoffen (2003); Kawashima et al. (2002); deKoning (2003); Plasticbottle Corp (2003); Thiele
(2001); Showa HP (2003).
a
Gen. fig. for nylons; bBiaxially oriented films; cASTM D 882.
2.3.1.3 Technical substitution potential
Although no interviews were held with company representatives, it may be concluded

from the property comparisons with other polymers that PTT’s substitution potential
(Table 2-15) is very high for nylon and PET, and moderately high for PBT, PC and PP.
It is important to note that if the list of materials is extended to include bio-based
polymers, PTT could substitute to some extent also for PLA in the market being
established by Cargill Dow (especially in fibre applications), possibly also for PHA, and
for cellophane film, depending on biodegradability requirements. The (theoretical)
substitution potential of bio-based for petrochemical-based PTT is 100%, since the
product should be identical assuming feedstock qualities and polymerisation processes
are equivalent. In practice, as for all other polymer substitutions, the price will largely
determine the actual extent to which substitution takes place.
Table 2-15: Technical substitution potential for PTT

PVC PE- PE- PP CC- PM- PA PET PBT PC POM PUR HI- ABS non-
HD LD PS MA PS poly
PTT - - - + - - ++ ++ + + - - - -

2.3.1.4 Applications today and tomorrow
Applications for PTT are being developed primarily in the fibres (textile, carpet,
apparel) and packaging (films) sectors. While PET will continue to be preferred for
carbonated beverage bottling, PTT is expected to substitute for PET to some extent in
fibre applications as well as for various packaging films and other items such as (Thiele
2001) X-ray film, magnetic tape (audio, video and computer) metallized film, strapping
and labels. Also novel applications for PTT are being developed, for example Solenium
is a composite flooring material designed for institutional and hospital use that
capitalises on PTT’s elastic regain, durability and colourfastness properties (Houck et
al., 2001).
Compared to other polymers discussed in this report, PTT is unique in that it is only just
emerging on bulk markets, and before these markets are properly established it is
expected that DuPont will fully substitute bio-based PTT for its current petrochemical-
based PTT. In terms of the two key players, there seems to be a delineation between
Shell’s commercialisation interests and those of DuPont: Shell is mainly targeting the
houseware (carpeting) sector for Corterra® and expects 20% of the material to go into
typical engineering-type applications; e.g. moulded housings for appliances and
electronics (Morgan, 1998). DuPont, on the other hand, is focusing its development
efforts for Sorona TM on fibres for apparel. It is thus expected that applications for PTT
will be developed in parallel by both companies (and possibly other market entrants in
the near future), with PTT broadening its application base and gaining market share
over other polymers in the next few years. As discussed in the previous section, price
competitiveness (along with possibly some influence from marketing strategies) will
chiefly determine the extent to which bio-based PTT gains market share at the expense
of petrochemical-based PTT.
2.3.1.5 Current and emerging producers
At present, DuPont is the only company known to be commercialising a bio-based route

to PDO. DuPont’s pilot facility for production of corn-derived PDO is located in
Decatur, Illinois, where carbohydrate processor Tate & Lyle operates a corn wet mill
(Genencor, 2003). DuPont and Tate & Lyle PLC have set up a 50/50 joint venture
DuPont Tate & Lyle BioProducts, LLC which will be based in Wilmington, Delaware.
The company plans to construct its initial commercial manufacturing plant adjacent to
an existing facility in Loudon, Tenn., with startup scheduled for 2006. A pilot facility
in Decatur, Illinois has been operating for several years (DuPont, 2004). DuPont’s
continuous polymerisation PTT plant, located in Kinston, NC, U.S., was built with an
initial capacity of 9,800 t.p.a. (October 2000) and the capability to expand to 40,800
t.p.a. (Genencor, 2003). The Kinston plant has the capability to shift its production from
petroleum-based to bio-based PDO (DuPont, 2003a).
In October 2003, The U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) and DuPont announced a US $7.7 million joint research agreement
to collaboratively develop, build, and test a bio-refinery pilot process that will make
value-added chemicals (including PDO) from the starch-containing kernels and
electricity and fuel-grade ethanol from the corn stover. The agreement is part of the
larger $38 million DuPont-led consortium known as the Integrated Corn-Based
Bioproducts Refinery (ICBR) project. The ICBR project—which includes DuPont,

NREL, Diversa Corporation, Michigan State, and Deere & Co.—was awarded US $19
million in matching funds from the Department of Energy last year to design and
demonstrate the feasibility and practicality of alternative energy and renewable resource
technology (NREL, 2003). As a bulk volume producer of chemicals and polymers,
DuPont’s involvement in these projects indicates that developments in bio-based routes
are likely to be substantial in the coming years. Shell expects the demand for PTT to
exceed 1 million t.p.a. in 2010 (Shell Chemicals, 2003).
2.3.1.6 Expected developments in cost structure and selling price
No costs are available for the DuPont process for PDO and PTT production; therefore
cost estimates will be made based on available data.
Selling price
No market prices could be found for PTT. According to DuPont representatives,
SoronaTM will be priced at the same level as Nylon 6 (Franklin, 2002). The price of
Nylon 6 is in the range of € 1.30 - € 1.40 per kg in Asia (Norberg, 2003) and € 1.50 - €
1.60 per kg in the US. From this one can roughly estimate a market entry price for PTT
in the range of € 1.30 - € 1.60 (average € 1.45) depending on the location and market
conditions at the time.
Cost structure
The cost of biotechnological production of 1,3-propanediol (PDO) by fermentation of
glycerol found in BioMatNet (2003) was assessed to be € 1.77 per kg PDO; based on a
plant capacity of 75000 t.p.a. The cost of PTA and DMT are € 0.60 and € 0.62 per kg
respectively (TIG, 2001).
Taking the case of PTT from bio-based PDO (by fermentation) and PTA, the raw
material costs are given in 2-16. The ratio is determined by the stoichiometry of the
reaction. Other raw materials apart from the two main ingredients are neglected. The
price of PDO is more than twice that of PTA; but since a relatively small amount of
PDO is required to produce 1 kg of PTT, the overall contribution of PDO to feedstock
cost is roughly only 60%. The total feedstock cost is estimated at € 1.14 per kg PTT.
Assuming similar cost ratios as for the production of PLA (Section 2.2.6; costs due to
lactic acid are in the range of 40-65% of total), one can estimate the total direct costs for
producing PTT to be in the range of € 1.75 to € 2.85 (average € 2.30) per kg. This is
significantly above the planned market price but could be feasible in the first phase of
market development while learning effects at the company level are still being realised.
Table 2-16: Feedstocks costs for PTT production from PTA and PDO
Feedstock Cost, €/kg kg feedstock per kg PTT Cost, €/kg PTT % of feedstock costs
PDO 1.77 0.37 0.65 57
PTA 0.60 0.81 0.49 43
Total - - 1.14 100


As previously noted, DuPont expects the market price of PTT to track the price of Nylon
6, with a slight premium being possible if (as claimed by DuPont) the superior attributes
of PTT fibre over Nylon 6 in many applications drive demand (Norberg, 2003).
2.3.1.7 Environmental impacts
Using data in the public domain, first estimates were made for the environmental
impacts related to the production of PTT from bio-based PDO. Data were only available
for the bio-based production of PDO via fermentation of glycerol (Grothe, 2000) which
have been combined with information from various sources on the petrochemical
production of (purified) terephthalic acid (PTA) and on the polymerisation stage
(among them Boustead, 1999/2000). As Figure 2-10 shows the total energy
requirements for the production of PTT are 16% lower than for PET, while the fossil
CO2 emissions are practically the same. The slight differences between PET and PTT
related to the use of PTA (see Figure 2-10) are a consequence of different stoichiometric
relationships for the two polymers. Energy use and emissions related to the
polymerisation step are comparable in the two cases. Hence the difference in the totals
mainly originates from the alcohol component: The energy use related to the diol
component is clearly lower in the case of PTT compared to PET while, for carbon
dioxide, its contribution is somewhat higher in the case of PTT. The similar values for
CO2 emissions are a consequence of comparable (fossil) process energy requirements
for the production of PDO and ethylene glycol; in addition, stoichiometry plays a small
role, leading to slightly higher emissions for the diol component in the case of PTT. The
larger energy input for the diol component in the case of PET is caused by the fossil
feedstock for ethylene glycol which is not required for PDO.
It should be noted that the results shown in Figure 2-10 refer to the production of PDO
from glycerol (i.e. the route originally investigated by Shell, see Section 2.3.1), while
DuPont’s new fermentative process is based on glucose. The environmental impacts of
DuPont’s new process may hence be substantially lower (no results have been published
to date). On the other hand, the results presented in Figure 2-10 are based on the
assumption that the glycerol used is available as a byproduct without any environmental
impacts (it was assumed that all impacts are allocated to the main product, i.e. rapeseed
oil methyl ester). It is unclear whether these two assumptions – a possibly more
disadvantageous raw material than to be used by DuPont on the one hand and an
allocation method leading to lower environmental impacts on the other – compensate
each other. It is intended to investigate these aspects in depth in the BREW project
(BREW, 2003).

Figure 2-10: Cradle-to-factory gate energy use and CO2 emissions for
petrochemical PET and (partially) bio-based PTT (based on PDO
from glycerol) (data for PET originate primarily from Boustead,
1999-2000; data for PTT are preliminary estimates based on various
sources; see text)
90 3.5
3.2
80
Energy (without bio-based feedstocks),
77.2 3.0 0.4

5.9 2.9
70
64.7 0.4
5.9 2.5
60 22.6 1.0
CO2 emissions,
t CO2/t plastic
0.8
GJ/t plastic
50 14.1 2.0
40
1.5
30
48.7 1.0 1.8
44.7 1.7
20
0.5
10
0 0.0
PET PTT PET PTT
PTA Diol Polymerisation

PTA Diol Polymerisation
2.3.2 PBT from bio-based BDO
Much of the discussion concerning Poly(butylene terephthalate) (PBT) is analogous to

that for PTT (section 2.3.1), apart from two major differences. Firstly, PBT can also be
produced from a bio-based monomer and a number of studies have been carried out in
recent years, but the results (to the best of our knowledge) have not yet led to an
economically viable process. DuPont’s recent success with bio-based 1,3-PDO could
well provide stimulus to those interested in developing a commercial bioroute to BDO,
but in the meantime the discussion of bio-based PBT is limited to the realm of the
theoretical. Secondly, whereas PTT is only now emerging on the market, petrochemical-
based PBT is already well established, with demand growing strongly: in 1997 the
global demand for PBT was about 340,000 tonnes and the long-term average growth
rate is about 6.2% (Morgan, 2001). This section will thus be limited to a description of a
possible bio-based route to BDO as a monomer platform for PBT, substitution potential
and pricing issues for bio-based versus petrochemical-based PBT, and a brief
assessment of market prospects for PBT in general.
2.3.2.1 Production
Poly(butylene terephthalate) (PBT) (Figure 2-11) is a linear aromatic polyester

produced by transesterification and polycondensation of dimethyl terephthalate (DMT)
with 1,4-butanediol (BDO). PBT can also be produced from purified terephthalic acid
(PTA) and BDO. The reaction scheme is similar to Figure 2-8, except with BDO in
place of PDO.

Figure 2-11: PBT molecule
O O
HO(CH2 )4O C C O (CH2)4 O H

n
Conventional processes for the synthesis of BDO use petrochemical feedstocks, the
most common being the Reppe process using acteylene and formaldehyde followed by
hydrogenation of the intermediate to produce BDO (AZOM, 2003). An alternative bio-
based process described by Smith, Cooper and Vigon (2001) involves three steps: corn-
derived glucose is fermented to succinic acid, succinic acid is then purified by
electrodialysis, then purified succinic acid is reduced catalytically to BDO.
PBT plants currently being built use continuous polymerisation (replacing old converted
PET batch plants). The new continuous processes produce high intrinsic viscosity PBT
without further processing steps (Thiele, 2001). The material quality from the new
plants is also expected to be more consistent than that of the materials produced in the
old converted PET plants.
2.3.2.2 Properties
PBT is a semi-crystalline, white or off-white polyester similar in both composition and

properties PET and PTT (Table 2-14). The crystallinity of PBT imparts good strength,
stiffness and creep resistance to finished products. Compared to PET, PBT has
somewhat lower strength and stiffness, is a little softer but has higher impact strength
and very similar chemical resistance. PBT’s crystallisation temperature is in the range
of 80-120 °C (as for PTT), and thus much higher than that of PET (130-150 °C) (Thiele,
2001). As it crystallises more rapidly than PET it tends to be preferred for industrial
scale moulding; e.g. of electrical and automotive components (AZOM, 2003). PBT has
a high continuous use temperature compared to other thermoplastics, has excellent
electrical properties, and can be easily made flame retardant. It also has superior
dimensional stability and good chemical resistance, particularly to organic solvents and
oils (Morgan, 1998).
As for PTT, the theoretical substitution potential of bio-based PBT for conventional
PBT (assuming identical property sets) is 100%, while practical substitution depends
essentially on price relativity.
PBT has a similar substitution profile to PTT (2-16), except with a higher degree of
substitution for PC and slightly less substitution for PA and PET. PBT can substitute for
phenolic resins and related materials in thermoset applications such as automotive
electrical systems and connectors (Morgan, 1998). PBT has similar properties to PTT
and a number of newly-developed aliphatic ketones in some markets, but substitution is
more likely to proceed the other way around (i.e. replacement of PBT) due to the
relatively high price of PBT.

The discussion of applications and future markets relates to PBT in general rather than
bio-based PBT. PBT is mostly used in compounded and alloyed form (e.g. with an
amorphous polymer such as polycarbonate) in high performance applications. Major
end-use sectors include the electrical and electronic (E&E) and transportation sectors
(Morgan 1998). An example of a recent development in the E&E sector is PBT for fibre
cable sheathing. Other applications in E&E include electrical insulation of household
equipment, relay capstans, connecting cable, components for switches, and spark plug
cases (Kamm and Schüller, 1997). New compounds and flame-retardant compositions
for engineering plastic applications are also expected to be developed (Thiele, 2001). As
PBT becomes available in larger amounts and at a lower price, the field of applications
will widen and interest in textile spinning might even be revived.
As already discussed, the status of bio-based BDO and producers interested in this
possibility is not known. Conventional PBT however is currently in a growth
acceleration phase with four new PBT projects planned to come on stream in 2003/4, at
a total design capacity of 600 t/d (219 kt.p.a.). Most of these new plants will replace the
remaining high-cost discontinuous production lines, which are mostly converted PET
lines (Thiele, 2001). The total global demand for PBT in 2003 is estimated at 488,000
t.p.a.12, so these new plants will supply about half of the global demand, assuming
operation at full capacity.
The cost structure of PBT manufacture is not known but could be expected to be
somewhere in the vicinity of that for PTT. The current market price of petrochemical-
based PBT resin (all US market prices) is in the range of € 2.00 - € 2.30 per kg for PBT
injection (Plasticsnews, 2003) and € 2.85 - € 3.00 per kg for PBT unfilled resin (PTO,
2003). This clearly places PBT in the engineering thermoplastics, as opposed to PET
which is classified in the volume thermoplastics at roughly half this price: PET bottle
grade is priced at € 1.45 - € 1.55 (PTO, 2003). The market price for PBT from bio-based
BDO is not expected to change from the current market price.
2.3.2.7 Environmental impacts
No verified results on environmental impacts are available for Poly(butylene

terephthalate) (PBT). A preliminary energy analysis has been conducted for this study
using a publication by Cooper and Vigon (2001) on the environmental profile of bio-
based versus petrochemical 1,4-butanediol (BDO). As a (preliminary) result, the (cradle-
to-factory gate) energy use for bio-based PBT has been determined to be about 10% lower
than that of petrochemical PBT. Since the study by Cooper and Vigon (2001) does not
provide any information on the type of the bio-based process, its development stage and
the scale of production it is not justifiable to use these results without further verification.
12
From Section 2.3.2: in 1997 the global demand for PBT was about 340,000 tonnes and the long-term
average growth rate is about 6.2% (Morgan, 2001). From this an estimate for 2003 demand has been
calculated.

2.3.3 PBS from bio-based succinic acid
Poly(butylene succinate) (PBS) (Figure 2-12) is a biodegradable synthetic aliphatic

polyester with similar properties to PET. It has excellent mechanical properties and can
be applied to a range of end applications via conventional melt processing techniques.
Applications include mulch film, packaging film, bags and flushable hygiene products
(Nandini, 2003). PBS is generally blended with other compounds, such as thermoplastic
starch and adipate copolymers (to form PBSA) to make its use more economical.
Figure 2-12: PBS molecule
O O
HO C (CH2)2 C O (CH2)4 O H
n
One of the monomers for PBS is succinic acid, a dicarboxylic acid previously of little
commercial interest which has been the subject of much R&D of late, particularly in
Japan, due to the increasing attention on new polyesters with good mechanical
properties combined with full biodegradability and the potential for manufacture from
renewable feedstocks (Lockwood, 1979). While Showa HighPolymer (the only known
bulk producer of PBS) employs a process based on petrochemical monomers,
Mitsubishi Chemical and Ajinimoto are reported to be developing a bioroute to succinic
acid. Mitsubishi will produce PBS from bio-based succinic acid and claims that this will
be much cheaper than polylactic acid (PLA) and could replace it in several applications
(Nandini, 2003).
2.3.3.1 Production
PBS is currently produced by condensation polymerisation of petrochemical-based

succinic acid and 1,4-butanediol (BDO), both of which are usually derived from maleic
anhydride (Nandini, 2003).
In the bioroute succinic acid may be produced together with oxalic acid, fumaric acid
and malic acid in submerged culture anaerobic fermentation by various types of bacteria
and molds (Lockwood, 1979). Succinic acid can also be converted via maleic anhydride
to butanediol (Nandini, 2003). Succinate concentration as high as 110 g/l have been
achieved from glucose by the rumen organism Actinobacillus succinogenes (Liu, 2000).
It can also be produced by Anarobiospirillum succiniciproducens using glucose or even
lactose, sucrose, maltose, and fructose as carbon sources.
2.3.3.2 Properties
PBS (Table 2-14) is a white crystalline thermoplastic with density (as for PLA) of 1.25,
melting point much higher than PLA and lower than P(3HB-co-3V) and a very low
glass transition temperature. It has generally excellent mechanical properties and
processability. Like other aliphatic polyesters, it is thermal stable up to approximately
200 ºC (for aromatic polyesters this is much lower). It has good dyeing characteristics
and is biodegradable.

PBS may be processed using conventional polyolefin equipment in the temperature

range 160-200 ºC to manufacture injection, extrusion or blown moulded products. New
grades of PBS copolymers have recently been produced with a high recrystallisation
rate and high melt tension, suitable for preparing stretched blown films and highly
expanded foams.
PBS can substitute for PET; also for PP. Mitsubishi claims that PBS can replace
polyolefins (PE, PP) and polystyrene in some applications; additionally it can replace
PLA in several applications (Nandini, 2003). Showa HP (2003) also suggests
substitution potential is highest for PE-LD, PE-HD and PP; as well as non-polymeric
materials including paper, natural fibre and wood.
PBS finds applications in mulch film, packaging, bags, flushable hygiene products and
as a non-migrating plasticiser for PVC. Showa HighPolymer, who provided a
breakdown of the market for the company’s PBS products (Table 2-17) cites strong
growth in agricultural mulch film and foamed cushioning and specifies food packaging
and engineering works material as other future growth areas. Mitsubishi is targeting the
market being developed by Cargill Dow for PLA; i.e. packaging, fibres and mulch film
(Nandini, 2003).
Showa also produces a grade of Bionolle® which has a long chain branch, high melt
tension and high recrystallisation rate, suitable for the manufacture of stretched blown
bottles and highly expanded foams (Liu, 2000).
Table 2-17: Main applications for PBS and PBSA – share of interviewed
company’s1 total production by market sector (scope: global)2
% of total production % of total production

Sector
today in 2020
Packaging3 25 57.5
Building 5 7.5
Agriculture 50 15
Transportation 10 10
Furniture 4 5
Electrical appliances and electronics (E&E) 2 5
Houseware 4 5
Others -
Total 100 100
1
Showa HP (2003);
2
Breakdown of current market (t.p.a.): EU-15: 20; Japan: 1445; other: 35;
3
Includes compost bag (10% today, 7.5% in 2020).

Mitsubishi Chemical and Ajinimoto are reported to be developing a bioroute to succinic

acid. Mitsubishi will produce PBS from bio-based succinic acid and claim that this will
be much cheaper than polylactic acid (PLA) and could replace it in several applications
(Nandini, 2003).
The main producer of PBS is Showa Highpolymer, part of the Showa Denko Group, in
Japan. Showa produces PBS and PBSA13 at a combined capacity of 3,000 t.p.a. and
plans to double this capacity to 6,000 t.p.a. Production in 2002 was 1500 t and
cumulative production since plant start-up is 6000 t (Nandini, 2003).(Showa HP, 2003).
SK Polymers, Korea is also reported to have a small plant producing PBS and PBS-A
(trade name SkyGreen BDP).
The first bio-based PBS is likely to be produced by Mitsubishi Chemical. Mitsubishi

has plans to produce 3,000 t.p.a. of PBS for use as garbage bags and agricultural films.
The process for bio-based succinic acid is being developed by Mitsubishi together with
Ajinimoto. The plan is to have a succinic acid plant with an initial capacity of 30,000
t.p.a. by 2006, to be located outside Japan in a region with a suitable supply of crops.
Mitsubishi says its bio-based PBS is likely to be much cheaper than poly(lactic acid) in
several applications (Nandini, 2003).
Showa HighPolymer sells Bionolle® PBS for € 3.50 per kilo and expects this price to
go down only marginally to € 3.00 per kilo (Showa HP, 2003)14. It is expected that PBS
with a bio-based component will be competitively priced with Showa’s product, since
Mitsubishi’s target is to match the price of PLA.
According to Showa HP (2003) (referring to the petrochemical production route), the
raw material has the most influence on the cost price; followed by the scale of
production. Showa claims that the percentage of costs attributed to the feedstock will
increase (from 50% in 2003 to 85% in 2030).
Showa’s projections are in sharp contrast to the expected decrease in raw material cost
(both in absolute terms and relative to total costs) which is expected for the bio-based
route. Specifically, new developments in end product recovery are reported to have
lowered the cost of succinic acid production to U.S. $ 0.55 (€ 0.50) per kg at the 75,000
tonne per year scale and to U.S. $ 2.20 (€ 1.96) per kg at the 5,000 t.p.a. scale (Liu,
2000).
2.4 Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs)
Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), consituting a class of bio-based polyesters with highly

attractive qualities for thermoprocessing applications, have not yet entered bulk markets
due to high production costs. Like PLA, PHAs are aliphatic polyesters produced via
fermentation of renewable feedstocks. Whereas PLA production is a two-stage process
13
PBS: Bionolle #1000, Bionolle #1903; PBSA: Bionolle #3000, other products: Bionolle 5151.
14
(P&G, 2002) gives a higher figure of € 5.00 per kilo.

(fermentation to monomer followed by a conventional polymerisation step), PHAs are

produced directly via fermentation of carbon substrate within the microorganism. The
PHA accumulates as granules within the cytoplasm of cells and serves as a microbial
energy reserve material (OTA, 1993). PHAs have a semicrystalline structure, the degree
of crystallinity ranging from about 40% to around 80% (Abe and Doi, 1999).
Figure 2-13: PHA molecule
O R
|
HO C (CH2)x C O H
| n
H
Figure 2-13 shows the generic formula for PHAs where x is 1 (for all commercially –
relevant polymers) and R can be hydrogen or hydrocarbon chains of up to around C16
in length. A wide range of PHA homopolymers, copolymers, and terpolymers have been
produced, in most cases at the laboratory scale. The main members of the PHA family
are the homopolymers poly(3-hydroxybutyrate), P(3HB), which is the above generic
formula with R=1(methyl), and poly(3-hydroxyvalerate), P(3HV), generic formula with
R=2(ethyl). PHAs containing 3-hydroxy acids have a chiral centre and hence are
optically active (Metabolix, 2003)
Copolymers of PHAs vary in the type and proportion of monomers, and are typically
random in sequence. Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate – co-3-hydroxyvalerate), P(3HB-co-
3HV), trade name Biopol®, is made up of a random arrangement of the monomers R=1
and R=2. Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate – co-3-hydroxyhexanoate), P(3HB-co-3HHx),
consists of the monomers R=1(ethyl) and R=3(propyl). The Nodax® family of
copolymers, are poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyalkanoate)s with co-polymer
content varying from 3–15 mol % and chain length from C7 up to C19 (P&G, 2001).
The range of PHA structural architectures that is now accessible has opened up a broad
property space, encompassing rigid thermoplastics, thermoplastic elastomers, as well as
grades useful in waxes, adhesives, and binders (Metabolix, 2003). Table 2-18 lists the
major PHAs that have been the subject of ongoing investigations and commercialisation
efforts in recent years. Not included in this table but also under investigation are 4HB-
containing PHAs. According to Steinbüchel and Lütke-Eversloh (2003), there are
reasonable prospects for 4HB-containing PHAs, which have promising mechanical
properties, to be obtained from cheap carbon sources such as glucose and 1,4-butanediol
by employing engineered organisms.

Table 2-18: The structure of basic PHAs and those of commercial interest1
PHA 3-hydroxy acids with side chain R

P(3HB) -CH3
P(3HV) -CH2CH3
P(3HB-co-3HV) (Biopol®)2 -CH3 and –CH2CH2CH3
P(3HB-co-3HHx) (Kaneka)3, (Nodax®)4 -CH3 and –(CH2)2CH3
P(3HB-co-3HO) (Nodax®) -CH3 and –(CH2)4CH3
P(3HB-co-3HOd) (Nodax®) -CH3 and –(CH2)14CH3
1 3
(P&G, 2002); Kaneka holds the patent on chemical composition;
2 4
Patent held by Metabolix, Inc.; P&G holds processing and application patents.
Commercialisation of P(3HB), the prototype of the PHA family, was first attempted by
W. R. Grace Co. in the 1950s (OTA 1993). In the mid-70’s, Zeneca (formerly ICI) Bio
Products produced several tons of a series of PHA copolymers under the trade name
Biopol®. In the period 1982-88, Chemie Linz GmbH in collaboration with Petrochemia
Danubia (PCD) produced P(3HB) from sucrose as substrate and in 1991 commenced
pilot production of 2 tonnes (Biomer, 2003). In the early 1990s Zeneca UK produced
P(3HB-co-3HV) by bacterial fermentation using a mixture of glucose and propionic
acid. At the time, Zeneca’s pilot plant polymer was offered at US $30 per kg and
material from a 5000 tons/year semi-commercial plant was projected to go down to US
$8-10 per kg, still a prohibitive price for bulk applications.
In 1996, Zeneca sold its Biopol business to Monsanto, who continued investigations
started by Zeneca into production of PHA in genetically-modified crops; specifically,
the expression of PHA-synthesizing genes in rapeseed. In parallel, Monsanto
commercially produced small volumes of Biopol® P(3HB-co-3HV) by means of
fermentation. In 1998, Monsanto ceased its PHA operations (Bohlmann, 2000) and in
2001 sold its Biopol® assets to the U.S. biotechnology company Metabolix (Metabolix,
2003). Today, Metabolix is producing PHAs through fermentation of commercial-grade
corn sugar in a 50 cubic metre fermenter. Metabolix has achieved high production rates
and titres with overall fermentation times of less than 40 hours, and claims that targets
for commercially-viable production of PHA are within reach. In parallel, Metabolix
continues R&D on PHA production in genetically modified crops.
A company not generally associated with the field of biotechnology, Procter & Gamble
(P&G) has engaged in R&D efforts to develop and commercialise the Nodax® range of
PHAs (P&G, 2003). P&G has patented recovery and processing routes for these
polymers which it has licensed to the Japanese company Kaneka Corporation. Kaneka is
developing the commercial process and is expected to be producing bulk volumes
(20,000 t.p.a. or more) of P(3HB-co-3HHx) by early 2005. For commercial viability
PHA concentrations of 60 to preferably 80 g/l should be reached (P&G, 2001).
Feedstocks currently being utilised for PHA production are high value substrates such
as sucrose, vegetable oils and fatty acids. In theory, any carbon source can be utilised,
including lignocellulosics from agricultural by-products. In practice, as for PLA and the
other polyesters already discussed, further improvements in fermentation yields by
metabolic engineering of microorganisms, together with technological advances in
feedstock pretreatment (e.g. new enzymatic processes) are prerequisites for a shift to
lower-value feedstocks.

2.4.1 Production of PHAs
Production by Fermentation
A generic process for PHA produced by bacterial fermentation consists of three basic
steps: fermentation, isolation and purification and blending and palletising (P&G,
2003). Subsequent to inoculation and small-scale fermentation, a large fermentation
vessel is filled with mineral medium and inoculated with seed ferment (containing the
microbe or bacteria). The carbon source is fed at various rates until it is completely
consumed and cell growth and PHA accumulation is complete. The bacteria can be fed
a range of different carbon sources; e.g. E.coli fed with a range of oils (lipids,
saccharides etc.) as a food source produces different compositions of Nodax®; R.
eutropha fed with a combination of glucose and propionate produces Biopol® P(3HB-
co-3HV) (Asrar and Gruys, 2001). The total fermentation step typically takes 38 to 48
hours. To isolate and purify PHA, the cells are concentrated, dried and extracted with
hot solvent. The residual cell debris is removed from the solvent containing dissolved
PHA by solid-liquid separation process. The PHA is then precipitated by addition of a
non-solvent and recovered by solid-liquid separation process. PHA is washed with
solvent to enhance the quality and dried under vacuum and moderate temperatures (in
certain cases where high purity product is not needed, solvent extraction may not be
required). The neat polymer is packaged for shipping. Separately the solvents are
distilled and recycled. The neat polymer is typically pre-formed in pellets with or
without other polymer ingredients based on down stream application needs.
Production in crops
The technology is being developed to produce PHAs in specific plant tissues, such as
seeds or leaves, directly by photosynthesis using carbon dioxide and water as the raw
materials. Many attempts have been made to produce PHAs directly in plants, but so far
all have fallen short of demonstrating an economic system. Metabolix claims to be
making significant progress with metabolic engineering to produce PHAs in high yields
directly in non-food, industrial crop plants (Metabolix 2003).
Current and future feedstocks

Currently, the type of feedstock varies greatly depending on the grade of product
desired and the microorganism used in the fermentation. Important carbon sources for
producing PHA today (classic substrates in defined media) include (Braunegg, 2002):
• Carbohydrates: glucose, fructose, sucrose.
• Alcohols: methanol, glycerol
• Alkanes: hexane to dodecane
• Organic acids: butyrate upwards
In the US, the raw material source today is chiefly corn steep liquor; in the EU beet
sugar predominates. High value feedstocks such as palm kernel or soybean oil are also
used with some microorganisms.

If PHA by fermentation is to attain bulk commercial viability as well as to further

improve its sustainability profile, production must be from cheap renewable resources,
with complex growth and production media. Possibilities include:
• Carbohydrates: Molasses, starch and whey hydrolysates (maltose), lactose from
whey, cellulose hydrolysates (e.g. paper industry waste)
• Alcohols: Wastes from biodiesel production: methanol plus glycerol, methanol
• Fats and oils: lipids from plant and animal wastes
• Organic acids: lactic acid from the dairy industry
Theoretical yield calculations have already been performed for many possible
feedstocks. The result of one such calculation (The Wheypol Process) shows that the 50
x 106 metric tonnes of whey produced annually in Europe could be used to produce
618,000 metric tonnes of P(HB-co-15%HV) (Braunegg, 2002).
2.4.2 Properties
The chemical, mechanical and thermal properties of PHAs are given in Table 2-19. In
the discussion of material properties, a distinction will be drawn between P(3HB)
homopolymer (as produced by Biomer), P(3HB-co-3HV) di-copolymer as produced by
Metabolix and P(3HB-co-3HHx) medium-branch chain di-copolymer as produced by
Kaneka / Procter and Gamble.
Physical Properties
PHAs are available in molecular weights ranging from around 1,000 to over one million
(Metabolix, 2003). Varying the chain length in the PHA subunit (monomer) affects
hydrophobicity and a number of other properties including the glass transition
temperature, the melting point, and level of crystallinity (Metabolix, 2003). PHA film is
translucent and injection molded articles from PHAs have high gloss.
Mechanical and Thermal Properties

P(3HB) has good thermoplastic properties (melting point 180°C) and can be processed
as classic thermoplasts and melt spun into fibres. It has a wide in-use temperature range
(articles retain their original shape) from -30°C to 120°C. Perishable goods can be
canned into packages produced of P(3HB) and preserved by steam sterilization. Articles
made of P(3HB) can be autoclaved (Biomer, 2003). However, it is fairly stiff and
brittle, somewhat limiting applications. PHB has a small tendency to creep and exhibits
shrinkage of 1.3 %.
The copolymer P(3HB-co-3HV) has lower crystallinity and improved mechanical

properties (decreased stiffness and brittleness, increased tensile strength and toughness)
compared to P(3HB), while still being readily biodegradable. It also has a higher melt
viscosity, which is a desirable property for extrusion blowing.

Medium chain length PHAs are elastomers and have a much lower melting point and
glass transition temperature (Weber, 2000). Their molecular structure is analagous to
soft polypropylene. This is due to chain defects which cause crystal disruption and
enhanced molecular entanglement, resulting in a highly amorphous material.
Table 2-19: Properties of PHAs
P(3HB) P(3HB) P(3HB-co- P(3HB-co-3HHx) (Kaneka,

(Biomer® (Biomer® 3HV) Nodax®)3
P240)1 P226)1 (Biopol®)2
Physical properties
Melt flow rate (g/10 min) 5-7 9-13 0.1-100
Density (g/cm3) 1.17 1.25 1.23-1.26 1.07-1.25
Transparency (%) 0.7 white powder / translucent film
Tensile strength at yield (MPa) 18-20 24-27 10-20
Elongation at yield (%) 10-17 6-9 10-25
Flexular Modulus (MPa) 1000-1200 1700-2000 40 several orders of magnitude
Thermal properties
HDT (°C) - - 60-100
VICAT Softening point (°C) 53 96 60-120
1
(Biomer, 2003)
2
(Metabolix, 2003); (Asrar, 2001);
3
(P&G, 2003)
For copolymers with C4 and higher branching, the mechanical properties are similar to
those of high grade polyethylene. The Young’s Modulus (stiffness) and the yield stress
lie between HDPE and LDPE; both are reduced with increasing the content and size of
the branches (P&G, 2002). The length of comonomer branches improves both the
toughness and ultimate elongation. The crystallisation rate of these PHAs (specifically,
Nodax®) is reported to be too slow for film blowing (P&G, 2002), restricting its
usefulness in this application prior to blending with other more easily crystallising
polymers.
Other Properties
P(3HB) is water insoluble and relatively resistant to hydrolytic degradation. This
differentiates P(3HB) from most other currently available bio-based plastics which are
either moisture sensitive or water soluble (Jogdand, 2003). Due to P(3HB)’s high
crystallinity (60 to 70%) it has excellent resistance to solvents. Resistance to fats and
oils is fair to good. It has good UV resistance, but poor resistance to acids and bases.
The oxygen permeability is very low (2 x lower than PET, 40 x lower than PE), making
P(3HB) a suitable material for use in packaging oxygen-sensitive products. P(3HB) has
low water vapour permeability compared to other bio-based polymers but higher than
most standard polyolefins and synthetic polyesters.
Medium-length copolymers, e.g. P(3HB-co-3HO), can be dyed with an aqueous

dispersion of non-ionic dyes at room temperature, in a similar process to the
commercial polyester fibre dyeing process (P&G, 2002). They are melt compatible with

typical polyester dyes and pigments. P(3HB) is difficult to dye since it is highly
crystalline.
P(3HB) is free from even traces of catalysts and is toxicologically safe (Biomer, 2003).
The monomer and the polymer are natural components and metabolites of human cells.
Thus P(3HB) formulations can be used for articles which come into contact with skin,
feed or food (Biomer is in the process of registering its PHA products for food contact).
PHAs are fully biodegradable in both anaerobic and aerobic conditions; also at a slower
rate in marine environments (P&G, 2002). Without composting conditions they remain
intact for years (Biomer, 2003). PHAs are also chemically digestible in hot alkaline
solutions.
Conversion Technologies
Depending on the range of material properties discussed above, but primarily on the
chemical composition and the molecular weight, PHAs can be converted to a range of
finished products including films and sheets; molded articles; fibres; elastics; laminates
and coated articles; nonwoven fabrics; synthetic paper products and foams (P&G,
2002).
The suitability of PHAs to the various thermoplastic conversion technologies is best

summarised in Figure 2-14. At low comonomer content and low molecular weight,
PHAs are suitable for injection moulding and melt blowing. At medium molecular
weight, the material is suitable for melt spun fibres. With higher comonomer content
and medium molecular weight (600,000), applications include melt resins and cast
films. Blown films and blow moulding require at least 10% comonomer content and
high molecular weight (700,000). Above 15% comonomer, the PHAs are softer and
more elastic, finding application in adhesives and elastomeric film.
Fillers and blends

To improve stiffness and strength, also to enhance barrier properties and increase the
opacity, PHA base (co)polymer may be blended with inorganics such as CaCO3, talc
and mica (P&G, 2002). Functional fillers include pigments and carbon black for
colouring, fibers for structural reinforcement and rubber for impact strength. Bio-based
polymers including thermoplastic starch, chitin and PLA may be added to control the
rate of degradation and/or disintegration. Co-polymers for PHAs could also be of
synthetic origin should this be what the market wants (P&G, 2003).

Figure 2-14: Processing technologies for medium chain length PHA copolymers
by composition and molecular weight. (P&G 2002), reprinted with
permission).
H i g h M W (7 0 0 M ) E l a s t o m e r ic
B lo w n F i lm s
F ilm ( G l o v e s )
(G a r b a g e B a g s )
B lo w M o ld in g H ig h M W ( 1 M M + )
(R i g id P a c k a g in g )
T h e r m o fo r m i n g
F u n c tio n a l
F ib e r Cast or T ie - L a y e r
( M e lt S p u n ) Foam T in te re d F ilm s
(c u p s ) (e .g . , b r e a th a b l e )
S p u n -b o n d
NW C o a t in g /L a m i n a t io n
(M e l t R e s in )
( e .g ., c o a te d p a p e r , N W )
S y n th e ti c P a p e r
A d h e s iv e s
M e lt B lo w n N W
In je c tio n M o ld
L ow M W (5 0 0 M )
5% 10% 15%
S ti ff /B r itt le F l e x ib le / D u c t ile S o ft /E la s t ic
C o m p o s itio n (C o m o n o m e r C o n te n t)
According to Procter & Gamble, alloys (blends) of Nodax® PHA and PLA are
particularly promising. Property deficiencies of either single polymer can be eliminated
by blending. Referring to the comparison in Table 2-20, one can see that PLA is
available in larger quantities and at a lower price than PHA; PLA is also more
transparent and tougher than PHA. PLA improves PHA’s tensile strength and
processability. The two materials have similar wettability, providing even, consistent
blend characteristics for wicking, dyeing and printing. PHA improves PLA degradation,
high temperature hydrolytic stability and barrier properties and provides heat sealability.
Table 2-20: Comparison of properties for PLA and branched PHA copolymers
(P&G, 2002)
PLA PHA (Nodax®)

Physical properties
often amorphous semicrystalline
transparent usually opaque
brittle, hard, stiff tough, ductile
use temperature <60 ºC use temperature <120 ºC
Degradation Mechanisms
hydrolitic attack enzymatic digestion
not directly biodegradable rapid biotic degradation
temperature, pH, and moisture effect aerobic or anaerobic conditions
spontaneous degradation relatively stable in ambient conditions
Processability
quick quench slow crystallisation
fibre spinning films, fibres
Blends of PHA with thermoplastic starch (TPS) are also under development. Starch is
cheaper and more plentiful than PHA. The starch content allows tailoring of
disintegration and degradation characteristics. PHA’s lower melt temperature prevents
starch degradation during processing. PHA also improves the hydrolytic and UV
stability of starch, reduces noise, increases clarity and improves barrier properties.
Nodax® and starch have been co-spun (without phase mixing of the starch and polymer

melt) to make meltspun fibres, nonwoven webs and disposable articles with rapid
biodegradation characteristics (e.g. diapers). (Nodax3).
Table 2-21 shows the substitution potential for PHAs, as perceived by representatives of
Procter & Gamble and Biomer. In terms of technical substitution it may be concluded
that PHB homopolymer has good potential to substitute for PP and some potential to
substitute for PE-HD, PS and ABS; while the greatest potential for medium chain
length branched PHA copolymers lies with substituting for PE-HD, PE-LD and PP. To
a lesser extent, substitution for PVC, PET and PUR could take place. Non-polymers,
specifically wood and paper, could also be substituted in niche applications; for
example, Procter & Gamble have prototyped paper out of 100% Nodax® pulp and 90%
Nodax®/10% Kraft pulp (P&G, 2002).
Table 2-21: Technical substitution potential for PHAs according to interviews

with experts from P&G and Biomer.
PE- PE- non-

PVC PP PS PMMA PA PET PBT PC POM PUR ABS
HD LD poly
P&G1
+ ++ ++ ++ - - - + - - - + - +3
Nodax®
2
Biomer
- + - ++ + - - - - - - - +
P(3HB)
1 ®
(P&G, 2003) (Nodax );
2
(Biomer, 2003b);
3
Wood, paper.
As for PLA, producers are not only looking at PHA’s potential for substitution in
conventional applications. PHA also shows promise in many novel applications where
non-toxicity, biodegradability and increasingly, the use of renewable feedstocks are
prerequisites that conventional synthetic thermoplastic polymers cannot meet.
Procter & Gamble (P&G, 2003) has identified a wide range of applications for Nodax®
PHAs, presented in Appendix 1. According to Appendix 1, the market potential varies
between 3% for certain identified applications up to 100% for others, with a total
estimated market potential for compounded Nodax® resin of 1,174,000 short tons per
year. In assessing and developing the commercial basis for Nodax®, P&G considers not
only direct substitution possibilities but also novel properties in both the in-use phase
and the end-of-life phase. A few interesting examples may be given:
• Flushable hygiene products (e.g. tampons) made of PHA provide end-of-life benefits
to the consumer in the form of convenience, discretion and hygiene. In addition,
steps associated with the used product being transported to then disposed of in a
waste management facility are eliminated.

®
• Adding a layer of Nodax PHA to a bulk structure made of another bio-based
polymer, as in clam-shells for fast food packaging made of a starch blend. The PHA
layer provides a heat and moisture barrier, as well as a reasonable odour and a
printable surface. PHA has good affinity for starch so the layer adheres well. It also
has a similar degradation profile to starch blend polymers.
®
• Use of Nodax in the Alcantara process for the production of artificial suede
(invented by Toray). Nodax® and starch are dissolved during process. Whereas the
standard Alcantara process uses trichloroethylene, the Nodax®/starch process
eliminates VOC issues related to solvent handling.
®
• In existing systems, Nodax (or another biopolymer) can play a role in reducing the
load on plastics recycling systems. The labels and closures for detergent bottles are
currently made of PP, causing problems for recycling of the HDPE bottle. If these
are replaced by Nodax®, then during the standard cleaning process involving
chemical digestion in slightly alkaline medium the Nodax® is completely digested.
The extra energy requirements (embodied + processing energy for Nodax® versus
HDPE) for a much simpler process are almost negligible. This is perhaps a different
(or complementary) strategy to straight replacement based on physical properties,
relative costs and ecological credentials.
• One promising area for ‘straight’ substitution is biodegradable mulch film made from
a combination of Nodax® and starch to replace banned starch/PE blends.
Biomer (Biomer, 2003b) being a specialty producer has quite a different market focus at
present and currently limited to supplying PHA for niche applications and analytics.
Biomer expects that by 2030 70% of PHAs will be used in packaging.
The main companies with plans for large volume production of PHAs are the US
companies Metabolix Inc. with Biopol® P(3HB-co-3HV) and Procter and Gamble
(P&G), in partnership with Kaneka Corporation, Japan with P(3HB-co-3HHx) Nodax®.
As outlined in Section 2.4, Metabolix is producing Biopol® in a 50 m3 fermenter, with

overall fermentation times of less than 40 hours. Assuming a final concentration of 100
g.L-1 which is a reasonable estimate for newer bacterial strains (Rediff, 2003), this gives
an estimated annual capacity of 1,100 t.p.a. In addition to its efforts to commercialise
Biopol®, Metabolix is coordinating a US $1.6 million project funded by the US
Department of Commerce’s Advanced Technology Program, the goal of which is to re-
engineer the central metabolism of E. coli for more efficient conversion of renewable
sugars into PHAs (Metabolix, 2003). In August 2003, BASF signed a one-year
collaboration agreement with Metabolix to further develop PHAs (TCE, 2003),
indicating that interest from the bulk chemicals sector is growing.
Metabolix’s parallel investigations into production of PHAs in crops have focused on a

target PHA yield of 10% w/w in transgenic rapeseed (Wilke 1998). In 2001, Metabolix
commenced coordination of a US $15 million cost-shared project funded by the U.S.
Department of Energy. The five-year project will investigate the production of PHAs in

green tissue plants such as switchgrass, tobacco, and alfalfa (Metabolix, 2003).
Commercialisation of PHA produced in this way is estimated to be 5 to 10 years off,
with a number of issues to be addressed include the need to preserve the genetic identity
of the crop, public opinion related to genetically engineered crops and technical hurdles
related to feedstock storage, yield improvement, and extraction and purification of PHA
from the plant (Bohlmann, 2004).
Procter and Gamble (P&G) has extensive commercialisation plans for the Nodax®
range of PHAs, to be produced in a partnership agreement by Kaneka Corp., Japan.
P&G collaborates in its PHA developments with Tsingua University in China and the
Riken Institute in Japan (P&G, 2003). P&G is investigating a wide range of applications
for PHA co-polymers including films, fibres, nonwovens, aqueous dispersions and
hygiene products. The company’s standpoint is that it will be able to successfully
compete in the synthetic polyester-dominated thermoplastics market, despite an
inevitably higher price, when the novel functional qualities of PHAs are taken into
account.
The biotechnology company Biomer, located in Krailling, Germany produces PHAs on

a small-scale commercial basis for specialty applications (Biomer, 2003). In 1993
Biomer acquired the bacteria and know-how for the fermentative production of P(3HB)
from the Austrian company PCD and in 1994-5 registered the trade name Biomer® for
its PHA products. Biomer does not appear to have plans to move towards large-scale
production.
Another company planning to enter the bulk PHA market is PHB Industrial, São
Paulo, Brazil. This is 50/50 joint venture between sugar and alcohol producer Irmãos
Biagi and the Balbo Group. The project is currently at pilot plant stage, producing 50
t.p.a. P(3HB) and P(3HB-co-3HV) from sugar cane. The company plans to construct a
10,000 t.p.a. (PHA blends and composites) plant for startup in 2006 (PHB IND, 2003).
In Japan, Mitsubishi Gas Chemicals (MCG) has made an in-depth development study
of the production of P(3HB) from methanol fermentation (trade name Biogreen®). The
company envisages extensive applications for Biogreen® as a reformer for other
biodegradable resins (MGC, 1999).
Selling price
To our knowledge, commercial sales of PHAs are limited to Biomer® P(3HB), for a
price of € 20 per kg (Biomer, 2003b) and Metabolix’s Biopol® for about € 10-12 per kg
(Petersen et al., 1999). The price of PHAs in general is presently much higher than
starch polymers and other bio-based polyesters due to high raw material costs, high
processing costs (particularly purification of the fermentation broth), and small
production volumes.

Cost of production
At present, the raw material costs account for a much as 40% to 50% of the total
production cost for PHA. Use of lower cost carbon sources, recombinant E.coli or
genetically engineered plants should all lead to reductions in the cost of production
(Jognand, 2003).
Table 2-22 gives a target cost breakdown for the production of Nodax® when the
commercial plant comes on line in 2005 (P&G, 2003). The target breakdown is also
given for 2030. P&G believes that the cost of production for Nodax® must be reduced to
US $1.50 per kg if bulk volume commercial viability is to be attained.

Today the price for PHAs using a natural bacterial strain such as A.eutrophus is around
US $16.00 per kg. With recombinant E.coli, the price could be reduced to US $4 per kg,
which is much closer to other bio-based plastics such as PLA (Jognand, 2003).
Akiyama et al. (2003) have estimated the production cost for the fermentative
production of two types of PHAs using a detailed process simulation model. According
to their calculations the annual production of 5000 t p.a. of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-
5mol% 3-hydroxyhexanoate) [P(3HB-co-5mol% 3HHx), also referred to as P(3HA)]
from soybean oil as the sole carbon source is estimated to cost from US $3.50 to $4.50
per kg, depending on the presumed process performance. Microbial production of
poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) [P(3HB)] from glucose at a similar scale of production has
been estimated to cost US $3.80-4.20 per kg.
Metabolix claims that its recent scale-up, together with patented recovery technology,
demonstrates the basis for production of PHAs at costs well below US $2.40 per kg at
full commercial scale (Metabolix, 2003).
P&G is targeting a market entry price in 2005 of US $2.50 to 3.00 per kg, based on a
minimum capacity of 30,000 t.p.a. and more realistically, 50,000 t.p.a. Above this
pricing the company believes that it will be difficult to provide an acceptable value
equation for most consumer products.
Biomer expects a price for its P(3HB) between €3.00 to 5.00 per kg in 2030, to be
driven by market requirements. This price is significantly higher than targets for
Metabolix and P&G, reflecting Biomer’s (current and planned) relatively smaller scale
of production.
Table 2-22: Target cost breakdown for PHA production according to P&G1,
2005 and 2030
Cost breakdown (in %) 2005 2030

Raw material cost 20-25% 10-15%
Capital cost 30-35% 15-20%
Labour cost 10-15% 10-15%
Operating cost 15-20% 30-35%
Other 15-20% 20-25%
Total 100% 100%
1
P&G (2003)

The environmental impacts of polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) have been discussed

controversially in the last few years and will therefore be dealt with here in somewhat
more detail than for the other polymers. Again, the available studies focus on the energy
requirements and CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions only. Contrary to the environmental
analyses for starch polymers and PLA, the results for PHA are based on simulations
since no large-scale facility is available to date.
In Table 2-23 data for PHA by Gerngross and Slater (2000) are compared to LCA data
for petrochemical polymers according to Boustead (1999-2000). The table shows that
the total cradle-to-factory gate fossil energy requirements of PHA can compete with
polyethylene (HDPE) depending on the type of the PHA production process. Compared
to polyethylene terephthalate (PET), the minimum total energy input for PHA
production (fermentation) is somewhat higher while it is lower compared to polystyrene
(PS). In contrast, the process energy requirements of PHA are two to three times higher
than for petrochemical polymers (Table 2-23). Limiting the discussion to these process
energy data Gerngross and Slater drew the conclusion that polyhydroxyalkanoates do
not offer any opportunities for emission reduction (Gerngross and Slater, 2000;
Gerngross, 1999). This finding is valid for certain system boundaries, e.g. for the
system “cradle-to-factory gate” the output of which are plastics pellets. The conclusion
is also correct if all plastic waste is deposited in landfills. In contrast, the finding is not
correct if other types of waste management processes are assumed within the “cradle-to-
grave” concept. As the last column of Table 2-23 shows the total fossil energy
requirements are practically identical for PE and PHA manufactured by bacterial
fermentation. Hence, if combusted in a waste incinerator (without energy recovery),
both plastics result in comparable CO2 emissions throughout the life cycle.
Table 2-23: Energy requirements for plastics production (Gerngross and Slater,
2000; Boustead, 1999)
Cradle-to-factory gate fossil energy

requirements, in GJ/tonne plastic
Process Feedstock
Total
energy energy
PHA grown in corn plants 90 0 90
PHA by bacterial fermentation 81 0 81
HDPE 31 49 80
PET (bottle grade) 38 39 77
PS (general purpose) 39 48 87
Data for PHA from Gerngross and Slater (2000).
Data for petrochemical polymers from Boustead (1999).
A more recent publication, co-authored by Gerngross and Slater, studies in more detail
the greenhouse gas profile of PHA production in genetically modified corn (Kurdikar et
al., 2001). While the grain is harvested in a conventional manner, the polymer is
extracted from the corn stover. Two alternative energy systems were studied. In one
case process energy requirements are covered by natural gas and in the other, biomass
energy from the corn stover residue is used as fuel. The publication focuses primarily on

the system cradle-to-factory gate but some data on waste management is also provided.
This information has been used in Table 2-24 to estimate also greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions for two cradle-to-grave systems. It can be concluded that PHA production
with integrated steam and electricity generation based on biomass scores better than
conventional PE production in all cases, while the opposite is the case if natural gas is
used to provide the PHA production process with steam and electricity15. The authors
conclude that it is the biomass power and not the renewable feedstock that makes the
product preferable to PE from a GHG point of view. On the other hand it is a feature of
the biorefinery concept to make best use of all product and co-product streams for
material and energy purposes; it is therefore hardly possible to draw an a clear-cut
borderline between the production of bioenergy and the bio-based polymer.
Table 2-24: Greenhouse gas emissions from the life cycle of

polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) and polyethylene (PE)
(Kurdikar et al., 2001; complemented with own assumptions)
CO2 eq. Cradle-to- Cradle-to-

Cradle-to- CO2 eq. Cradle-to- CO2 eq.
All values in kg uptake in grave CO2 eq. grave CO2 eq.
gate fossil uptake in gate net embodied in
CO2 eq. / kg biopoly- without energy with energy
CO2 eq. ash2) CO2 eq. polymer3)
polymer mers1) recovery4) recovery4) 5)
(A) (B) (C) (D)6) (E) (F)7) (G)

8)
PHA, natural gas ca. 5.8 2.0 - ca. 3.8 2.0 ca. 5.8 ca. 4.8
9)
PHA, bioenergy -0.5 2.0 1.5 -4.0 2.0 -2.0 -3.0
PE 1.8 - - 1.8 3.1 4.9 2.8
1)
Uptake of carbon from the atmosphere and fixation in biopolymer.
2)
Carbon fixed in the ash from the boiler (due to incomplete combustion).
3)
Both fossil and biogeneous CO2 is accounted for here. For PHA values in column B and E are identical.
4)
Waste incineration in a plant without resp. with energy recovery
5)
Estimated CO2 credits for 20% electricity yield from waste-to-energy recovery: 1 kg CO2/kg PHA, 2.1 kg
CO2/kg PE (underlying assumptions: Efficiency of electricity generation in average power station = 30%;
CO2 emission factor of fuel mix used = 74 kg CO2/GJ; Heating value, PHA = 18 MJ/kg; Heating value, PE =
42 MJ/kg).
6)
(D) = (A) - (B) - (C)
7)
(F) = (D) + (E)
8)
Including energy use for smaller consumers, i.e. compounding, farming etc.
9)
Small fossil energy input minus credit for surplus electricity produced from biomass
Heyde (1998) and Luck (1996) studied PHBs some years ago. Heyde (1998) compared
the energy requirements of PHB production by bacterial fermentation using various
feedstocks and processes to those of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) and
polystyrene (PS). The PHB options studied include substrate supply from sugar beet,
starch, fossil methane and fossil-based methanol and moreover, in the processing stage,
the options of enzymatic treatment and solvent extraction. Figure 2-15 shows the energy
requirements for PHA production by fermentation according to Heyde and compares
them with the results of Gerngross and Slater (see above, Table 2-23) and with Akiyama
et al. (see below). An earlier publication by Luck (1996) showed that the choice of
waste management process can have a decisive influence on the results. For example,
15
Note that the underlying process energy requirements for "PHA, natural gas" in Table 2-23 is around
100 GJ/t, while the respective value for "PHA grown in corn plants" in Table 2-24 is 90 GJ/t.

PHB manufactured in an efficient way and disposed of with municipal solid waste
(MSW, German average) requires more energy resources and leads to higher GHG
emissions than HDPE if the latter is recycled according to the German 1995 Packaging
Ordinance (64% material recycling). If, on the other hand, the plastics waste is fed to
average municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) plants in both cases, then the results
are comparable for energy and GHG emissions.
Figure 2-15: Cradle-to-factory gate energy requirements for the production of

PHAs
140
573
120
=
100
90
Energy, GJ/t plastic
81 PS 87*
80 HDPE 80*
PET 77*
66 68.4
62.1
60 59.2
50.2
40 41.9
20
0
PHB ferment. PHA corn plants PHA ferment. PHB ferment. PH (3B) ferment. PH (3A) ferment.
worst case (Gerngross / (Gerngross / best case ex glucose ex soybean oil
(Heyde, 1998) Slater, 2000) Slater, 2000) (Heyde, 1998) (Akiyama et al., (Akiyama et al.,
2003) 2003)
*) Data for petrochemical polymers from Boustead (1999, 2000).
Akiyama et al. (2003) have published the most detailed, publicly available
environmental analysis on polyhydroxyalkanoates to date (their paper also contains cost
estimates, see Section 2.4.6). They distinguish 19 different cases for the production of
5000 t.p.a. of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-5mol% 3-hydroxyhexanoate) [P(3HB-co-
5mol% 3HHx), also referred to as P(3HA)] from soybean oil and of the same amount of
poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) [P(3HB)] from glucose. These cases differ with regard to
fermentation conditions and fermentation performance and they were calibrated against
experimental data. As shown in Figure 2-15 the production of P(3HA) from soybean oil
can be realized with lower energy inputs than P(3HB) production from glucose. The
main reasons are that a lower amount of soybean oil is used due to higher yields of the
fermentation process leading to P(3HA) and because the (cradle-to-gate) energy
requirements for soybean oil per unit of weight is also lower than for glucose. These
two factors are only partly compensated for by the higher electricity use for the soybean
oil-based fermentation process compared to the glucose-based fermentation. Akiyama et
al. (2003) have also calculated CO2 emissions for all the cases studied. To this end they
have determined the total CO2 balance from cradle to factory gate, thereby accounting
for both the fossil and the biogenous carbon flows. This was done by firstly calculating
the emissions originating from fossil fuels and secondly deducting the CO2 equivalents
embodied in the polymer. While this calculation method is flawless, the results cannot

be easily compared to those of most other LCA studies which present only results for
the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels (e.g. Table 2-6).16 We have therefore added to
Akiyama’s results, which range between –0.4 and +0.7 kg CO2/kg PHA, the CO2
equivalents of the embodied biogeneous carbon and arrive at values in the range of
about 2.5 to 3.5 kg CO2/kg PHA for all the 19 cases. These values can be compared to
those for starch polymers which lie in the range of 1.1 to 3.6 kg CO2/kg polymer (see
Table 2-6, second column from the right). These values translate into emission savings
of 1.2 to 3.7 kg CO2/kg polymer compared to conventional polyolefins (see Table 2-6,
first column from the right). If polyolefins are used as benchmark also for PHA, the
emission savings are hence estimated at 1.3 to 2.3 kg CO2/kg polymer (equivalent to
savings of 27-48% compared to polyolefins).
As the comparison of the various studies shows, the CO2 emissions reported for PHAs
differ widely. While the higher values reported are larger than those for petrochemical
polymers, there also seems large scope for improvement. PHA production both by
bacterial fermentation or in plants is in an early stage of development compared to not
only petrochemical polymers but also other bio-based polymers; efficiency gains are
therefore likely to accrue from technological progress and upscaling of production. The
fact that PHA prices (see Section 2.4.6) are now clearly beyond those for other bio-
based polymers is a consequence of the low yields and efficiencies. Since these
drawbacks need to be overcome as a prerequisite for a wide commercial success, the
large-scale production of PHAs can be expected to be accompanied by environmental
impacts that are on the lower side of those shown in Figure 2-15.
2.5 Bio-based polyurethane PUR

Polyurethanes (PURs), the family of polymers which have recurring urethane [-NH-CO-
O] groups in the main chain, were introduced commercially in 1954. They are extremely
versatile plastics available in a variety of forms ranging from flexible or rigid foams, solid
elastomers, coatings, adhesives and sealants (SPI, 2003). For this reason PURs occupy an
important position in the world market of high performance synthetic polymers (Vilar,
2002). World consumption of PURs was in the order of 8 million tonnes in 2000 and the
forecasted consumption for the medium term is rather high with growth rates of around
6% p.a. Today, PURs occupy the sixth position (about 5% of total consumption) in the
market for the most widely sold plastics in the world (Vilar, 2002).
PURs are prepared by reacting two components: a polyol and an isocyanate. While the
isocyante component is always derived from petrochemical feedstocks, the polyol
component has the potential to be bio-based in some applications. Vegetable-oil based
polyols are possible from crops such as castor bean, rapeseed and Euphorbia lagascae
(Clark, 2001), soy bean (Mapelston, 2003), sunflower (Schmidt and Langer, 2002) and
linseed. Castor oil, derived from the castor bean, already has some importance as a PUR
feedstock but it yields resins with limited hardness and other mechanical properties.
Most other vegetable oil-based polyols do not have the necessary functionality
(hydroxyl groups) in their native form to be useful for PUR manufacture so this needs
16
Basically both approaches are correct if they are interpreted correctly: while the approach taken by
Akiyama et al. (2003) represents an impeccable method for calculating the overall emissions balance
for a cradle-to-factory gate system, the latter approach is suitable to gain insight into the total life-
cycle emissions including the release of CO2 from the embodied carbon.

first to be introduced by chemical manipulation (Clark, 2001), significantly increasing

production costs. Polyester polyols - another class of polyol - may also be partially bio-
based; for example the di- or triacid component could be a fermentation product such as
succinic or adipic acid and the diol component could be 1,4-butanediol or glycerol.
Polyester polyols are not yet economically viable due to high raw material and
processing costs associated with the bio-based feedstock; however as discussed in other
sections, there is good potential for this situation to change over the next few years with
advances in fermentation technology.
Since PUR chemistry is wide-ranging in terms of both feedstock possibilities and
applications, this section will endeavour only to present the technology basis, possible
bio-based feedstocks in PUR production, and a qualitative appraisal of the possible
market size and share of bio-based PURs. The flexible foam product of Metzeler
Schaum GmbH, Germany, which uses a polyol derived from sunflower oil, will be used
as a case study.
2.5.1 Production of bio-based PUR
PURs are produced by the polyaddition reaction of an isocyanate, which may be di- or
polyfunctional, with a diol or polyol (an alcohol with more than two reactive hydroxyl
groups per molecule), resulting in the formation of linear, branched, or cross-linked
polymers (Figure 2-16) (Dieterich, 1997). Other low molecular weight reagents such as
chain extenders or crosslinking agents (also containing two or more reactive groups)
may be added during the polyaddition process, as may additives such as catalysts,
blowing agents, surfactants, and fillers.
Figure 2-16: Generic process for PUR production from a polyol and an isocyante
(Dieterich, 1997)
Hydroxyl monomer
(e.g. Castor oil)
HO OH H
Catalyst
O N
Isocyanate monomer O
(e.g. MDI, TDI)
O
OCN NCO
Polyurethane polymer
PUR feedstocks and possibilities for bio-based monomers

In the PUR system, the isocyanate component can be aromatic or aliphatic. Commonly
used isocyanates for manufacturing polyurethanes are toluene diisocyanate (TDI)
[CH3C6H3(NCO)2], methylene diphenyl isocyanate (MDI) [OCNC6H4CH2C6H4NCO],
and polymeric isocyanates (PMDI) (SPI, 2003). TDI and MDI may be prepared from
accessible low cost diamines, and as such constitute 95% of total consumed isocyanates
(Vilar, 2002).
Polyols can be polyesters, polyethers or hydrocarbons. As shown in Table 2-25, the

more heavily consumed polyols are polyethers of various structures (poly(propylene
oxide) glycols etc.). Polyesters are the next most important group: at about one third of
the volume of polyethers, this still amounts to a consumption of more than 1 million
tonnes per year (Vilar, 2002).

Table 2-25: World consumption of polyols and isocyanates in thousands of tonnes

per year (Vilar, 2002)1
Year 2000 2002 2004

Polyether polyol 3465 3880 4350
Polyesther polyol 1180 1330 1490
MDI 2370 2650 2970
TDI 1441 1610 1800
Total 8460 9470 10610
1
Figures for polyethers and polyester polyols also include all the chain extenders and other additives
used in the formulation of the different PUR systems.
While it seems unlikely that the isocyanate component will be produced from a bio-
based feedstock (Metzeler, 2003), there are a number of possibilities for the polyol to be
bio-based (Table 2-26).
Table 2-26: Bio-based polyols for PUR production 1,2,3,4
Polyether polyol Initiators: glycerine, sucrose, glucose, fructose, water

Diacids: azelaic acid, dimer acid, adipic acid, succinic acid, glutaric
acid
Di or tri-functional polyols: 1,10-dodecanediol; 1,6-hexanediol, 1,12-
hydroxystearyl alcohol, dimerdiol, ethylene glycol, 1,2-propanediol,
Polyester polyol 1,4-butanediol, glycerol.
Castor oil (ricinoleic acid) & derivatives
Rapeseed oil (oleic acid) derivatives
Eurphorbia oil (vernolic acid) derivatives
Plant oil based (oleochemical) Soybean oil derivatives
1
Höfer (2003),
2
Mapelston, (2003a),
3
Liu (2000),
4
Vilar (2002)
Polyols based on castor oil and other plant oils

Castor oil, derived from the bean of the castor plant, contains 87-90% ricinoleic acid
(12-hydroxyoleic acid) which is a fatty acid triglyceride (Figure 2-17). High purity
castor oil may be used as a polyol to produce PUR coatings, adhesives, and casting
compounds (Vilar, 2002). Castor oil can be transesterified with a polyhydroxylated
compound such as glycerine to obtain higher hydroxyl functionality (more –OH groups
for a given molecular weight) (Figure 2-18). In this way, the range of uses for castor oil
in PUR systems is broadened e.g. this allows more applications in rigid foams.

Figure 2-17: Common plant oils (polyols and polyol precursors) (Clark, 2001)
OH
O
Castor oil R=
CH2 O C R
Ricinoleic acid
O
CH2 O C R Rapeseed oil R=

O
Oleic acid
CH2 O C R O
Euphorbia oil R=
Fatty acid triglyceride Vernolic acid
Figure 2-18: Transesterification of castor oil with glycerine to produce a mixture

of polyols with higher functionality (Vilar, 2002)
O O O
CH 2 O C R CH 2 OH CH 2 O C R CH 2 O C R
O O O
CH 2 O C R CH OH CH 2 OH CH 2 O C R
+ +
O
CH 2 O C R CH 2 OH CH 2 OH CH 2 OH
The use of other oilseeds in PURs has been studied by Clark (2001). By sequential
epoxidation (i.e. the action of hydrogen peroxide on double bonds to incorporate
reactive oxygen in the molecular structure) and ring opening (acidification resulting in
the formation of –OH groups), an appropriate degree of hydroxylation may be
incorporated into polyols derived from (e.g.) rapeseed (Figure 2-19). Polymers derived
from rapeseed have higher thermal stability and reduced degradability compared to their
castor oil derived counterparts. However, there is still a problem of high expense
associated with the chemical manipulation steps. Whereas rapeseed requires two
chemical manipulation steps, Euphorbia lagascae oil has a reasonably high level of
functionalisation and requires only one chemical manipulation – the ring opening step,
which is by far the least costly of the two steps. This makes euphorbia potentially much
more attractive than rapeseed or linseed, assuming final material properties are
comparable (Clark, 2001). By varying a large number of conditions, a range of
feedstocks based on these plant-derived polyols with different degrees of flexibility and
hydroxyl content may be prepared and reacted with different isocyanides (TDI and
MDI) to produce PURs including rigid foams for packaging/pipe insulation, other rigid
PURs and flexible elastomers (Clark, 2001).
Figure 2-19: Epoxidisation and ring opening of plant oil to obtain a polyol (Clark,
2001)
Rapeseed oil R=
O
CH2 Catalyst, H3PO4 H2O2, <60°C

O C R
O
O
CH2 O C R Epoxidised R=
O
H3PO4 H2O2, 100°C
CH2 O C R
HO OH
Fatty acid triglyceride Hydroxylated R=

Polyester polyols with a bio-based component

Polyester polyols were the first polyols used in the beginning of PUR development, and
may be produced by polycondensation of di- and trifunctional polyols with dicarboxylic
acids or their anhydrides. Options for bio-based polyols include ethylene glycol, 1,2-
propanediol, 1,4-butanediol, 1,6-hexanediol and glycerol. Dicarboxylic acids or their
anhydrides include bio-based succinic acid, adipic acid and dimer acid (Vilar, 2002).
Relatively low cost polyester polyols may also be based on recovery materials. Mixed
adipic, glutaric and succinic acid polyesters are made using purified nylon waste acids
(AGS acids). AGS acids are also hydrogenated to make a mixture of 1,4-butanediol,
1,5-pentanediol and 1,6-hexane diol, which is used to make polyadipates having a low
melting point. Mixed polyadipates from hydrogenated AGS acids are used to make
microcellular elastomers with good hydrolytic stability (Vilar, 2002). This is important
to note in that any bio-based polyol must also compete on cost and environmental
impact basis with such waste streams.
Chain extenders
Low molecular mass polyols (e.g. 1,4-butanediol), in contrast to the higher molecular
mass polyols mentioned above, are chiefly used as "chain extenders". In the production
of PUR elastomers they are generally used in the synthesis of the "hard" segment
(Dieterich, 1997).
Example of a bio-based PUR process

In the Metzeler Schaum process to produce PUR flexible foam (Palz et al., 2003), a
sunflower oil-based polyol is used. Triglyceride fatty acid from sunflower oil is first
hydroxylated via epoxidisation and ring opening in a similar process to that shown in
Figure 2-19. The polyol and an isocynanante (TDI or MDI) are dispensed with water
onto a conveyor belt. There, they react in the presence of a catalyst. Two main reactions
occur simultaneously: the isocyanate reacts with the polyol to form PUR; and the
isocyanate reacts with water to form polyurea with the evolution of carbon dioxide;
which acts as the blowing agent in foam production (Vilar, 2002). The resulting block
foam is cooled down for 48 hours then cut into the finished product shape (in this case,
mattresses). The product contains 25% sunflower oil on a weight/weight basis
(Metzeler, 2003). The total production amounts to about 1,000 tonnes per year, which is
equivalent to a yearly consumption of 240 tonnes of sunflower oil (270 tonnes of
sunflower-oil based polyol) (Palz et al., 2001).
2.5.2 Properties
The physical and chemical properties of PURs vary over a wide range, depending on the
constituent monomers and reaction conditions. Properties of the various forms of PURs
are discussed in relation to the application areas in Section 2.5.4.
In comparison with polyether polyols based PURs, the polyester based PURs are more
resistant to oil, grease, solvents and oxidation. They possess better properties related to
tension and tear strength, flex fatigue, abrasion, adhesion and dimensional stability. On

the other hand, polyester based PURs are more sensitive to hydrolysis and
microbiological attack. The attractive mechanical properties of polyester based PURs
can be explained by the greater compatibility between polar polyester flexible segments
and polar rigid segments, resulting in better distributed small crystalline rigid blocks
(Vilar, 2002). The use of longer chain polyols in the production of polyester polyols
results in PURs with greater flexibility and hydrolytic stability and reduced polarity and
glass transition temperature (Vilar, 2002).
Although most PURs are thermosets, some grades of PUR elastomers are thermoplastic
in nature and can be moulded, extruded and calendered (SPI, 2003).
For a bio-based PUR to substitute for its conventional petrochemical-derived

equivalent, the bio-based product must be seen as a good product in its own right; thus
meeting all processability and in-use requirements. As an example of where public
perception can influence the course of substitution (also market acceptance of the
product), consumers often associate bio-based with biodegradable. This is generally not
the case for PURs, although some bio-derived components (e.g. plant-derived polyols
containing carboxyl groups) do result in more easily biodegraded products. This may
lead to the false impression that a PUR with a bio-based component is less durable than
the 100% petrochemical-derived equivalent (Metzeler, 2003).
As new applications for PUR are still emerging with the material substituting for other
materials, and performance improvements are being achieved in automotive seating,
furniture and footwear due to remodeling of PUR morphology (Mapelston, 2003a), it
may be concluded that there is also some potential for bio-based PURs to substitute for
other materials.
PUR is now almost exclusively produced from petrochemical feedstocks. Due to its
wide spectrum of types and properties (soft and flexible foams, coatings, elastomers and
fibres) PUR is being used in a very wide range of applications (see Figure 2-20). While
the application area of construction and insulation seems rather difficult to access by
bio-based polyurethanes since price competition is fierce, the other sectors may offer
more opprtunities for the short to medium term.

Figure 2-20: Main applications for PUR by market sector (scope: EU 15, values
for 1999;weight-%)
Other
Insulation 8% Automotive Auto motive
(storage tanks) 20%
8% Furniture
Apparel
Appliances
Packaging
Construction
Insulation (storage tanks)
Construction Other
24%
Furniture
26%
Packaging
1%
Apparel
Appliances
5%
8%
Today, the market for bio-based PURs is small and premium applications are being
targeted. As an example, Metzeler Schaum currently produces only one bio-based
product for one market: the Rubex Nawaro® mattress for the furniture market.
According to Metzeler (2003), this application currently represents about 1% of the
PUR market in the EU. In the future, the company sees potential for its bio-based
flexible foam product to enter other markets including, as percentage of the company’s
total production of bio-based PUR: 5% in agriculture; 20% in transportation (e.g.
automobile seats); and 5% in houseware (e.g. sponges) (Table 2-27). The interest of car
manufacturers in bio-based polymers in general (e.g. Toyota, see Section 2.2.4)
supports the rather high expectation set in transportation as a new outlet for bio-based
polyurethanes.
Table 2-27: Main applications for flexible bio-based PUR-foams produced by

Metzeler Schaum according to market sector1 (scope: EU 15)
Sector % of production today % of production in 2020

Packaging 0%
Building 0% 5%
Agriculture 0%
Transportation 0% 20%
Furniture 100% 70%
Electrical appliances and electronics (E&E) 0%
Houseware 0%
Others 0% 5%
total for all market sectors 100%
1
Metzeler (2003).

Some of the many possible options for monomers and chain extenders from renewable
feedstocks are given in Table 2-28. Note that volumes of these formulations were not
available so it is somewhat difficult to judge whether the different feedstocks represent
a minor or a major contribution to the total PUR market.
Taking a broader look at (current) application areas for PURs, it should be noted that by
combining different raw materials such as polyols, isocyanates and additives, it is
possible to obtain countless varieties of foam products, as well as a multitude of other
(non-foam) materials. Today, PURs such as flexible and rigid foams, coatings,
elastomers, fibers, etc. comprise about 20 kg of the bulk of passenger cars (Vilar, 2002).
Although the fields of PUR applications are diverse, several key segments may be
identified (Figure 2-21), of which furniture (26%), construction (24%) and automotive
(20%) together constitute 70% of the total market in EU-15 countries.

Table 2-28: PUR formulations with a bio-based component and main

applications 1,2,3,4
Type 1: Oleochemical polyols, hydroxy functionalised derivatives thereof.

Type 2: Other polyol with one or more bio-based components.
Type 3: Other bio-based.
Class of raw material Type of PUR formulation & main applications
Type 1: Hydroxy-functional 2 pack systems, aqueous drying industrial coatings; casting resins,
oils (natural oils – fatty acid rubber and fibre binders, adhesives. Derivatives have superior
trigylcerides; derivatives hydrolytic stability against alkali and acids, high chemical resistance
thereof) against corrosives, improved mechanical properties.
Type 1: High molecular
weight diacids and polyester
derivatives Aqueous PUR dispersions, laminating, adhesives
Type 1: High molecular Aqueous PUR dispersions, casting, adhesives, thermoplastic
weight diols polyurethanes (TPUs), building blocks for soft segments in TPUs
Type 1: Derivatives of other
plant-based substances Plant components act as ‘hard’ segments (higher crosslinking density)
Type 2: Low molecular
weight diacids and polyester Used in the synthesis of the ‘hard’ segment in thermoplastic polyester-
derivatives urethanes. Biodegradability enhancer.
Type 2: Low molecular Chain extender in the synthesis of the ‘hard’ segment. Some types (eg
weight diols glycerol) introduce a small, defined degree of branching
PUR resin sprayed onto preforms of natural fibres for low density door
Type 3: Natural Fibres panels for autos.
1
Höfer (2003),
2
Mapelston, (2003a),
3
Liu (2000);
4
(Vilar, 2002).
PURs from castor oil and its derivatives are used with excellent hydrolytic stability,
shock absorbing and electrical insulation properties. They also have been found to be
very useful in the preparation of flexible, semi-rigid and rigid PU foams, resistant to
moisture, shock absorbing, and with low temperature flexibility (Vilar, 2002).
Metzeler Schaum GmbH of Memmingen, Germany is a major producer of flexible PUR

foam. Over the last few years the company has developed a slabstock foam product
incorporating a bio-based feedstock: the Rubex Nawaro® mattress which is produced
using a polyol derived from sunflower oil (Schmidt and Langer, 2002) (see also section
2.5.1). The company undertook R&D and is now on the verge of commercialising the
product, albiet on a relatively small scale. The Rubex Nawaro® production line
employs 11 full time personnel and was started up in September 2001. In 2002, 30,000
units of mattress were produced; and the target for 2003 is to reach capacity production
of 60,000 units (Metzeler, 2003).
According to Metzeler Schaum, it is critically important that consistent quality is

achieved with the polyol; otherwise there will be a high scrap rate from the conversion

of PUR (the company has achieved targets in this regard). The market expectation is
basically that any variations in quality of the bio-based raw material be in the same
(narrow) range as for the synthetic equivalent. In the future, the company could
potentially utilise other bio-based polyols for its flexible foam products if market
interest is there. While there is scope for sourcing raw materials in new EU member
states in the next few years, German farmers are also looking for new markets for their
products. In addition, the customer who chooses to purchase the bio-based product at a
higher price than the market average is generally aware of environmental and social
aspects related to the product and is interested in knowing where the raw material is
sourced, with local sourcing being the preference (Metzeler, 2003). The company does
not envisage selling the Rubex Nawaro® mattress outside Germany for some years,
thus the product clearly falls in the niche category at present (as for many other bio-
based polymers).
A few more companies/consortia have been identified which are active in the field of
bio-based PUR:
• The U.S. company Urethane Soy Systems Company (Princeton, Illinois) is producing
a polyol (tradename: SoyOyl) which polyol is being used in the manufacture of
Biobalance, a new polymer recently introduced by the Dow Chemical Company for
use in commercial carpet backing (ASA, 2003).
• Polyols produced by Urethane Soy Systems Company are also being used to produce
rigid PUR foam (Mapelston, 2003).
• The Ford company presented their environmental friendly concept vehicle (named
Model U) in which several bio-based polymers are being used, among them bio-
based PUR for seating foam (Mateja and Tribune, 2003).
Selling price
The market price for petrochemical PURs is in the range of €4.40 - 4.70 per kg for
ester-types and €5.20 - €5.40 for ether types (Plasticsnews, 2003).
Metzeler Schaum (Metzeler, 2003) expect that their bio-based PUR product will be
commercially viable, even at a higher price than its petrochemical-based equivalent.
However, this will only be possible in niche markets where environmental or other
credentials of the bio-based product justify the price differential. Market breakthroughs
in terms of bulk volumes are only likely to flow on from significant reductions in the
cost of bio-based feedstocks.

It is expected that in niche markets, the price of bio-based PURs will always be higher
than conventional equivalents due both to the smaller scale of production and the high
cost associated with using the renewable feedstock. Sales will thus be dependent on pro-
active consumer choice for the bio-based product. In bulk markets, bio-based PURs will
need to be introduced with price (and quality) on par with conventional equivalents.

According to the U.S. United Soybean Board, the “demand for polyols has reached 3
billion pounds of which 800 million pounds can be made with the more cost-effective
soybean oil“. This is equivalent to a total market potential in North America of about
25% (Anon, 2003.
No information is available about the environmental impacts of bio-based PUR in

relation to conventional petrochemical-based equivalents.
The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has completed work
on life cycle inventories for two new soy polyols. To date, only aggregated results using
a single score indicator17 have been published in the United Soybean Board newsletter
(USB Weekly, 2003). The soy polyols shows only about one quarter the level of total
environmental impacts with significant reductions in fossil fuel depletion (by about a
factor of six), global warming, smog formation and ecological toxicity.
The source just quoted does not specify the chemical composition of the polyol and it is
also unclear to which extent savings at the level of the polyol would translate to benefits
at the level of polyurethanes. We have therefore conducted independent back-of-
envelope calculations assuming that the environmental impact of the diol would be
comparable to that of 1,3-propanediol. It needs to be emphasized that this is a very
rough approach since low molecular mass polyols are actually used as chain extenders
(see above). The following benefits have been determined:
• The energy savings for the bio-based polyol as opposed to the petrochemical polyol
amount to 45-60% (depending on the value chosen for the petrochemical polyol).
While this saving potential is below the value reported in USB Weekly (2003), it is
nevertheless substantial.
• The energy savings for the bio-based PUR relative to the petrochemical PUR has
been estimated at around 20% for rigid PUR and ca. 40% for flexible PUR (the
savings are higher for flexible PUR due to the larger share of polyols).
As explained in Section 2.5.1 numerous different types of bio-based polyols can be used
for PUR production, resulting in a wide range of products. It is therefore not astonishing
if the environmental assessment of bio-based PUR also yields a rather wide range of
values. The results discussed above give a first indication of this range. To obtain a
better understanding of the total saving potential related to PUR, a more systematic
analysis would be required which should be based on on a preselection of polyols with a
(potentially) favourable environmental profile and a (potentially) large market.
17
A single-score indicator is an overall score that is determined by weighting individual results for the
various impact categories. The single-score indicator discussed in USB Weekly (2003) comprises the
following impact categories: acidification, “critical air pollutants”, ecological toxicity, eutrophication,
fossil fuel depletion, global warming, habitat alteration, human health, “indoor air”, ozone depletion,
smog and water intake. It should be noted that weighting factors are always related to a value system
(“value-laden”) and are therefore not an input that can be determined in an objective manner.

2.6 Emerging technologies: bio-based polyamides (nylon)
Nylon is a generic name for a family of long-chain polyamide engineering

thermoplastics which have recurring amide groups [-CO-NH-] as an integral part of the
main polymer chain. The nylon fibre industry made a huge impact when it flooded the
market in 1939 with the ubiquitous nylon stocking: 64 million pairs were sold, and to
this day, most people still associate nylon with fibers. Although use as a fiber
dominated the interest in nylon from the outset, the use of nylons as compounds that can
be moulded and extruded or otherwise processed like plastics has steadily increased
versus that of fibers; in Western Europe from 24 % of total consumption in 1978 to 47
% (of 320,000 t.p.a.) in 1988 (Kohan, 1997). Typical applications for nylon compounds
are in automotive parts, electrical and electronic uses, and packaging (SPI, 2003).
Production routes to polyamides via a bio-based intermediate may be identified for

nylon 66 (ZWA, 2003), nylon 69 (Höfer, 2003) and nylon 6 (Nossin and Bruggink,
2002). It is understood that these technologies are not currently on the pathway to
commercialisation due to the prohibitively high cost of production relative to
conventional petrochemical-based equivalents. To illustrate: while DSM has studied a
bio-based route to nylon 6, this effort did not move past the research stage due at least
partly to the fact that DSM has recently implemented a cheaper petrochemical route to
nylon 6, effectively raising the hurdle (i.e. the difference in cost price of the bio-based
monomer and the petrochemical-based monomer) for the bio-based route (DSM, 2003).
However, applying the same reasoning as for the polyesters PTT, PBT, PBS and so on,
given the current pace of technological development in areas such as molecular
engineering it is difficult to judge the extent to which bio-based routes to monomers
used in the production of polyamides could become economically feasible. Therefore,
this chapter will attempt only to give examples of bio-based routes and place them in
the context of conventional polyamide applications and market presence.
2.6.1 Production of bio-based polyamides
Polyamides are generally synthesized from diamines and dibasic (dicarboxylic) acids,
amino acids or lactams. Where two types of reactive monomer are required, the
polymerization is said to be an AABB type; where one suffices, an AB type. A and B
stand for the functional groups –NH2 and –COOH, respectively (Kohan, 1997). The
different polyamide (PA) types are identified by numbers denoting the number of
carbon atoms in the monomers (diamine first for the AABB type). Commercial nylons
include (SPI, 2003):
• nylon 4 (polypyrrolidone)-a polymer of 2-pyrrolidone [CH2CH2CH2C(O)NH];
• nylon 6 (polycaprolactam)-made by the polycondensation of caprolactam

[CH2(CH2)4NHCO];
• nylon 66 (polyhexamethylene adipamide) - made by condensing
hexamethylenediamine [H2N(CH2)6NH2] with adipic acid [COOH(CH2)4COOH];
• nylon 69 (polyhexamethylene azelaamide) - made by condensing
hexamethylenediamine [H2N(CH2)6NH2] with azelaic acid [COOH(CH2)7COOH];

• nylon 610-made by condensing hexamethylenediamine with sebacic acid

[COOH(CH2)8COOH];
• nylon 6/12-made from hexamethylenediamine and a 12-carbon dibasic acid;
• nylon 11-produced by polycondensation of the monomer 11-amino-undecanoic acid

[NH2CH2(CH2)9COOH];
• nylon 12-made by the polymerization of laurolactam [CH2(CH2)10CO] or
cyclododecalactam, with 11 methylene units between the linking -NH-co- groups in
the polymer chain.
To our knowlegde no bio-based polyamides are commercially produced now. Three

examples of bio-based monomers for production of PA 6, PA 66 and PA 9T are
considered below.
2.6.1.1 PA 66 from bio-based adipic acid
In the bio-based route to adipic acid (Conventional route Figure 2-21; bioroute Figure 2-
22), E. coli bacteria sequentially ferment to 3-dehydroxyshikimate, then to cis, cis-
muconic acid. The final hydrogenation step to adipic acid takes place at elevated
pressure. Production of nylon 66 from adipic acid and diamine follows in a
conventional step polymerization by means of a carbonyl addition/elimination reaction
(Figure 2-23) (UR, 2003).
Figure 2-21: Conventional route to adipic acid (ZWA, 2000)
O OH
_
=
Ni-Al2O3 Co, O2
370-800 psi 120-140 psi

+
Benzene Cyclohexane Cyclohexanone Cyclohexanol
CO2H
Cu, NH4VO3
HNO3
HO2C
+ N 2O
Figure 2-22: Biotechnological production of adipic acid (ZWA, 2000)
OH CO 2H
OH HO 2C
O
CO 2H
E. coli E.coli Pt, H 2
HO 2C
OH OH 50 psi
O OH Adipic acid
CO 2H
OH OH
D- glucose 3 -dehydroshikimate cis,cis -muconic acid

Figure 2-23: Nylon 66 from adipic acid and diamine: conventional step
polymerization route by means of the carbonyl addition/elimination
reaction (UR, 2003)
2.6.1.2 PA 69 from bio-based azelaic acid
In contrast to the fermentation pathway to adipic acid from glucose, azelaic acid
(nonanedioic acid), the diacid monomer for PA69, is produced by a chemical synthesis
pathway from oleic acid. Oleic acid is a monounsaturated 18-carbon fatty acid which is
found in most animal fats and vegetable oils (e.g. rapeseed oil, see Section 2.5.1,
Figure 2-17). Azelaic acid used to be prepared by oxidation of oleic acid with potassium
permanganate, but is now produced by oxidative cleavage of oleic acid with chromic
acid or by ozonolysis. (see Figure 2-24; Cyberlipid, 2003).
Figure 2-24: Production of azelaic acid and conventional step polymerization to

nylon 69 (standard route incorporating the renewable feedstock oleic
acid) (Höfer, 2003).
Natural fats and oils
Oleic acid
Ozonolysis
Azelaic acid + diamine
Step polymerisation
H O
Polyamide 69
(CH2)6 N C (CH2)7 C N
n = nylon 69
O H
The polymerisation step from azelaic acid and diamine to PA 69 is a conventional step
polymerization much the same as that for PA 66, with differences being due to different
melt viscosities and melting points (Kohan, 1997). Production of another polyamide,
PA 669, from azelaic acid is also mentioned by Höfer (2003).

2.6.1.3 PA 6 from bio-based caprolactam
Caprolactam, the monomer for nylon 6, may be produced fermentatively from glucose
(in the future; other fermentable sugars from biomass) via an unspecified intermediate
(Figure 2-25) (Nossin and Bruggink, 2002). Nylon 6 follows from the ring opening
polymerisation of caprolactam.
Figure 2-25: Biotechnological production of caprolactam and nylon 6 via

conventional ring opening polymerisation (Nossin and Bruggink,
2002)
C6H12O6
Hydrolysis Biomass
Glucose
Fermentation (microorganism) Biomass
Filtration Anaerobic digestion
Fertilizer salts
Ultrafiltration
Residual salts
precursor (back to fermentation)
Formation of caprolactam
Purification
Caprolactam
O >99.9% pure
NH
Ring opening polymerisation (acid or base)
O
Polycaprolactam
CH2 CH2 CH2 CH2 CH2 C N = polyamide 6
n = nylon 6
H
Potential future bio-based feedstocks

Table 2-29 lists a number of monomers which are currently produced or have the
potential to be produced from a bio-based feedstock. The most important of these in
volume terms are adipic acid and ε-caprolactam for the production of nylon 66 and
nylon 6 respectively, the processes for which have been described above.

Table 2-29: Bio-based monomers for the production of polyamides (adapted

from Kohan, 1997).
Monomer for polyamide x or y * Conventional source Bio source

Adipic acid (hexanedioic acid) 6 benzene, toluene glucose
Azelaic acid (nonanedioic acid) 9 oleic acid oleic acid
Sebacic acid (decanedioic acid) 10 castor oil castor oil
Dimer acid (fatty acids, dimers) 36 oleic and linoleic acids oleic and linoleic acids
11-Aminoundecanoic acid 11 castor oil castor oil
ε-caprolactam 6 benzene, toluene glucose
* x, y = number of carbon atoms due to monomer in polyamide
2.6.2 Properties
The utility of nylons is based on their combination of properties and on their

susceptibility to modification. Key properties are resistance to oils and solvents;
toughness; fatigue and abrasion resistance; low friction and creep; stability at
elevated temperatures; fire resistance; drawability; good appearance and good
processability (Kohan, 1997).
Nylons 6 and 66 are used where toughness and thermal resistance are required at
moderate cost. Disadvantages are relatively high water absorption and poor
dimensional stability. To solve this problem and to lower cost, nylons are frequently
glass reinforced. Other nylons useful as engineering plastics are nylons 69, 610,
612, 11, and 12. These products have reduced moisture absorption and better
dimensional stability. However, these forms of nylon have poorer toughness and
temperature resistance; properties that deteriorate even further when the resins
eventually do absorb moisture (Nexant, 2002).
Bio-based nylons have theoretically 100% substitution potential for their petrochemical
equivalents. Substitution potentials (of either bio-based or petrochemical based nylons)
for other materials are not known but are assumed to be close to zero.
In terms of cross substitution, the amount of PA 66 used relative to that of PA 6 has

increased over time. Consumption (PA 6/66/other) for Western Europe, Japan, and the
United States was in the ratio 48/41/11 for 1978 and 1983, 44/46/10 for 1988 (Kohan,
1997).
To our knowledge, nylons are now exclusively produced from petrochemical feedstocks
(there may be some exceptions for specialties with very small production volumes).
Nylons are used in many and diverse ways. They are found in appliances, business
equipment, consumer products, electrical/electronic devices, furniture, hardware,
machinery, packaging, and transportation. This diversity makes classification and
analysis difficult as shown in Table 2-30 which shows the pattern of consumption in
Western Europe.

Table 2-30: Main applications for polyamides by market sector -Estimate for
Western Europe
Market
Processing/application
share
Injection moulding 46%
Automotive industry 17%
Electrical 13%
Machinery 4%
Furniture, household 4%
Building 4%
Other 3%
Extrusion 14%
Film 7%
Semi-finished goods 3%
Monofilaments 2%
Other 1%
Blow moulding, cast PA, fluidized
bed coating 2%
Fibres 38%
Total 100%
Note: The share of the fibre market has been estimated using
data for Germany in 1995 (estimated based on a variety of
sources); the market shares of all other applications were
calculated using the shares for the non-fibre markets in Western
Europe in 1991 (PlastEurope).
To our knowledge, bio-based nylons are now not being produced in meaningful
quantities. No announcements about larger investments have so far been made for
nylons. However, major producers of polyamides, e.g. DuPont and DSM are or have
been involved in research into bio-based monomers for polyamides. They are generally
held back by the as yet prohibitive price of the bio-based raw materials and by the
insufficient performance of the biotechnological conversion steps.
For the identified production routes to polyamides via a bio-based intermediate

production costs are still prohibitively high relative to conventional petrochemical-
based equivalents. To illustrate: Based on a feasibility study DSM came to the
conclusion that the bio-based route to nylon 6 would allow the production of
competitively priced caprolactam (Nossin and Bruggink, 2002). However, the company
subsequently switched to a cheaper petrochemical-derived feedstock as a precursor to
nylon 6. This effectively raised the hurdle (i.e. the difference in cost price of the bio-
based versus the petrochemical-based monomer) for the bio-based route (DSM, 2003).
This is not the end of the story, since it is expected that at some time in the future
fermentable sugars will become cheaper and microorganisms will be engineered for
high yield so that a large-scale process becomes financially viable. Targets quoted by
DSM to achieve a lower cost price for bio-based caprolactam are (Nossin and Bruggink,
2002): price of fermentable sugars below € 75 per tonne in 2010 (equating to an
approximately 50% reduction compared with the 2002 price); annual production
capacity of 100,000 tonnes per year; and no penalties associated with waste streams.

2.6.7 Environmental aspects
The production of petrochemical nylons is known to be up to two to three times more

energy intensive than the manufacture of petrochemical bulk polymers such as
polyethylene, polystyrene or polyethylene terephthalate (compare Table 2-11; see also
Boustead 1999/2002 and Patel, 2003). This has mainly to do with the large number of
conversion steps and partly with the production of lower-value byproducts (e.g.
ammonium sulphate as a byproduct of hydroxylamine sulphate in the nylon 6 chain). If
the use of bio-based feedstocks can be combined with new routes characterised by
shorter process chains and higher yields, this will nearly certainly allow to reduce the
overall energy input and the attendant environmental impacts. Both the biotechnological
and the conventional chemical conversion of bio-based feedstocks seem to offer
interesting possibilities to reach these goals (see Section 2.6.1).
2.7 Cellulosic polymers
Cellulosic polymers (or: cellulosics) are produced by chemical modification of natural

cellulose. The main representatives are cellophane, a type of regenerated cellulose used
for films, cellulose acetate, an ester derivative (for moulding, extrusion and films); and
regenerated cellulose for fibres (including viscose/rayon and Lyocell). Cotton fibers and
wood are the primary raw materials for the production of industrially used cellulose
(Krässig, 1997).
Cellulose is one of the main cell wall constituents of all major plants, both nonlignified
(such as cotton) and lignified (such as wood) and constitutes as such the major portion
of all chemical cell components. It is also found in the cell walls of green algae and the
membranes of most fungi. So-called bacterial cellulose is synthesized by Acetobacter
xylinum on nutrient media containing glucose (Krässig, 1997).
Cellulose (Figure 2-26) is a complex polysaccharide (C6H10O5)n with crystalline

morphology. Chemically, cellulose is similar to starch. It is a polymer of glucose in
which the glucose units are linked by β-1,4-glucosidic bonds, whereas the bonds in
starch are predominantly α-1,4-linkages (Callihan and Clemmer, 1979). Like starch,
cellulose yields only glucose on complete hydrolysis by acid (Roberts and Etherington,
2003). Cellulose is more resistant to hydrolysis than starch, however. This resistance is
due not only to the primary structure based on glucosidic bonds but also, to a great
extent, to the secondary and tertiary configuration of the cellulose chain bonds (strong
hydrogen bonds may form between neighbouring chains), as well as its close
association with other protective polymeric structures such as lignin, starch, pectin,
hemicellulose, proteins and mineral elements (Callihan and Clemmer, 1979). For this
reason, cellulose modification is costly, requiring quite harsh processing conditions
(Petersen et al., 1999).

Figure 2-26: The structure of cellulose
HOCH2 H OH
O
H H O OH H H
OH H H O
H H
O
H OH CH2OH
n
Cellulose was first used as a basis for polymer production in the mid- to late-19th
century, when applications in both films and fibres were developed. One of the first
cellulosic films was cellulose nitrate, which was introduced as a base material for
photographic emulsions. Due to its flammability, it was later replaced by cellulose
triacetate. Other important early cellulose-based films were derived from cellulose
acetate and cellulose hydrate. Up until the 1950s, cellulose hydrate films (cellophanes)
dominated the packaging field. In particular, cellophane coated with cellulose nitrate or
poly(vinylidene chloride) found extensive applications due to its low permeability to
water vapor and oxygen, coupled with desirable sealing properties (Stickelmeyer,
1969).
Following the introduction of polyolefin films in the 1950s with their easy
processability, durability and good mechanical properties, films from cellulosic
polymers lost their market dominance. Cellulosics, with their relatively high price
compared to petrochemical polymer replacements, were relegated to comparatively low
volume or niche applications. This is evidenced by statistics for the global production of
man-made cellulosic fibres (IVC, 2003) from the period 1970 to 2000, showing the
relative stagnation of cellulosic fibres compared to a tenfold increase in man-made
synthetic fibres (Figure 2-27). The production of cellulosic fibres (IVC, 2003) compared
to cellulosic plastics (UNICI, 2002) is shown in Figure 2-28; in general, the volume of
cellulosic plastics has been about one tenth of that of cellulosic fibres; production of
cellulosic plastics has thus also stagnated. Although there have been improvements
recently in regenerated cellulose technology (e.g. lyocell, cellulose coating
technologies), there it seems unlikely that cellulosics will attain sufficient
competitiveness to grow their market share over other polymers and may even lose
further ground to newly developing bio-based polymer alternatives. This section will
thus provide only a brief summary of cellulosics technologies and the current market for
these polymers.

Figure 2-27: Production of man-made versus cellulosic fibres since 1970

(IVC, 2003)
35,000
Production (1,000 tonnes) 30,000
25,000
20,000
Synthetic man-made
15,000 fibres
10,000 Cellulosic man-made

fibres
5,000
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Figure 2-28: Production of cellulosic fibres and plastics1 since 1970 (IVC, 2003)
and (UNICI 2002)
4,000
Production (1,000 tonnes)
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000 Cellulosic man-made
fibres
1,500
Cellulosic plastics
1,000
500
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
1
Cellulosic plastics is the category ‘Regenerated cellulose’ which is defined as the net dry content of
regenerated cellulose, cellulose nitrate, cellulose acetate and other cellulose derivatives (UNICI 2002)
2.7.1 Production
Cellulosic polymers are produced primarily from wood but sometimes cellulose from
short cotton fibres, called linters, is used. Linters contain up to 95% pure cellulose
together with small amounts of proteins, waxes, pectins, and inorganic impurities.
Wood pulps give a much lower yield of cellulose (Krässig, 1997). There are currently
two processes used to separate cellulose from the other wood constituents. These
methods, sulfite and prehydrolysis kraft pulping, use high pressure and chemicals to
separate cellulose from lignin and hemicellulose, and to attain greater than 97%
cellulose purity. The cellulose yield by these methods is 35-40% by weight (OIT, 2001).

Cellophane, a type of regenerated cellulose, is made by grinding up cellulose from

wood pulp and treating it with a stong alkali (caustic soda). After the ripening process
during which depolymerisation occurs, carbon disulphide is added. This forms a yellow
crumb known as cellulose xanthate [ROCSSH], which is easily dissolved in more
caustic soda to give a viscous yellow solution known as ‘viscose’ (CIRFS, 2003). The
viscose is then extruded into an acid bath for regeneration as a film.
Other main types of cellulose polymers are produced as follows (SPI, 2003):
• cellulose acetate [CH3COOC2H5] is made by reacting cellulose with acetic acid
• cellulose acetate butyrate is a mixed ester produced by treating fibrous cellulose with
butyric acid [CH3CH2CH2COOH], butyric anhydride [(CH3CH2CH2CO)2O], acetic
acid [CH3COOH] and acetic anhydride [(CH3CO)2O] in the presence of sulfuric acid
[H2SO4]; cellulose propionate is formed by treating fibrous cellulose with propionic
acid [CH3CH2CO2H] and acetic acid and anhydrides in the presence of sulfuric acid
• cellulose nitrate is made by treating fibrous cellulosic materials with a mixture of
nitric [HNO3] and sulfuric acids.
Because cellulose contains a large number of hydroxyl groups, it reacts with acids to
form esters and with alcohols to form ethers. By such derivatisation reactions, hydrogen
bonding is prevented. This provides an option for forming cellulose melts without the
use of aggressive solvents. However, biodegradability decreases as the number of these
derivatised OH groups increases (BenBrahim, 2002) so gains in terms of processability
must be weighed up against loss of biodegradability, if desired.
Cellulosic Fibres
Viscose (rayon) fibres are made by the same process as that described previously for
cellophane, except that the viscose (cellulose xanthate) solution is pumped through a
spinneret, which may contain thousands of holes, into a dilute sulphuric acid bath so
that the cellulose is regenerated as fine filaments as the xanthate decomposes (CIRFS,
2003).
Other basic manufacturing techniques for the production of regenerated cellulose fibre
include the cuprammonium process; the polynosic (modal) process, which is similar to
the viscose process but with a higher degree of polymerisation and a modified
precipitating bath (CIRFS, 2003); and the now obsolete nitrocellulose and saponified
acetate processes (Thornton, 2002).
As recently as 1992 there has been a new process developed for producing regenerated
cellulose fibers: the lyocell process (also called "solvent-spun"), developed by
Courtaulds (Fibresource, 2003). In this process, cellulose pulp is dissolved in the
solvent N-methylmorpholine n-oxide (NMMO) containing just the right amount of
water. The solution is then filtered and passed through spinnerets to make the filaments,
which are spun into water. The NMMO solvent is recovered from this aqueous solution
and reused (CIRFS, 2003).While lyocell is sufficiently different from viscose rayon to
almost be in a class by itself, it is classified as a subclass of rayon (regenerated
cellulose) in the US (Thornton, 2002).

Struszczyk et al. (2002a) compare two new technologies for the production of cellulosic
fibres, Celsol and Cellulose Carbamate (CC), with viscose and Lyocell (NMMO)
(Figure 2-29). The Lyocell process described here is reportedly not the same as Lenzing
(Struszczyk, 2002b). The Celsol process is still under development. The Celsol and CC
processes are similar to the Lyocell process except that NMMO as cellulose activating
agent is replaced by enzyme in the Celsol process and urea in the CC process.
According to the study, the Lyocell process uses the least amount of chemicals in
comparison to the other processes (Struszczyk, 2002b).
Figure 2-29 Process for Viscose, Lyocell (NMMO), Cellulose carbamate (CC)
and Celsol (Struszczyk et al., 2002a)[C47])
VISCOSE PROCESS NMMO process Celsol process CC process
Cellulose pulp Cellulose pulp Cellulose pulp Cellulose pulp
Mercerization Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical

and degradation pretreatment pretreatment pretreatment
Ripening
Acti- Biotransformation Enzy- Biotransformation Urea Intercalation &
vation of cellulose me of cellulose synthesis CC
CS2 Xanthation
Dissolving Dissolving Dissolving
Dissolving
Filtration Filtration Filtration

Regenerated
NMMO
Ripening
TOXIC
Deaeration Deaeration Deaeration
Filtration
Melt blowing Melt blowing Melt blowing
Deaeration
CS2,
Rayon spinning
H2S
Cellulose acetate, being soluble in organic solvents such as acetone, is also suitable for
spinning into fibre or forming into other shapes. The term acetate fibres is used to
describe fibres made from cellulose acetate18. Wood cellulose is swollen by acetic acid,
converted to cellulose acetate using acetic anhydride, and then dissolved in acetone. The
resulting viscous solution is pumped through spinnerets into warm air to form filaments.
The acetone evaporates and is recovered. The filaments are then wound up as filament
yarns or collected as a tow (CIRFS, 2003).
18
The difference between diacetate and triacetate fibres lies in the number of the cellulose hydroxyl
groups that are acetylated. For acetate fibres the number lies between 75% and 92%, for triacetate
fibres it is more than 92%. (CIRFS, 2003).

Bacterial Cellulose
Although cellulose for industrial purposes is usually obtained from plant sources,
considerable efforts are now being focused on cellulose production by an acetic acid-
producing bacterium Acetobacter xylinum under conditions of agitated fermentation. A
wide variety of substrates, including agricultural waste products, can be accepted by this
bacterium and the process has good potential for large-scale production (Titech, 2001).
2.7.2 Properties
Cellulosics have good mechanical properties but are moisture sensitive. Cellophane film
is generally coated with nitrocellulose wax (NCW) or polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC)
to improve its moisture barrier properties. Cellophane has a good gas barrier at low
relative humidity, but the barrier is reduced as humidity increases. As the theoretical
melt temperature is above the degradation temperature, cellulose is not thermoplastic
and therefore cannot be heat sealed (Weber et al., 2000). On the other hand, cellulose
esters and cellulose ethers are thermoplastic. Cellulose derivatives including cellulose
acetate contain up to 25% plasticiser to be suitable for thermoplastic processing. Many
other cellulose derivatives posses excellent film-forming properties but are simply too
expensive for bulk use. Cellulose acetate, cellulose butyrate and cellulose propionate,
commonly used in electrical and electronics applications, have antistatic properties
despite high electrical resistance, are crystal clear, tough, hard, scratch-resistant,
insensitive to stress cracking, readily dyeable with brilliant colours, but are not
permanently weather resistant (Kamm and Schüller, 1997).
Viscose (regenerated cellulose) fibre, like cotton, has a high moisture regain. It dyes
easily, it does not shrink when heated, and it is biodegradable. Modal fibres and
polynosic fibres are both high wet modulus fibres with improved properties such as
better wear, higher dry and wet strengths and better dimensional stability (CIRFS,
2003). Acetate fibres are different from viscose in that they melt, are dyed using
disperse dyes, absorb little water and can be textured. Although the dry strengths of the
two types are similar, triacetate has a higher wet strength. It also has a high melting
point (300 °C, compared with 250 °C for diacetate). Main end-uses for the filament
yarns are linings and dresswear. There is very little staple fibre made from these fibres
but acetate tow is the major product used for cigarette filters (CIRFS, 2003). Lyocell
fibres are moisture absorbent, biodegradable and have a dry strength higher than other
cellulosics and approaching that of polyester. They also retain 85% of their strength
when wet. Lyocell fibres are mostly used for apparel fabrics (CIRFS, 2003).
Bacterial cellulose (‘biocellulose’) is chemically pure, free of lignin and hemicellulose,

has high polymer crystallinity and a high degree of polymerization that distinguishes it
from other forms of cellulose (Rensselaer, 1997). The diameter of bacterial cellulose is
about 1/100 of that of plant cellulose and the Young's modulus is almost equivalent to
that of aluminum. It can thus be used to produce molded materials of relatively high
strength (Titech, 2001).

In the fibre sector, regenerated cellulose and cellulose derivatives substitute for natural
cellulose fibre and other natural and synthetic fibres. Cellulosics - in particular, acetate
and xanthate esters for fibres - can technically partially replace polyester, nylon, and
polypropylene, e.g. cellulose acetate blended with thermoplastic starch in place of a
synthetic thermoplast. When compared to polyester, nylon, and polypropylene (fibres),
cellulosics fair unfavourably, having a lower strength to weight ratio and less resistance
to rot, mildew, burning, and wrinkling (Krässig, 1997). In the future, another possible
substitution route will be bacterial cellulose substituting for standard cellulosics and for
non-cellulosics in high-end applications.
Apart from applications in the thin films sector, cellulosic polymers can also be used in
moulding and extrusion processes (eFunda, 2003). Cellulose acetate, cellulose acetate
butyrate and cellulose acetate propioniate are among the derivatives used to make a
wide range of products including knobs, appliance housings, handles, toys, packaging,
consumer products, and automotive parts (CTS, 2003), as well as electric insulation
films, lights and casings (Kamm and Schüller, 1997).
Regenerated cellulose fibre (viscose) is used in most apparel end-uses, often blended
with other fibres, and in hygienic disposables where its high absorbency gives
advantages. In filament yarn form it is excellent for linings. It is used very little in home
furnishing fabrics but in the industrial field, because of its thermal stability, a high
modulus version is still the main product used in Europe to reinforce high speed tyres
(CIRFS, 2003). Of the several different cellulose derivatives which have been
investigated for fibres, only two, the acetate and xanthate esters, are of commercial
importance for today (Fibresource, 2003).
Currently, applications for bacterial cellulose outside the food and biomedical fields are
rather limited, and prices are still very high. One example is the acoustic diaphragms for
audio speakers produced by Sony Corporation. Paper that is coated with bacterial
cellulose is extremely smooth and protects the underlying fibres from moisture. Other
possible bulk applications include use in oil and gas recovery, mining, paints and
adhesives. Thus, although bacterial cellulose is a potentially important polymer, its
interest in terms of bulk production of plastics is rather limited (OTA, 1993).
As the cellulosic polymer industry as a whole is quite mature (apart from bacterial
cellulose), the companies producing the established cellulose products are also those
involved in innovations and technological progress in the field (see section 2.7.7).
Producers of cellulosic thermoplasts (cellulose acetate, butyrate, propionate) include
Courtaulds Plastic Group, UK (Dexel®); American polymers, USA (Ampol®); and
Eastman Chemical International, USA (Tenite) (Kamm and Schüller, 1997), IFA,
Mazzuchelli and UCB. Main producers of cellulosic fibres include Lenzing and Acordis
(lyocell, viscose, modal), Glanzstoff (industrial viscose filament yarn) and SNIA

(viscose, textile) (CIRFS, 2003). Bacterial cellulose is produced by Weyerhauser in the

US (under the name Cellulon) and Ajinimoto in Japan (OTA, 1993).
In view of the complex processing required, cellulose has a relatively high market price
even today; in the range of € 3.00 - € 4.00 per kg which is substantially higher than that
of polyolefins or other petrochemical-based polymers typically used as substitutes.
The study by Struszczyk et al. (2002) of four different cellulosic fibre processes found
that the environmental protection costs19 were highest for Viscose, then, in order of
decreasing costs, Lyocell (figure not reported due to confidentiality), Cellulose
carbamate (CC) (40% of Viscose) and Celsol (30% of Viscose). In terms of other
production costs, Struszczyk reports that capital and personnel costs are slightly lower
for CC and substantially less for Celsol compared to Viscose (Western Europe). The
Celsol process also has a lower energy cost. Total operating costs (excluding
environmental protection costs) are about 88% and 70% respectively for CC and Celsol
compared to Viscose (figure for Lyocell not reported). These data indicate that
substantial reductions in operating costs, waste products and energy usage may still be
achieved in the production of cellulosic fibres – and by extension, cellulosic plastics.
Nevertheless, this is unlikely that such process improvements will result in cellulosics
becoming price competitive with petrochemical equivalents. Further technology
advances with respect to separation of lignocellulosics or major developments in
bacterial cellulose would be required to drive down the cost of cellulosics.
2.7.7 Environmental Impacts
Feedstocks
As mentioned in Section 2.7.1, the cellulose yield from wood is quite low. Additionally,
the standard processes for cellulose production, involving washing and bleaching with
chlorine, chlorine dioxide or hydrogen peroxide, result in malodorous emissions and
deliver the cellulose and hemicellulose in an unusable form. In the U.S., the National
Renewable Energy Lab, Eastman Chemical Company and a major producer of
chemical-grade cellulose are investigating the scale-up and commercialisation of a more
energy-efficient process to separate cellulose from lignin and hemicellulose in wood
using a technology called Clean Fractionation (OIT, 2001). This separation technology
has a higher cellulose yield of 47-48% by weight (compared to 35%-40% for standard
processes) and allows for the use of the lignin and hemicellulose as feedstock for higher
value chemicals as compared to the conventional technologies which use the lignin and
hemicellulose as fuel. 99% of the organic solvent is recovered and reused, thereby
eliminating the odorous emissions and minimizing the downstream effluent treatment.
The resulting cellulose requires minimal further purification for use by the chemical
industry compared with cellulose from the two conventional pulp and paper processes.
Elimination of the high pressure conditions and use of chemicals will result in a
significant processing energy reduction.
19
It is assumed that environmetal protection costs relate to the financial burden associated with cleaning
or otherwise safely disposing of all waste streams.

Cellulosics production
As mentioned in Section 2.7.1, the production of cellulosics from cellulose pulp
requires harsh chemical treatment; e.g. precipitation with carbon disulphide and
dissolution with caustic soda. The process has relatively high energy and water
requirements (UK Ecolabelling Board, 1997; see Table 2-31).
Table 2-31: Cradle-to-factory gate energy requirements for cellulosic and

petrochemical polymers
Energy*)
Polymer Reference
GJ/t polymer
Cellulose polymers
Regenerated cellulose (Lyocell) 77 Eibl et al., 1996
Regenerated cellulose (Rayon) 93 UK Ecolabelling Board, 1997
Cellulose hydrate films (cellophane) 92 Vink et al., 2003
Cellulose acetate 89 UK Ecolabelling Board, 1997
Petrochemical polymers
Polyolefins*) 76 Boustead (1999/2000) *)
PET, amorphous 77 Boustead (2002)
PET, bottle grade 79 Boustead (2002)
*) Non-renewable energy only (finite energy); total of process energy and feedstock energy
**) 50% LLDPE + 50% HDPE)
The aforementioned study by Struszczyk et al. (2002) (sections 2.7.1, 2.7.6) indicates
that sizeable improvements in the environmental impact (in terms of energy
consumption and water use) of cellulosics are still possible should the described new
processing technologies be adopted by industry.
2.8 Conclusions relating to existing and emerging technologies

for bio-based polymers
This section attempts to draw together key points relating to the various groups of bio-
based polymers already discussed in some detail, and to summarise the technology
development phase, the substitution potential and the production cost in relation to each.
2.8.1 Technology development phase
Figure 2-30 illustrates the phase of development for the various bio-based polymers.
Nylons with a bio-based component are in an early stage of development, development
of PBT is awaiting advances in fermentation of 1,4-butanediol; while PBS is
approaching pilot plant stage due to Japanese developments (Ajinimoto/Mitsubishi) in
the area of large-scale succinic acid fermentation.
Between the pilot plant and commercial stage are the polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHBV,
PHB, PHBHx), the main hurdles being relatively expensive, high quality fermentation
substrates and relatively low conversion rates (20% wt/wt biomass for PHA). The
aspirations of P&G and Metabolix to produce PHAs in bulk volumes are likely to

advance the technology to the commercial stage by 2005, with large scale (30 to 50 kt)
production at full capacity before 2010. Bio-based PTT should be produced
commercially in 2006 if DuPont holds to its business plan. Progression to a large-scale
process should be quite rapid once the fermentation of PDO is proven, since
polymerisation plants for PTT are already in use. With PURs, high prices for polyols
and costs associated with chemical manipulation of feedstocks to increase hydroxy
functionality are the main barriers to entering bulk markets.
At the mature end of the scale, cellulosics are longest on the market and also have the
least potential to achieve a breakthough either in cost or on the environmental front. For
this reason, it is understood that in the coming years they will be overtaken in volume
terms and substituted at least partially by other BBPs. As discussed extensively in
Chapter 2.2, PLA is well on the road to penetrating bulk markets, with Cargill Dow’s
corn starch-based process presently ramping up to full production (140 kt) and Hycail
launching efforts to commercialise PLA produced from whey. Starch polymers cover a
somewhat wider range of product stages: while some products are rather mature and
have been successful on the market for several years (e.g., loose fill packaging
material), others have been produced on a large scale only recently (e.g. Goodyear’s
EcoTyre or Rodenburg’s Solanyl).
Figure 2-30: Development stage of main bio-based polymer types
PUR
Nylon 66, 69 PHBHx

cellulosics
Nylon 6 PHBV
Starch polymers
PBS, PBSA PHB
PBT PTT PLA
Research Pilot plant Commercial Large scale Mature
Abbrev. Class Name

Nylon Polyamide
PLA Polylactic acid
PTT Polytrimethyleneterephthalate
PBT Polybutyleneterephthalate
PBS Polybutylene succinate
PBSA Polybutylene succinate adipate
PHB Polyhydroxybutyrate (type of PHA)
PHBV Polyhydroxybutyrate-co-hydroxyvalorate (type of PHA)
PHBHx Polyhydroxybutyrate-co-hydroxyhexanoate (type of PHA)
PUR Polyurethanes
2.8.2 Maximum technical substitution potential
To obtain a quantitative estimate of the substitution potential for bio-based polymers,

estimates for the technical subsitution potential on a material-by-material basis have
been compiled based on interviews with industry experts, thereby obtaining an overall
estimate for the maximum possible substitution potential. This has been done both for

plastics (Table 2-32) and fibres (Table 2-33). To the qualitative scale of increasing
substitution potential (no potential, “-” to very high potential, “+++”, see e.g. Table 2-9)
shown in the legend of Table 2-32, a quantitative figure has been matched (0% to 30%).
The figure 30% has been taken to indicate ample possibilities for direct substitution.
The fact that the figure is not 100% is due to only partial replacement of petrochemical
with renewable feedstocks, as well as only selected polymers within a type category
(e.g. PTT in the category ‘other polyesters’, plant oil and polyester polyol PURs in
category ‘Bio-based PUR’ and Nylon 6 and 6,6 in the category ‘Bio-based PA’).
In summing the figures in Table 2-32 (plastics) we see that, depending on the polymer,
between 0% and 70% of the current volume could in theory be replaced by bio-based
alternatives. Multiplying this by tonnes produced (lower table), volume estimates are
obtained both by bio-based polymer category (rows), as well as by petrochemical-based
polymer (columns). The overall maximum substitution potential for plastics is 14.7
million tonnes, corresponding to 34% (weighted) of the total current polymer
production in EU-15. From Table 2-33 (fibres), the overall maximum substitution
potential for fibres is estimated at 700 thousand tonnes, corresponding to 20%
(weighted) of the total current fibre production in EU-15. For total polymers (plastics
plus fibres), the maximum substitution potential of bio-based polymers in place of
petrochemical-based polymers is thus estimated at 15.4 million tonnes, or 33% of total
polymers. As a note of caution, this figure should be viewed as indicative only, as it
results from the combination of several uncertain estimates. In the very long term (2030
onwards), substitution could be even higher, depending upon the pace of development
of a bio-based economy, but this is beyond the scope of the present study.
Table 2-32: Technical substitution potential of bio-based polymers (plastics) in

Western Europe
1) 2) other
% Substitution PE-LD PP PVC PE-HD PS PET PUR PA ABS PC PMMA POM 3) LEGEND
poly
Subst
Starch polymers 10 10 0 10 10 0 10 0 0 0 5 0 0 %
pot.
PLA 0 10 0 10 10 10 0 10 0 0 5 0 0 0 -
Other bio-based polyesters 0 20 0 0 0 30 0 30 0 20 5 0 0 5 (+)
PHA 20 20 10 30 20 10 10 0 10 0 5 0 0 10 +
Bio-based PUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 ++
Bio-based PA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 30 +++
Sum percentages 30 60 10 50 40 50 50 70 10 20 20 0 0
1) 2) other %
All values in 1000 tonnes PE-LD PP PVC PE-HD PS PET PUR PA ABS PC PMMA POM 3) Total
poly subst
1999 Polymer Consumption

4) 7,228 7,506 5,799 4,847 3,415 2,899 2,268 1,234 646 336 300 166 7,133 43,777 100
in W.Europe acc. to APME
Starch polymers 723 751 0 485 342 0 227 0 0 0 15 0 0 2,541 6
PLA 0 751 0 485 342 290 0 123 0 0 15 0 0 2,005 5
Other bio-based polyesters 0 1,501 0 0 0 870 0 370 0 67 15 0 0 2,823 6
PHA 1,446 1,501 580 1,454 683 290 227 0 65 0 15 0 0 6,260 14
Bio-based PUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 680 0 0 0 0 0 0 680 2
Bio-based PA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 370 0 0 0 0 0 370 1
Sum volumes 2,168 4,504 580 2,424 1,366 1,450 1,134 864 65 67 60 0 0 14,681 34
1)
PS (all types) and EPS
2)
ABS/SAN
3)
Also known as polyacetal, polyformaldehyde
4)
APME (2003)

Table 2-33: Technical substitution potential of bio-based polymers (fibres) in

Western Europe.
Other
% Substitution PET PA Acrylic Cellulosic LEGEND
synthetic
Starch polymers 0 0 0 0 0 % Subst pot.
PLA 10 0 5 0 5 0 -
Other bio-based polyesters 30 0 5 0 5 5 (+)
PHA 5 0 5 0 5 10 +
Bio-based PUR 0 0 0 0 0 20 ++
Bio-based PA 0 30 0 0 0 30 +++
Sum percentages 45 30 15 0 15
Other
All values in 1000 tonnes PET PA Acrylic Cellulosic Total % subst
synthetic
2002 Fibre Consumption in
1) 549 909 620 872 585 3535 100
W.Europe acc. to CIRFS
Starch polymers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PLA 55 0 31 0 29 115 3
Other bio-based polyesters 165 0 31 0 29 225 6
PHA 27 0 31 0 29 88 2
Bio-based PUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bio-based PA 0 273 0 0 0 273 8
Sum volumes 247 273 93 0 88 701 20
1)
CIRFS (2003)
This is an opinion shared by many of the companies we interviewed. Nevertheless, if only

customer perception determines this price premium one would expect the product to cater
only to a specialist market. When it comes to bulk markets, other factors determining the
competitive stance of bio-based polymers must be duly considered. Some of these which
have already been mentioned from a company or technology-based perspective will be
adressed more systematically in the following section.
The examples of commercialised and prototype products made from bio-based products
listed in Table 2-34 give an indication of the wide range of possibilities and activities in
this field. Some websites where products may be viewed are listed below.
Examples of innovative bio-based products may be viewed at:

http://www.ibaw.org/deu/seiten/markt_produkte.html
http://www.novamont.com >applications
http://www.nodax.com/ >potential applications
http://www.cargilldow.com/corporate/nw_pack_food.asp >applications
http://www.innovation-in-packaging.com/Englischsites/englishindex.htm

Table 2-34: Innovative product examples using bio-based polymers

Commercialized
(C) or in
Product Bio-based polymer development/ Companies active*)
demonstration
stage (D)
Packaging
Treophan, Natura,
Films and trays for biscuits,
PLA, starch polymers C IPER; Sainsburys,
fruit, vegetables and meat
etc.
Cristallina / Cargill
Yoghurt cup (Cristallina) PLA C
Dow
Nets for fruit Starch polymers C Novamont; Tesco
Novamont; Natura;
Albert Heijn;
Grocery bags Starch polymers C
Swiss/German
supermarkets
Rigid transparent packaging of
batteries with removable printed PLA C Panasonic
film on back side
Trays and bowls for fast food
PLA C McDonalds
(e.g. McDonald’s salad shaker)
Envelope with transparent
window, paper bag for bread PLA C/D Mitsui
with transparent window
Agriculture and horticulture
Novamont, Cargill
Mulching films Starch polymers, PLA C
Dow
Tomato clips Natura
Short life consumer goods
Hygiene products such as
Starch polymers C/D Lacea
diapers, cotton swabs
Stationary and pre-paid cards PLA C/D
Longlife consumer goods

FILA / Cargill Dow,
Apparel, e.g. T-shirts, socks PLA C
Kanebo Gosen
Blanket PLA C Ingeo
Mattress PUR C Metzeler
Casing of walkman PLA C Sony

Sanyo Marvic Media
CD (compact disk) PLA C/D
/ Lacea
Computer keys PLA C Fujistsu
Small component of laptop
PLA C Fujistsu / Lacea
housing
PLA (composite with Toyota (model type
Spare wheel cover C
kenaf fibres) ”Raum”)
Automobile interiors including
head liners and upholstery and PLA D Toyota
possibly for trimmings
*) List is not exhaustive

3. Scenarios for future prices and markets of

bio-based polymers
The term “Scenario” comes from the field of theatres and films and initially meant the
script of a play. In scientific terms, “scenarios” represent a methodological approach to
looking at a future situation which is full of uncertainties. The historical development of
the scientific scenario methodology was described by Becker (1988).
But scenarios are not forecasts. Instead they are more like pictures or sketches of
possible situations. Scenarios tell us consistent stories about the way the world or a
system will evolve over a period of time or in what condition the system will be in at a
certain point in time. These "narrative descriptions of hypothetical futures draw
attention to causal processes and decision points" (Kahn and Wiener, 1967). The
scenario approach is a method for describing the main influencing factors for a future
development in a given context and for illustrating different possible development
paths. These paths could define future frame conditions. In this way, it becomes
possible to draw up suitable strategies for action starting from the current state of the
system regarded for each development path. In this sense, scenarios are aids for long-
term strategically oriented planning. Scenarios as a method of system research have
been applied at the Fraunhofer ISI since the mid-seventies (Bossel and Denton, 1977;
Jochem et al., 1976).
In Section 3, various scenarios will be prepared for the future use of bio-based polymers
in 2005, 2010 and 2020.
3.1 Main influencing factors and their interrelation
To prepare the ground for the market projections this section identifies and discusses,
the main influencing factors of the use of bio-based polymers must be identified and
listed. In addition, the social, economic, ecological and technological boundary
conditions need to be analysed and described. To this end, scientific literature and
relevant studies (such as Kaup 2002; Käb 2003a) have been screened.
An overview of the identified main influencing factors and their interrelation is given in
a mental model in Figure 3-1. For selected factors, characteristics of their impeding or
stimulating impact are given in Table 3-1. It was emphasised by the experts in the
project workshop that the differences and competition between petro-based and bio-
based polymers will decrease in the future due to the fact that almost every large
polymer producer has its own bio-based polymer development. The factors in Table 3-1
show only the spectrum of possible future developments and so give the frame
conditions of (simplified but illustrative) scenarios.
Figure 3-1 provides an overview of the main influencing factors for the future
development of bio-based polymers and the interrelation of some of these factors in the
form of a mind map.
This mind map organises the main influencing factors along the value chain for the
whole life cycle, i. e. the production, use and waste management of bio-based polymers.
This value chain comprises the following stages (Figure 3-2):

• Agricultural crop production and harvest,
• Industrial production and processing of bio-based polymers. In general, (at least)

three different stages can be distinguished: the primary processing stage in which the
agricultural raw materials are converted into basic materials or building blocks of
bio-based polymers (e. g. starch production from maize, wheat or potato as the basic
material for starch polymers, or lactic acid production from biomass as building
block for poly-lactid polymers). In the secondary processing stage, intermediates
such as films, granules or fibres of bio-based polymers are produced. In the third
processing stage, the final processing of these intermediates to end products (such as
containers, textiles etc.) takes place. The distribution and marketing stage provides
the link between the producers and the users of the bio-based polymers. The different
stages outlined here can be found in one company, but can also be accomplished by
networks of independent companies.
• Moreover, the structure of the industry involved should be kept in mind which is
closely interrelated with the market sizes, market segments and types of products that
are or can be commercialized successfully. In general, large, often multinational
companies have the know-how and the financial and organisational resources to
build large production plants, and to target large, often multinational markets. The
production of bulk bio-based polymers would most likely require the involvement of
such large companies. On the other hand, small-scale products with limited turnover,
albeit commercially successful, are often not attractive enough for the product
portfolio of a large company. Another company type is the small and medium sized
enterprises (SMEs). They are often more flexible and innovative, and products which
target niche markets may be attractive business opportunities for these companies.
On the other hand, their resources are often limited regarding large scale production,
and the penetration of large, international markets.
• Use phase by customers.
• Waste management. This stage comprises different waste management options, such
as recycling, waste disposal in landfill sites, composting, biogas production,
incineration.
The value chain was chosen for sorting the main influencing factors, because several
influencing factors exert their effects mainly on one or only a few stages, while others
(can) have impacts along the entire value chain (see also branch "frame conditions" in
the mind map).
In addition, it should be kept in mind that there are feedback loops between different
stages of the value chain, which are not reflected in the mind map.

Final Report
Figure 3-1: Mindmap of influencing factors

Growth of (world/EU population)
resource intensity of eating habits (e. g.
securing food supply for (world/EU) population meat)
Political factors influencing
autarky/international cooperation (import,
export, food aid etc.)
food use New, more cost-efficient production

technologies
RTD programmes (regional, national, EU) Falling prices for agroproducts
Globalisation of agromarkets
Market introduction programmes Publicly financed support measures
reduction of food overproduction EU enlargement
Public procurement
Agricultural policy: less subsidies for EU food
Subsidies production, closing gap between internal and
Tax/fee exemptions Influencing prices and costs global market prices
Internalisation of external costs Frame conditions for support of
Attractiveness of alternative sources of
Environmental legislation (e. g. CO2 bio-based polymers income and employment for farmers
emissions, waste management) Regulations Preservation of agricultural landscapes
Standards, certificates Structural policy in rural areas
Competition food use vs. non-food industrial Provide regenerative raw materials to achieve
Agricultural policy use vs. energy use
policy priorities, integration and energy and non-food industrial use sustainability and climate protection goals
Environmental policy Agricultural crop production and harvest
harmonisation of different policies Availability, costs and environmental
Industrial policy impacts of fossil resources
Foreign affairs policy Reliable, temporal, regional,
quantitatively as well as qualitatively
sufficient availability of bio-based
resources
1. Primary processing of agricultural
products (basic materials, building blocks; e. Stage of development of technology
g. starch)
direct
2. Secondary processing (production of Four stages along value chain Costs, prices
intermediates; e. g. foils, granules) indirect
3. Final processing (endproducts) subsidies, tax exemptions
4. Distribution, trade Competition energy vs. non-food industrial Contribution of option to goal
Structure use
achievement
Bulk, large volume products Large, multinational (chemical)
companies Cost-effectiveness of option for goal
targeting international, large markets achievement
more flexible Types of companies Political influence of stakeholders
niche products and markets SMEs Time-course of implementation,
path dependency of innovation process
often regional scope
page 104
Framework of EU Agricultural policy

Political factors (OPEC policy, political
stability of relationships with Size
oil-producing countries)
Growth over time
Reserves
Value chain EU
Prospecting new sites Estimated ultimate recovery Regional segmentation South-East Asia
Resources
State of production technology
availability of fossil raw materials Rest of World
Growth of world population price Packaging
Economic development
Influencing factors
Construction
Urbanisation, adoption of Consumption for bio-based polymers
Automobile
resource-intensive life styles 15.01.2004 - v74 Segments/Application areas Furniture and toys
Technological change
Electrical and electronic equipment
RRM: see agricultural production and Agriculture
harvest Others
Competition fossil raw materials vs.
Securing future supplies of fuels and renewable raw materials standard, traditional
feedstocks due to foreseeable exhaustion Market level of innovativeness innovative, sophisticated, advanced,
of fossil resources Industrial production and processing tailor-made
Reduction of dependency from fossil Type of products
resources, increasing autarky bulk, mass product
volume
reduced dependency from fossil resources Securing future competitiveness of Use phase by customer niche, speciality
industry through additional factors, not necessarily
development of technologies and included in actual price (supranational,
products from biobased resources Price
national policy and company strategy)
biodegradability
Decoupling of economic growth and fossil Striving for industrial sustainability Functionality environmental advantages LCA
resource consumption
unique material properties
Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions Customers' assessment of usefulness
Anthropogenic greenhouse effect (Kyoto protocol) environmental advantages
Gaining social and political acceptance Quality standards, certificates
(company strategy) Value-for-money overall fulfillment of customers'
requirements (incl. services, availability,
State of technology etc.)
Investment costs for production facilities
Knowledge, education of general benefits
subsidies, tax exemptions Raw materials and energy costs
recognition (labels, certificates)
Optimisation of bbp production processes Demand-pull of ecological bio-based
products by users/customers trustworthiness, guarantees (e. g.
(e. g. energy requirement) regarding quality, eco-friendliness)
Economies of scale Environmental orientation of consumer
Fitting into existing structures, equipment, direct and indirect production costs Competition bio-based polymers vs. consumption behaviour
competencies and technologies fossil-based polymers
Use and commercialisation of side Knowledge of optimal waste
products and waste management option LCAs
Fees, tax exemptions Availability of required waste
Waste management
Compliance with regulation (e. g. management infrastructure
environmental regulation) Use of optimal waste
management option in practice
Contribution of option to goal
achievement (to which extent can
expectations really be fulfilled?)
Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI /
Figure 3-2: Value chain of bio-based polymers

Primary
Agricultural processing Secondary Final
crop (basic processing processing Trade, Use phase Waste
production materials, (inter- (end distribution by customer management
and harvest building mediates) products)
blocks)
Table 3-1: Key influencing factors and characteristics of their impeding or stimulating impacts
Key
influencing Characteristics for stimulating impacts of this factor Characteristics for impeding impacts of this factor
page 105
factors
Frame conditions for support of bio-based polymers
Policy priorities • Non-food industrial use of agricultural products is a political • Non-food industrial use of agricultural products is no political
in agricultural priority, because priority, because
policy
− of the need to reduce food overproduction by implementing − of the need to secure the food supply for (world/EU)
set-aside programmes population
− non-food industrial use of agricultural products is assessed as − non-food industrial use of agricultural products is assessed as
useful contribution to attractive alternative source of income an inferior option to achieve income, employment, cultural
and employment for farmers, preservation of agricultural landscape preservation, reduction of greenhouse gas
landscapes, structural policy in rural areas emissions, in terms of availability, feasibility, impacts, cost-
effectiveness, political support by stakeholders etc.
− integration and harmonisation of agricultural with
environmental policy
Final Report
− of political influence of (agricultural) stakeholders

Final Report
Key

factors
in priority, because priority, because
environmental
− this option contributes substantially to the achievement of − measures to counteract the anthropogenic greenhouse effect
policy
greenhouse gas emission reduction goals are of low political priority
− of the favourable eco-profile of bio-based polymer production − other measures/options are assessed as superior in terms of
and use over full life cycle feasibility, cost-effectiveness, lack of adverse environmental
impacts etc.
in industrial priority, because priority because
policy
− the need is assessed as urgent to secure future supplies of fuels − short-term goals are favoured over long-term strategies
page 106
and feedstocks due to foreseeable exhaustion of fossil

− other options are assessed as superior regarding feasibility,
resources
cost-effectiveness, return of investment, demand and market
− the need is assessed as urgent to decrease industrial impacts etc.
independence of fossil resources
− other means to decouple economic growth and fossil resource
− this option is assessed as a substantial contribution to securing consumption are favoured
future competitiveness of industry
− goals other than industrial sustainability are favoured
− this option is assessed as suitable to contribute to industrial

sustainability
− this option is assessed as suitable for certain industries to gain
political and social acceptance
Key

factors
in foreign priority, because priority, because
affairs policy
− enlargement of the EU leads to requirement for set-aside − long-term supply of fossil resources from exporting countries
programmes in agricultural policy is stable and reliable
− political instabilities in/unreliable relationships with fossil − WTO regulations favour a) agriculture for food use or b)
resource exporting countries favour striving for autarky from agricultural production outside the EU
fossil resources
− the EU has to strive for more autarky regarding food supply
− WTO regulations favour domestic production of non-food (less food imports)
agricultural products
− the EU increases its food exports
Integration and • Synergies between different policies are achieved through • Different policies pursue inconsistent, contradictory goals
page 107
harmonisation integration and harmonisation; support measures are consistent, regarding the non-food industrial use of agricultural products;
of different comprehensive and harmonised support measures are patchy and not harmonised
policies
Final Report
Final Report
Key

factors
Regulations • Regulations are in force which • Regulations are in force which
− compensate unjustified disadvantages of bio-based processes − favour food or energy use of agricultural products over non-
and products compared to fossil-based processes and products food industrial use, favour fossil-based products and processes
(e. g. tax exemptions as compensation for higher prices; over bio-based products and processes in an unjustified way
internalisation of external costs)
− are inconsistent, patchy and only directed to individual aspects
− make proven advantages of bio-based processes and products or single stages of the value chain
a requirement for industry and consumers (e. g.
biodegradability, CO2 -neutrality)
− guarantee certain qualities of bio-based products and
processes (e. g. through certificates, standards)
page 108
− reduce the level of uncertainty for different stakeholders

− are consistent, comprehensive and harmonised over the entire
value chain
Publicly • Publicly financed support schemes are implemented on a • Publicly financed support schemes are scarcely funded
financed substantial scale
• The implemented support schemes are patchy or redundant, with
support
• The implemented support schemes have long-term perspectives, short term perspectives, are ill-integrated so that synergies cannot
schemes
comprise different, complementary measures which cover the be exploited

whole value chain and have complementary goals (e. g. support
of RTD, market introduction, public procurement, subsidies and
tax or fee exemptions, standards and certificates, evaluations)
Key

factors
Stages of the value chain
Agricultural • A substantial share of the agricultural production is used for non- • Only a minor share of the agricultural production is used for non-
production and food industrial purposes, because food industrial purposes, because
harvest
− of corresponding policy priorities − the relevant frame conditions strongly favour food production
over non-food uses
− influencial stakeholders support this option
− the relevant frame conditions strongly favour energy uses over
− it is competitive with (or even superior to) food and energy
non-food industrial uses
uses of agricultural production regarding technological
development, costs, income for farmers, cost-effectiveness for − this option cannot achieve the expected policy goals or to a
achieving policy goals lesser or less cost-effective level than competing options
− it is competitive with fossil-based resources regarding − large scale production is incompatible with important policy
page 109
reliability, temporal, regional, quantitatively and qualitatively goals due to unintended, adverse effects (e. g. on the
sufficient availability environment, structure of rural landscapes)
− it is competitive with or even superior to fossil-based
resources regarding costs, reliable availability and
environmental impacts
Final Report
Final Report
Key

factors
Industrial • A substantial share of the polymer production uses bio-based raw • Only a minor share of the polymer production uses bio-based raw
production and materials, because materials, because
processing
− bio-based materials can compete on a cost basis (many − bio-based materials are inferior to fossil raw materials
− Competition preconditions), and regarding costs, reliable availability, quantity and quality and
between therefore are only suitable for niche products, but are
− bio-based materials are reliably available in sufficient quality
fossil raw unattractive for large scale products
and quantity, and/or
materials
− only SMEs, albeit innovative and flexible, but with limited
and bio- − additional, strategic reasons favour their use, such as securing
resources regarding know-how, market penetration capability
based raw future supplies of fuels and feedstocks independent of fossil
and mainly regionally restricted scope, find attractive market
materials resources, securing future competitiveness of industry,
niches
striving for industrial sustainability, gaining social and
political acceptance, complying with regulation (e. g. Kyoto
page 110
protocol), occupying a unique market niche

Key

factors
− Competition • A substantial share of the polymer production is substituted by • The production of bio-based polymers remains restricted to
between bio-based polymers, because certain market niches, because
fossil-based
− their production technology has reached an advanced, − competitiveness of the production processes on a cost-basis
polymers
competitive stage, cannot be achieved for various reasons, and
and bio-
based − both polymer types are competitive regarding their direct and − biodegradability and production from bio-based materials
polymers indirect production costs, due to substantial improvements in remain the only unique features of bio-based polymers, so that
(production) e. g. process optimisation, exploiting economies of scale, use the market segments remain restricted,
and commercialisation of by-products and waste etc. for bio-
− the production processes for bio-based polymers remain
based polymers
inferior to fossil-based polymer production regarding
− disadvantages of bio-based polymers regarding their direct environmental impacts (e. g. energy use, green house gas
production costs are more than compensated by other emissions) or other goals (e. g. company profits, return of
page 111
advantages, such as superior functionality, subsidies and investment)

fee/tax exemptions for raw materials and products,
compliance with pro-bio-based-polymer-regulations
− not only bio-based products for the "environment market
niche", but also bulk products for other market segments are
commercially attractive
Final Report
Final Report
Key

factors
Use phase by • Customers prefer bio-based polymers over fossil-based polymers • The use of bio-based polymers remains limited, because
customer in sizeable market segments with above average growth rates,
− their eco-image or their biodegradability are their only unique
because
− Competition features, and the willingness to pay and the unique
between − bio-based polymers are used both for the production of applications of such polymers are limited.
fossil-based standard, traditional products as well as for innovative,
− customers have no knowledge of the general advantages of
polymers sophisticated and tailor-made products, and are commercially
bio-based polymers, cannot distinguish bio-based from fossil-
and bio- successful for bulk products as well as niche products,
based polymers, do not trust the said advantages of bio-based
based
− commercially viable applications can be found in all market polymers (e. g. ecofriendliness, biodegradability) because of
polymers
segments, ranging from packaging, construction, automobile, bad experiences or lack of guarantees, certificates etc,
(use)
furniture, electrical and electronic equipment to agriculture, generally rank environmental issues low on their list of
medicine etc. personal priorities, do not transform general awareness of
page 112
environmental issues into behaviour

− the bio-based products are superior to competing fossil-based
products regarding either price, functionality or value-for-
money
− there is a strong demand-pull for ecological, bio-based
products by the users
− consumers are in the position to make their deliberate choices
between between bio-based and fossil-based polymers (due to

several factors)
Key

factors
Waste • The possible advantages of bio-based polymers regarding waste • Bio-based polymers perform poorly regarding waste
management management are fully exploited, because management, because
− results from LCA studies are used to optimise bio-based − of a lack of knowledge of optimised waste management
polymers waste management, options,
− the required optimised waste management infrastructure is − the existing waste management infrastructure differs a lot
implemented, from an optimised waste management for bio-based polymers,
and is unlikely to change due to several factors,
− the optimised waste management options are used in practice
− bio-based polymers are not channeled into the optimal waste
management option, although this option is available
page 113
Final Report
3.1.2 Scenarios for bio-based polymers in Europe
The combination of the development variants for all scenarios is shown using the
columns and lines marked in the following consisitency matrices, see Figures 3-3 to 3-5.
The scenarios selected only take one level of indirect influences into account; other
levels can be calculated with computer simulations, but usually yield similar results.
When interpreting the results, it should be kept in mind that the fields shown in grey
should contain as few contradictions as possible (marked with a minus sign). However,
this cannot be avoided completely in every scenario. A positive influence in the fields
marked supports the trend of this combination of influencing factors and should occur
as often as possible. Alternatives can be analysed by looking at how many
contradictions or supporting influences result when selecting an alternative to the
marked line and column. The descriptions of the selected development variants can be
summarised in one description of the frame assumptions for the individual scenarios.
Among the different possibilities of scenarios we chose the three ones called
WITHOUT P&M, WITH P&M and HIGH GROWTH.
In the scenario WITHOUT P&M, a business-as-usual picture is described: bio-based

polymers are present in small and niche markets but are not able to compete with mass
polymers such as PE or PVC. The oil and the crop prices are medium, economic growth
is also average. There is no special support from either agricultural or environmental
policy. Big new polymer plants with more than 400,000 kt.p.a. in one line are located
outside Europe and keep the price for petrochemical polymers low.
The WITH P&M scenario is situated between the WITHOUT P&M and the HIGH
GROWTH scenario. There is some policy intervention supporting bio-based materials
but this support is restricted because the advantages of these materials are not clear in
all policy fields. For example, there may be support from agricultural policy makers
because of the employment prospects, but not from the environmental side. GDP
growth is high in this scenario, but energy prices are low as are crop prices.
In the HIGH GROWTH scenario, the production of bio-based polymers is supported

by all sides: for environmental reasons, such as CO2 abatement and for reasons of better
land utility use for non-food crops, the policy makers in environmental and agricultural
departments push the production of bio-based polymers. The frame conditions are
characterised by medium crop prices and high oil prices. The consumers have been
successfully informed to see the advantages of bio-based polymers so that a constant
demand for them results. The capacities for petrochemical polymers outside Europe are
required to meet the demand abroad and do not affect the market price in Europe. The
demand overseas is so large that the market price for bio-based polymers is not forced
downwards.

Consistency matrix for the WITHOUT P&M scenario
Figure 3-3:
Consistency matrix for the WITH P&M scenario
Figure 3-4:
Consistency matrix for the HIGH GROWTH scenario
Figure 3-5:
3.2 Specific influencing factors by types of polymers
To illustrate the specific obstacles and promoters of the different polymer types, the
main influencing factors are shown as bullet points in the following sections. These
factors should be assumed to be specific to the polymer type for which they are listed.
Some of these factors are not really specific to one type of polymer, however where this
factor was emphasised in an interview it is also mentioned here.
3.2.1 Starch
The total volume of starch polymers is expected to continue to grow while the total
market share will drop as other bio-based polymers such as PLA gain market presence
(Novamont, 2003b). As already mentioned, in 2002 the market for starch bioplastics
was about 25,000 t.p.a., about 75-80% of the global market for bioplastics (Degli
Innocenti and Bastioli, 2002). It is predicted that in 2010, starch polymers will hold
50 % or more of the market for bio-based polymers (Novamont, 2003b).
Obstacles
There have been a number of good technical and economic breakthroughs achieved in
the last years and starch polymers are able to compete with traditional materials in some
limited areas; however major efforts are still required in the areas of material and
application development to move from a niche- to a mass market. The following
obstacles may be identified as contributing to the relatively modest commercial success
of starch polymers to date and the concomitant lack of public awareness (SINAS,
2003):
• Expense- the starch based products such as compost bags and picnic utensils that
have been proposed for commercialisation are considerably more expensive than the
oil based plastic alternatives limiting their public acceptance (cost sensitivity);
• Aesthetics- products made from starch have not attained required levels of aesthetic
appeal, i.e. rough or uneven surfaces on starch sheets, non-isotropic cell distribution
within starch foam resulting in brittleness;
• Manufacturing- the relatively unsuccessful efforts to manufacture starch based
products utilising injection and compression moulding equipment and extruders/die
configurations whose performance is optimised for oil based plastics or food
production rather than the different process requirements of thermoplastic starch;
• Chemistry- unavailability of starch based materials whose resistance to water can be
regulated from completely water soluble to water resistant;
• Density- the absence of extrusion based methods for the manufacture of starch foam
products whose density more closely approaches styrofoam; and
• Marketing- the absence of a variety of highly visible starch based products that
highlight, promote and educate the public to the particular advantages of using
starch, e.g. renewable resource, water solubility/biodegradability, non-toxicity,
volatility to non-toxic components (CO2 and water).

Drivers
Drivers which have already been realised to a certain extent include (Degli Innocenti
and Bastioli, 2002) include:
• Low cost of starch;
• Starch available in large quantities;
• Biodegradable: composting bags, fast food tableware, packaging, agriculture,

hygiene;
• Incinerable;
• Renewable;
• Other specific requirements: breathable silky films for nappies; chewable items for
pets; biofiller for tyres.
Those that would be favourable or in some cases are required for further market
development (Degli Innocenti and Bastioli, 2002):
• Cost structures that consider disposal cost as integral part of total cost (eg. reduced
VAT for materials with a low environmental impact);
• More focus/importance given to environmental impact assessment of biodegradable
polymers;
• Promotion of composting as a waste management initiative and as a low cost
recovery method, particularly in agriculture;
• Biological treatment of biowaste should include compostable polymers in the list of
suitable input materials for composting;
• Packaging directive should include compostable packaging.
3.2.2 PLA
All lactic acid on world market is ‘captive’ (Cargill Dow, 2003). At full capacity, the
Cargill Dow lactic acid plant will provide 180,000 t.p.a. of lactic acid as feedstock,
which is about two thirds of the total world production of lactic acid, currently
280,000 t.p.a.
Obstacles
• Cost- Cost of lactic acid due to fermentation costs must fall to a level on par with the
price of ethylene for PLA to attain true competitive status in the engineering polymer
market. High lactic acid costs for prospective market entrants due Cargill Dow’s
partnership agreements with Cargill and Purac;
• Manufacturing- Process energy requirements are high; there are still significant
energy savings to be realised. Conversion technologies (e.g. sheet extrusion,
thermoforming) need to be further refined. Credibility with converters needs to be
built up;

• Environmental- Lack of waste management and composting infrastructure means

that in many countries including the US, China and Japan, PLA’s biodegradability is
not a useful feature in practice. This often conflicts with a country’s own laws in this
regard; e.g. Taiwan has passed legislation against fossil fuel plastics which it cannot
meet due to lack of waste handling infrastructure; China has no composting
infrastructure and is not willing to pay the price.
• Genetically modified (GM) maize issue may be an obstacle for entering the
European market. This is particularly the case for the UK where there is no sales plan
for PLA because retailers (e.g. TESCO) are following a very cautious policy, thereby
avoiding any risk of adverse publicity.
• GMOs in fermentation technology also is/will be an issue.
• Lack of awareness of industry, retailers and public of PLA in general and of its bio-
based and biodegradable nature in particular.
Drivers
• Cost- The raw material (carbon source to fermentation process) is in oversupply

resulting in a stable or downward trend in commodity price; e.g. US corn.
• New lactic acid technologies are leading to substantial price reductions.
• Economies of scale, as demonstrated by Cargill Dow plant (it is possible for a PLA
plant to have a capacity of 200 kt.p.a., but this is the design limit. As a comparison:
PE plants are typically about 250 kt, PS 180 kt, PET 120-180 kt).
• Manufacturing- PLA is compatible with conventional thermoplastic processing
equipment.
• Performance can be matched at lower cost; e.g. PLA – cellophane.
• Retailers are showing interest: Albert Hein, Aldi, Sainsbury’s, Co-op, Esselunga,
Iper, the German retailer cooperative Rewe and beer festivals in Belgium and the
Netherlands.
• Improvements in the fermentation of lignocellulosics will bring down costs as well
as reduce environmental impact.
• Environmental- Consumers are willing to pay more for environmentally sound
products. Cargill Dow’s retail experience in the US and EU shows this to be the case.
• Biopolymers have been allowed in the green bin in Germany since Oct ’02.
• German DSD (Duales System Deutschland) for packaging waste stipulates a lower
fee for polymers with more than 50% renewable feedstock content.
• European Waste Packaging Directive 2006 requires that 25% of plastic packaging
waste be recycled.

3.2.3 PHA
Procter & Gamble (P&G, 2003) sees the greatest potential for demand in Asia, both
developed and developing countries: China uses large tonnages of starch/PE film for
agricultural purposes. There is a huge potential market for a PHA compounded resin
(e.g. with starch) in this market if significant reductions in the price of PHA can be
achieved. Taiwan originally planned to rely on incineration for plastics waste disposal
but major problems were encountered due both to the high capital re-investment costs
associated with high temperature incinerators and due to the lack of infrastructure for
utilising or converting the waste energy. As a result, the Taiwanese government decided
not to incinerate plastics. With a population of 28 million and a consumption rate of 2.4
plastic containers per person per day, there is obviously a sizeable market for
biodegradable packaging should prices become more competitive.
According to P&G the key factors which will determine the market potential in 2010
and beyond for PHAs are production costs decreasing to USD 1.50 per kg; composting
infrastructure (both commercial and home based) expanding and the trend toward
disposables continuing for developing economies.
Obstacles
• Cost- Scale of production is too small.
• A real value chain doesn’t exist: Commercialisation of fermentation-based plastics

requires integration of an entirely new value chain, comprised of previously
unassimilated industries – agriculture, fermentation, polymers, compounders, and
plastics converters. This is why governments, interest groups, researchers and
marketers play such a vital role in forming viable value chains for these new bio-
based products .
• Cost, risk of change: An industry accustomed to near-zero variability and a low rate
of new polymer class introduction will have to re-learn processing and converting
conditions. An industry accustomed to ever-decreasing prices due to overcapacity
and near-zero ability to pass on material cost increases due to intense competition
will have to re-learn “value selling”. This is why leading marketers and converters
must be involved as polymers are developed and commercialised to ensure the best
materials are produced and the final products have meaningful advantages.
• Lack of Critical Mass: Without an adequate array of properties from a variety of
biopolymers, end-users will not be able to convert a critical mass of their products.
Without a critical mass of end products, it will be difficult for composters to obtain a
critical mass of appropriate input and justify new capacity investments to take
advantage of growing array of compostable products. Without the critical mass of
infrastructure in place, communities will be unable to obtain the anticipated
advantages used to justify the higher material costs. This is why collaboration
amongst biopolymer producers is so important, and why collaboration with the
composters and other disposal industries is critical.

• Manufacturing- Whereas the currently-employed fermentation technology is close

to being optimised, according to P&G the final processing still needs a lot of work.
• Environmental- There is an ongoing debate within Europe and elsewhere over both
genetically-modified organisms and transgenic crops, market and consumer
acceptance of PHA produced in this way and issues related to obtaining approval in
Europe for plant-based PHA. Shell, Dupont and DSM, among other major
companies, are not investing in crop-based production of polymers as they believe
the venture is too risky and/or problematic. (DSM, 2003).
• Production of PHA generates a large amount of biomass waste: about 5 kg of raw
material is required to obtain 1 kg product (Novamont, 2003b). Thus, there is an
issue of both low conversion and waste management.
• Miscellaneous- Approval for contact with food. As PHAs are directly produced in
microorganisms rather than synthesised from a monomer, approval is much more
complex and costly than with standard polymers, for which approval can be granted
based on the quantity and toxicology of the monomer. (Biomer, 2003).
®
• P&G are already licensed to produce Nodax inside transgenic crops, but this
remains a technical challenge in the sense that it is not really practicable to make a
whole lot of different types of Nodax® in the plant (system becomes too complex:
think of cultivation of a different crop species for each polymer, harvesting,
separation and purification of intracellular polymer from bio-mass, testing and
certification of each variant, etc.). A more feasible scenario is to produce one
‘workhorse material’ (such as PHB) in crops then proceed with further biochemical
processing to obtain desired copolymer formulations20.
• An additional barrier is created by the need for year-round feedstock to maximise the
utilisation of capital. Since crops are harvested in a short time window, storage is
required, which is expensive and can lead to significant degradation of the material
(Anex, 2004).
• Licensing can cause loss of momentum. Example given of the P&G licensing of
process technology to Kaneka Corp: Kaneka has a pharmaceuticals focus and is
geared to production of durables. This approach clashes with that of P&G (consumer
goods, short life/disposable). P&G now prefers to keep up the momentum in the
development of Nodax® by staying involved; to this end joint ventures are favoured.
Drivers
• Manufacturing- PHB formulations are similar to PP or PE-HD but are easier to

mould, have a better surface and thinner walls.
• Alkaline digestibility and flushability are convenience factors of interest to the
production of single-use consumer goods.
20
P&G’s prediction is that plant-based ‘growth’ of Nodax® will be achieved within three years. This
timeframe seems optimistic compared to that proposed by Bohlmann (2004) suggesting
commercialisation by 2010 at the earliest.

• Ongoing improvements in microorganisms (chiefly through genetic engineering)

enabling better yields from cheap feedstocks.
• Environmental- Biodegradability is seen as a solution to plastics waste disposal
problem.Renewable resource-based
• Miscellaneous- Inquiries and new initiatives from customers/suppliers (20 requests
out of 6000 hits per week) on Nodax® website drives innovation.
3.3 Price projections
Numerous factors determine the market price of a polymer, among them the price of
other materials it can substitute (e.g. glass or metals), the processing costs and the
demand. For polymers with similar properties (e.g. bio-based PTT and petrochemical
PET) and provided that there are no policy measures in place that support or impede a
certain type or group of polymers, the price per mass unit of material plays is a key
determinant for the success or the failure in the marketplace. Since for standard
polymers as used in bulk applications, there is a strong competition among the
producers the market price is closely related to the production cost. The production cost,
in turn, is determined by the expenses related to raw materials and auxiliaries, utilities,
the capital stock, labour and other expenditures.
Being the key raw material, the oil price has a considerable share of the overall cost: for
polypropylene, for example, the price of naphtha accounts for 24 % of the market price
of the polymer (see Figure 3-6). While the oil price cannot (or hardly) be influenced by
companies they strive to reduce their cost by improving their energy efficiency and
energy mix and by minimising their cost related to the other inputs. By making use of
learning and scaling effects over more than five decades the polymer industry has
brought down polymer prices substantially (see Figure 3-8).
The hypothesis of this section is: for the production of bio-based polymers learning
effects can be considered, which are similar to petrochemical polymers.
In a first step, the dynamic of progress for an average petrochemical polymer is

analysed (Section 3.3.1). For the calculation German production and price figure are
used, because long time series with prices from the fifties are not available for Europe.
The error made should not be serious, because the technologies are the same and the
German and the European market price are equal.
In a second step, the experience curve is applied for projecting the price of
petrochemical polymer for the year 2030 (Section 3.3.2).
Technology developed is partly directly used for the production of bio-based polymers.
However, to a considerable extent new technology must be developed. In Section 3.3.3,
the experience curve of Section 3.3.1 is adapted and used for projecting prices of bio-
based polymer.

Figure 3-6 Prices for Polypropylene, Propylene and Naphtha in Western Europe
1995 to 2002
euro / tonnes
1000
900
800
margin
margin
700
600
polypropylene
polypropylene
500
400
300
propylene
propylene
200
100
naphtha
naphtha
0
1995 2002
Source: VKE, 2003
3.3.1 Estimations of Experience Curves for the Production of Petrochemical

Polymers in Germany
3.3.1.1 Introduction
Learning effects, which are crucial components in the development of technologies, are
often described via experience curves. These experience curves show the empirical
relationship between unit costs of production and accumulated production or capacity.
Typically, a decline in costs can be observed as more experience in production is
gained. As a result, learning from higher production translates into improved efficiency
in the form of higher performance or lower costs. Experience curves are not based on
rigorous theoretical concepts but rather an ad hoc empirical representation. Following
Berndt (1991) an experience curve can be expressed by Equation (1):
(1) ct = c0 ntα eut
where ct stands for real unit production costs at time t, nt stands for the cumulative
production or capacity up to time t and ut is a (random) error term which is usually
assumed to capture non-systematic variations in the production process. That is, all
other factors on unit costs which are not captured by n are assumed to be stochastic. The
parameter α is the elasticity of unit costs with respect to cumulative volume. It is
typically negative and gives the percentage decline in unit costs from a one percent
increase in cumulative production. The rate of cost decline is called progress ratio (PR):
(2) PR = 2α

For example, a progress ratio of 0.8 which corresponds to α = -0.33 implies that a
doubling of production results in a decline of unit costs to 80 percent of its previous
level. The progress ratio is used to compare experience curves of different technologies.
Alternatively the learning rate can be applied which is just 1-PR.
In Section 2 various estimation results for experience curves are presented for individual
polymers. In Section 3 an average polymer is constructed and experience curves are
estimated for this average commodity.
3.3.1.2 Model Specification
Experience curves will be estimated for three conventional polymers: polyvinyl chloride
(PVC), polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene (PE).21 Estimation results will then be
used to construct experience curves for bio-polymers.
Cumulative production of PVC, PP and PE in Germany is displayed in Figure 3-7.
Figure 3-7: Cumulative production of PVC, PP and PE in Germany in million

tonnes
Cumulative Production of Polymers in Mio. t

Mio. t
60
50
40 Cumulative Production of
PVC [in Mio t] Mio t
Cumulative Production of PP
30
[in Mio t] Mio t
Cumulative Production of PE
20 [in Mio t] Mio t
10
0 Year
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Data source: VKE (2003), Statistical Federal Office (2003), ki (2003)
For each polymer, econometric techniques (Least Squares Estimation) will be applied to
the following conventional regression equation22:
(3a) ln(ct ) = const. + α ln(nt ) + u t
21
There was not sufficient data available for running similar regressions on polystyrene.
22
Equation (3) is derived by taking the natural log in Equation (1).

Since no data are available on production costs, observable market prices which are
shown in Figure 3-8 are used as proxies (VKE, Statistical Federal Office, ki: kunststoff-
information). Using market prices as left-hand-side (LHS) variables is quite common in
estimating experience curves, but this approach implicitly assumes a fairly constant
relation between production costs and market prices over time.
For the estimation of experience curves for conventional polymers, it is important to

account for the price fluctuations of crude oil which is the major input in the production
of polymers. The real price path for crude oil is also shown in Figure 3-8. Clearly, the
price development of the polymers and crude oil are highly correlated although the
second oil crises at the end of the 1970s had less of an impact on the market prices for
polymers in Germany than the first oil crisis in 1973. Figure 3-8 also shows the impact
of the high-interest policy of the US Federal bank in the early 1980s which resulted in
an increase of the US-dollar in international currency markets. The price paths of the
polymers and the oil price in Figure 3-8 suggests that during the oil crises and in the
early 1980s producers of conventional polymers may not have been able to pass on the
additional input costs to their customers in the same way as before and after these
periods. The actual specification of the model accounts for these effects.
Figure 3-8: Prices for Polymers and Crude Oil (Base year 2002)
Prices for Polymers and Crude Oil
Euro
80,0
70,0 Barrel crude oil in real prices of 2002

[2002Euro/barrel]
60,0 Price PVC [2002EURO/100kg]
Price PP [2002EURO/100kg]
50,0
Price PE [2002EURO/100kg]
40,0
30,0
20,0
10,0
0,0
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Data source: BP, VKE, Statistical Federal Office, ki
First, to capture the impact of crude oil prices on the costs of production for polymers,
the (natural logs of) relative prices are used as left-hand-side variables in the
conventional regression Equation (3a). Second, to address the impact of the oil crises in
the 1970s and the high US dollar in the early 1980s, a dummy variable was introduced
for the period 1974-1985.23 The modified regression equation then becomes
23
Results of other model specifications (e.g. using data on the capacity of installations to explicitly
account for economies of scale) which yield statistically insignificant parameter estimates, are
presented in the draft interim report to this project.

(3b ) ln( c t ) = const . + α ln( n t ) + δ D + u t
where ct is the relative price, nt is the cumulative production of polymer and the dummy
variable D assumes a value of one for the years 1974-1985 and zero otherwise24. As
before, ut is a random error term.
3.3.1.3 Estimation Results for Petrochemical Polymers
Equation (3b) was estimated econometrically (Ordinary Least Squares) for the
production of polyvinylchloride, polypropylene and polyethylene in Germany for the
years 1969 to 2002. Estimation results are displayed in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2 Regression results for experience curves of polymers
Equation Constant Cumulative Dummy Number of R2 Progress

Production Observations Ratio
PVC 14.77** -0.64** -0.76** 34 0.86 0.64
(0.87) (0.05) (0.09)
PP 8.85** -0.311** -0.79** 34 0.98 0.81

(0.33) (0.02) (0.07)
PE 12.46** -0.50** -0.61** 35 0.92 0.71

(0.46) (0.02) (0.06)
Standard Errors are given in parenthesis ( )
** parameter estimates individually statistically significant at least at the 1 % level
All parameter estimates show the expected signs and are significant at the 1 % level or
better. In particular, introducing dummy variables to capture the effects of the oil crises
and the high dollar value proved useful. Without the dummies, the estimates for the
parameter on cumulative production may have been biased. The portion of the variation
in relative prices which can be explained by the regression (R2) is rather high and ranges
between 86 % for PVC and 92 % for PE. Figures 3-9 to 3-11 provide a graphic
representation of the estimation results for equation (3a) using double-logarithmic
scales. This representation implies that any distance along the axes is directly
proportional to the relative change in the cumulative production and price and
corresponds to the interpretation of the parameter estimates as elasticities. The
experience curve is then displayed as a straight line. A double-logarithmic
representation, rather than using regular scales, reflects that after impressive initial
improvements there are steady and continuous improvements which should always be
regarded as relative to previous achievements (IEA p. 108).
The steeper the observed curve, the larger are the learning effects. Thus, the estimation
results suggest that the production of PVC is associated with higher learning effects
than PE and PP which exhibits the smallest learning effects of the three polymers
analysed. The progress ratios associated with the experience curves range between 64 %
for PVC and 81 % for PP. Compared to analyses of experience curves for other
24
Since a strong US Dollar and a high world market oil price have the same effects on the price of oil in
Germany the use of just one Dummy variable to capture both effects is justified.

technologies,25 the implied cost decreases for PP and PE are at the higher end of the
distribution.26
Figure 3-9 Estimated experience curve for PVC production in Germany
1.000
Observed relative prices

Estimated relative prices
Relative price of PVC/Oil [t/barrel]
100
10
1
1.000.000 10.000.000 100.000.000
Cumulative production of PVC [t]
25
For overviews on estimated learning curves for energy technologies see for example International
Energy Agency (IEA) (2000): Experience Curves for Energy Technology Policy, IEA, Paris, or
McDonald, A. and Schrattenholzer, L. (2001): Learning Rates for Energy Technologies, Energy
Policy 29, p. 255-261.
26
It is rather clear that for the estimation of experience curves for a technology which - like
polymerisation - is used globally, it would be more appropriate to also use data for world production
and world prices. Unfortunately no complete time series data set for the production of PVC, PE and
PP (with figures for years before 1970) is available. In addition, no world or reference price for these
polymers exists, but rather prices for certain large markets (e.g. Western Europe). Also, market prices
include country-specific taxes, subsidies, or factor costs. For these reasons, we use in our analysis
regional figures from Germany for production and prices which is a common approach in other
scientific analyses of experience curves such as for wind energy or photovoltaics. However, learning
effects which result from increased production abroad and thus affect polymer prices in Germany are
not specifically accounted for. In fact, using German production data instead of world production data
may result in a so called "measurement error" which leads to biased parameter estimates.
Nevertheless, available, but incomplete world production figures were used together with the prices
for Germany (=Western Europe) to estimate experience curves. As expected, the estimations for the
Learning Rates decrease and the learning rates increase (PVC: 0.64 to 0.77, PE: 0.71 to 0.78, average
polymer: 0.66 to 0.78). Only for polypropylene the difference was relatively small (0.81 to 0.82) since
the production share of Germany remained fairly constant over the last 30 years.

Figure 3-10 Estimated experience curve for PP production in Germany
1000

Relative price of PP/Oil [t/barrel]
100
10
1
100000 1000000 10000000
Cumulative production of PP [t]
Figure 3-11 Estimated experience curve for PE production in Germany
1000

Relative price of PE/Oil [t/barrel]
100
10
1
1.000.000 10.000.000 100.000.000
Cumulative production of PE [t]
3.3.1.4 Experience Curve for an Average Polymer
In this section estimation results for an average polymer are presented. Instead of
estimating a single equation for each polymer, for projections of the general polymer
market, it was considered appropriate to generate a single average polymer.

To construct the values for an average polymer a time path for an average price (real) is
generated from the price paths of the individual polymers using contemporary
production as weights. Then, equation (3b) is estimated with the average price as the
(Left Hand Side) LHS-variable. On the RHS, cumulative production which is just the
sum of the cumulative productions of the individual polymers, and the real crude oil
price entered the regression equation. It should be noted that the number of observations
is smaller than for the individual polymer estimations since only those periods could be
included were data for all three polymers was available. So, some information gets lost
when estimating the equation for the average polymer compared to the estimations for
the individual polymers. Estimation results for the average polymer appear in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3 Regression results for experience curves for an average polymer
Equation Constant Cumulative Dummy Number of Correct Progress

Production Observations ed R2 Ratio
Average 14,7** -0.604** -0,63** 32 0.84 0.66
Polymer (0.86) (0.048) (0,08=
3.3.1.5 Experience Curve for a Technical Polymer
Following a suggestion we obtained at the projects expert workshop, we tried to

estimate an experience curve for a technical polymer like e.g. PET, PA. However,
availability of production data for these polymers was very poor. Fortunately, BAYER
AG provided data for polycarbonate enabling an estimate to be made for an experience
curve for one technical polymer. Regression results appear in Table 3-4 and the
associated experience curve is shown in Figure 3-12. The estimated progress ratio for
polycarbonate is 0.94, which is substantially higher than for the polyolefines in the
previous subsection. Table 3-4 and Figure 3-12 reveal that the estimation for PC is not
as good as the estimations for PVC, PP, and PE in terms of goodness of fit R2).
Table 3-4 Regression results for experience curves of polycarbonate
Equation Constant Cumulative Dummy Number of Correcte Progress

Production Observations d R2 Ratio
PC 3.84** -0.10** -0,69** 21 0.61 0.93
(0.38) (0.05) (0.12)

Figure 3-12 Estimated experience curve for PC production
100

Relative price of PC/Oil [t/barrel]
10
1
10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Cumulative production of PC [t]
3.3.2 Price projections for petrochemical polymers
The four petrochemical polymers are in different stages of their life cycle. PC is a
technical polymer with more complex production stages and not so large capacities in
one plant. PP has been enjoying rapidly rising demand and its capacities have been
expanded considerably in the recent past. In contrast, PE is a relatively mature polymer
with moderate growth rates. Finally, PVC is widely used especially in the construction
sector. However, due to disadvantages in waste management and increased public
concern about the associated environmental and health effects it has lost market share in
several other application areas, among them packaging and some consumer products
such as toys. As a consequence, all four polymers have different progress ratios. By use
of the curve for an average polymer (for PVC, PE and PP) these differences are largely
levelled out27.
The application of the average curve derived in Section 3.3.1.4 to petrochemical

polymers yields a price decrease of 46% over the next two decades28. Halving of the
prices of conventional polymers in 20 years does not seem impossible if one considers
that they have declined by nearly a factor of 5 in the last 35 years. This comparison can
be made in more detail by studying the historical annual price decrease of petrochemical
polymers. Depending on the period chosen, polymer prices have dropped by 1.2% p.a.
27
PC was not used for the average polymer calculation, because the available time series for prices and
production volumes are very short.
28
Assuming a constant oil price.

to 3.6% p.a. (data for an average petrochemical polymer).29 If extrapolated to 2030, the
lowest value (1.2% p.a.) leads to a total price drop of 36%.
In order to assess the quality of the results of our regression analyses a few independent
calculations were made. In a first step, we were interested in the share of the total
production cost that is directly related to energy prices (via feedstock and energy cost).
We estimated this share at 17%, which is somewhat below the value derived from
Figure 3-6 for polypropylene. We consider this estimate to be rather uncertain; the real
value may lie in the range between 7% and 23%. Our first conclusion is that this share
is consistent with the outcome that the prices for conventional polymers will halve
(provided that the oil/energy prices do not change too much; see also below).
Further sensitivity analyses with various levels of oil prices are shown in Figure 3-13.
The projections used for petrochemical polymers originate from the Base Case scenario
of the IPTS “Clean Technologies Project” (Phylipsen et al., 2002). Oil prices were
linearly increased from $25/bbl in 2002 to $30/bbl in 2030 in the Low Oil Price
Scenario, to $35/bbl in the Reference Scenario, to $50/bbl in the High Oil Price
Scenario and to $100/bbl in the Very High Oil Price Scenario. According to these
results learning and scaling more than overcompensate the effects of rising crude oil
prices. Only for very high oil prices polymer prices exceed the value of 2002. In all
other cases petrochemical polymer prices drop – in the Reference Scenario even by
substantial 38 % to 2020. It must be discussed whether these results are considered
plausible by the polymer industry. If not, this has important consequences for the
comparison with bio-based polymers for the following two reasons: firstly, for the
obvious reason that the results for petrochemical polymers serve as a benchmark for the
bio-based polymers; and secondly since the relationship found in the regression analysis
for petrochemical polymers has been applied to bio-based polymers (see further
discussion below).
29
In more detail for an average polymer (weighted median of cumulated production of PE, PVC, PP): -
2.3% p.a. for the period 1968-2002; -1.2% p.a. for 1980-2002; -1.5% p.a. for 1986-2002; -3.6% p.a.
for 1995-2002.

Figure 3-13: Sensitivity analyses for petrochemical polymer prices as a function

of oil prices
1,60
1,40
Pet-Polymer (low oil price $25-

1,20
30/bbl)
1,00 Pet-Polymer (reference oil price

Price [Euro/kg]
$25-35/bbl)
0,80 Pet-Polymer (high oil price $25-

50/bbl)
0,60 Pet-Polymer (very high oil price

$25-100/bbl)
0,40
0,20
0,00
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
3.3.3 Price projections for bio-based polymers
The experience curves calculated for the petrochemical polymers in Chapter 3.3.1 are
not directly applicable for bio-based polymers. Direct use of the equations derived
above would fail for many reasons. One reason is that the market price of bio-based
polymers today already includes some of the learning effects which are incorporated
into the equations for petrochemical polymers: part of the technology developed for
petrochemical polymers is also used for bio-based polymers. This refers, for example, to
standard unit processes of chemical engineering in the area of product separation.
Another aspect to consider is that faster technological progress is (likely to be) made for
biotechnological production processes. This means that it is not a straightforward task to
derive the real progress ratio for bio-based polymers from the experience made in the
petrochemical sector. Related to this is the fact that many decades of experience in
chemical engineering allows a much faster scale-up compared to what was possible in
the 1930s and 1940s. This explains why the producers of bio-based polymers expect a
large growth of capacities in the next three decades: the doubling rates for the
production of bio-based material are higher than those for PVC, PE or PP.
Some of these problems can be circumvented by a basic engineering approach using

flowsheet methods such as ASPEN. However, this requires an in-depth knowledge that
is only found in developers. Still, there remain some uncertainties, especially if applying
innovative technology, for example biotechnological processes or new ways of
chemical modification (of starch). Also the yields of the different process stages and the
quality needed for subsequent processing are not clear, factors on which the market
price is dependant.

So we have to adapt the equation for petrochemical polymers. To consider the more
complex production processes we use the same learning factor as for polycarbonates
(0.93) and polypropylene (0.81), which is a relatively new polymer. The biomass
feedstock price is kept constant.
Using this equation, the price of both petrochemical and bio-based polymers comes into
the same range within 20 years (see Figure 3-14). The result is heavily dependent on
changes in the oil price and the relationship between fossil fuel costs and biomass costs.
Figure 3-14 Projection of the Price for bio-based polyesters and petrochemical
polymers
4,00
3,50
3,00 Pet-Polymer (reference oil price

$25-35/bbl)
Pet-Polymer (low oil price $25-
2,50 30/bbl)
Price [Euro/kg]
Pet-Polymer (high oil price $25-

50/bbl)
2,00 Bio-Polyester (reference oil price,
progress ratio 81 %)
Bio-Polyester (reference oil price,
1,50 progress ratio 93 %)
Bio-Polyester (high oil price,
progress ratio 81 %)
1,00
0,50
0,00
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
3.4 Market projections for bio-based polymers
In view of the outcome of the preceding section, the expectations of the producers of
bio-based polymers were used as starting point for the projections of production
volumes. The following approach has been taken:
I) In a first step, the companies’ expectations of the market development were
compiled and compared. This data generally refers to the supply of polymers to the
market, either as a total or for the main types of polymers.
II) In a second step, information on the market demand by application areas was
collected and compared to the supply data. Partly this information was also
provided by companies, partly it is based on own simple estimations.
III) In the third step, an attempt was made to develop plausible time series for
production in the EU that take into account supply and demand expectations and
also unit size of large plants.

In Step I only dispersed pieces of information have been identified. These can be
summarised as follows:
• Under the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP) estimates were made
for the production of bio-based polymers (and other bio-based materials) until 2010:
According to these estimates bio-based polymers are expected to grow in the
European Union from 25 kt in 1998 to 500 kt in 2010 without supportive Policies
and Measures (P&M) and to 1000 kt with P&Ms.
• The International Biodegradable Polymers Association & Working Groups
(IBAW, Berlin) follows this view and projects a further growth of bio-based
polymers in the EU to 2-4 million tonnes until 2020 (Käb, 2002).30 Half of this
total is expected to consist of compostable products while the other half would then
be durables.
• The Japanese Biodegradable Plastics Society (BPS) has prepared projections for
the market of biodegradable polymers in Japan. By 2010, the total consumption is
estimated at 200,000 tonnes of which 187,000 are expected to be bio-based (BPS,
2003). These projections have been made based on company announcements and
confidential information that was made available to the BPS. According to personal
communication with BPS (represented by K. Ohshima, 2003) BPS’ projection can be
considered as conservatively realistic and could well be on the lower side. To make
comparisons with projections for the EU this total can be scaled up by multiplication
with the ratio of total polymer use in the EU and in Japan or by multiplication with
the ratio of inhabitants. Due to the similar specific consumption of plastics (in kg per
capita) in Japan and in the EU the outcome of the two approaches is very similar,
amounting to a rounded equivalent of 600 kt of bio-based polymers for the EU by
2010. This hence supports the estimate made by the ECCP (500 kt in 2010
without P&Ms and 1000 kt with P&Ms).
• IBAW also prepared a global projection for the production of bio-based polymers
that are biodegradable (see Figure 3-15). This forecast was made based on company
announcements (partially confidential) for investments in the short term. In first
instance one might expect this data to present only a subset of all bio-based polymers
(namely the biodegradable ones). However, this is not the case since all major bio-
based polymers that are currently on the market or that are about to be
commercialised are biodegradable at the same time. Exceptions such as polymers
with suppressed biodegradability (as possible in the case of PLA) were not excluded
in Figure 3-15. Another reason why IBAW’s projection is of direct use without any
corrections is the exclusion of natural fibre composites, which are also outside the
scope of this study.
30
Total “biopolymer” market in the EU: 3-5 million tonnes of which 70-80% are expected to be bio-
based.

For individual polymers, some insight was gained from the interviews with producers of
bio-based polymers.
• Novamont agrees with the projections prepared under the ECCP (see above) and
expects that half or more than half of all bio-based polymers produced in 2010
will be starch polymers, i.e. 250 to 500 kt (Novamont, 2003b).
• By 2010, Cargill Dow plans to have two additional PLA plants of a similar
capacity as the one in Nebraska (140 kt p.a. capacity). This would lead to a combined
production capacity of 500,000 t.p.a. Cargill Dow plans to build their next facility
wherever the market develops and in combination with best manufacturing
economics (Cargill Dow, 2003). It seems most likely that this will either be the case
in Asia or in Europe.
• Hycail intends to have a full-scale plant with 50-100 kt p.a. capacity by the end of
2006 and to start up a second plant by 2010. There seems to be firm plans to have at
least one plant in the EU.
• According to Galactic (Galactic, 2003) recent estimates put the PLA market for
films and non-woven/fibers products alone at about 122,000 t p.a. in 2003-2004,
390,000 t p.a. in 2008 and reaching 1,184,000 to 1,842,000 t p.a. by 2010. In their
view such estimates are very realistic and probably even on the pessimistic side.
Arguments given are the continued very small share relative to the total polymer
sector and the economies of scale that are being made use of with new large-scale
facilities. They also refer to a price/market model developed by the PST Group
which clearly shows that for markets of about 900,000 t p.a. the selling price of PLA
compares favourably with petrochemical plastics used by the packaging industry.
• Showa Highpolymer, one of the key producers of succinic acid, has estimated
current and future market volumes in the EU and worldwide (personal
communication with Y. Okino, 2003). It is anticipated that succinic acid production
will increase from today 20 kt in the EU (55 kt worldwide) to 100 kt by 2010
(worldwide: 450 kt). Showa Highpolymer plans to shift their succinic acid
production from petrochemical to bio-based in the short term. If this production route
proves to be superior this may mean that many – possibly even all – new succinic
acid plants will be using bio-based feedstocks.

Figure 3-15: Worldwide projections prepared by IBAW on the development of

bio-based and petrochemical biodegradable polymers (Käb, 2003b)
600
Worldwide production capacity

500
400
in 1000 t
300
200
100
0
1990 1995 2000 2003 2005
Petrochemical 0.1 5 18 28 95
biodegradable polymers
Bio-based biodegradable 0.35 13.2 26 226 460
polymers
The only detailed piece of information that could be identified in Step II is a

compilation by Proctor & Gamble (P&G) on the worldwide current market potential
for biodegradable polymers by application areas (see Appendix 1), which was
prepared to estimate the potential market for Nodax (PHA). The total amounts to 1.17
million tonnes p.a. worldwide, of which the fast food industry accounts for 60%. Total
food packaging31 represents around 1 million tonne or more than 80% of the total
volume identified. With the focus being on biodegradable products, the potentially very
large area of bio-based synthetic fibres (e.g. PLA) and applications in the automotive
and the electric/electronic sector have not been taken into account; moreover certain
products that are not interesting for Nodax such as loose-fill packaging material have
been excluded. The market potential outside the food sector is substantial as, for
example, Cargill Dow’s estimate for the PLA market in the fibre sector shows (50% of
the total market, see Table 2-11); IBAW has expressed similar expectations according
to which around 50% of the bio-based polymers will be used for durables by 2020.
Using Proctor & Gamble’s expectation as a starting point this leads to the conclusion
that the current total global market potential for bio-based products should be in
the range of 2 million tonnes or possibly beyond. A value of more than 2 million
tonnes globally may be realistic if one considers that P&G’s market estimate did not
include all options for using bio-based polymers in packaging (including food) but only
those that are of particular interest for Nodax and that there are also interesting markets
in the area of durable products apart from fibres.
In Table 3-5, an estimate for the market potential of bio-based polymers in the EU
has been made by combining moderate estimates of the market share by application area
with the total polymer volumes. This yields a total total market potential for bio-based
polymers of 2 million tonnes in the EU. Combining the same estimates of the market
share by application with the total volume of the polymer market in 2020 results in a
total volume of bio-based polymers of around 3 million tonnes. This is a conservative
estimate in the sense that it does not take into account the increase of market shares due
31
Including fast food packaging, flexible plastic food containers (oily snacks), thermoformed products
(for dairy products).

to technological progress and market development and neither does it include the use of
bio-based polymers in tyres.
Table 3-5: Market potential of bio-based polymers in EU-15 countries by 2000 and
2020
Year 2000 Year 2020
1) Market potential of 1)
Market potential of
All polymers bio-based polymers All polymers 2)
bio-based polymers
million t % of pchem. million t million t % of pchem. million t
Packaging 17.7 5.0% 0.9 27.6 5.0% 1.4

Building/construction 8.0 0.50% 0.04 12.5 0.5% 0.1
Automotive 3.4 15.0% 0.5 3) 5.4 15.0% 0.8
Electric/electronic 3.3 5.0% 0.2 5.2 5.0% 0.3
Agriculture 1.1 3.0% 0.03 1.7 3.0% 0.1
Other 11.3 3.0% 0.3 17.6 3.0% 0.5
4)
Total 44.9 4.4% 2.0 70.0 4.4% 3.1
1)
Petrochemical and bio-based (bio-based nowadays less than 0.1%); split by application area according
to APME.
2)
Purely accounting for growth of polymer production as a whole; without taking into account larger market
potential shares due to technological progress and market development.
3)
Independent estimate for bio-based polymers without the use in tyres:
0.15 t/(passenger car) * 20% bio-based * 17 million cars = 0.5 million tonnes
4)
Value for 2020 from the Clean Technologies project (Phylipsen et al., 2002)
In Step III, an attempt was made to develop plausible time series for production in the
EU that take into account supply and demand expectations and also unit size of large
plants. Table 3-6 shows two scenarios which are named “WITHOUT P&M“ and
“WITH P&M“. The totals are closely linked to the ECCP estimates for 2010 and follow
similar dynamics thereafter. As the percentages in brackets show, bio-based polymers
are expected to account for a maximum of 2.5% of the EU production of petrochemical
polymers by 2020. The totals are broken down into starch polymers and polyesters.
Starch polymers are assumed to account for as much as half of total production until
2020. The expected developments are displayed graphically in Figure 3-16 (until 2010)
and Figure 3-17 (until 2020).

Table 3-6: Specification of the projections for the production of bio-based polymers
in PRO-BIP, scenarios “WITHOUT P&M” and “WITH P&M”
For comparison
Starch Starch Polyester/ Polyester/ Total,
polymers, polymers, PUR/PA, PUR/PA, Total, WITH
All values in kt WITHOUT 1)
BPS' projection
WITHOUT WITH WITHOUT WITH 1) P&M for Japan,
P&M P&M P&M P&M P&M ECCP IBAW
scaled up to
EU-15
EUROPE
2002 25 25 0 0 25 (<0.1%) 25 (<0.1%) - -
2010 250 500 250 500 500 (0.9%) 1000 (1.7%) 500/1000 2) 500/1000 2) 600
2020 375 750 500 1,000 875 (1.25%) 1750 (2.5%) - 2000-4000
WORLDWIDE
2002 110 110 30 30 140 140
2010 375 750 900 1,750 1,275 2,500
2020 550 1,125 1,650 3,050 2,200 4,175
1)
Percentages in this column represent shares of bio-based polymers relative to petrochemical polymers. According to the
"Clean Technologies Project" (Phylipsen et al., 2002) the production of petrochemical polymers in Western Europe according
to the Base Case Scenario amounted to: 40.4 Mt (1998), 44.9 Mt (2000), 57.4 Mt (2010), 70 Mt (2020), 81 Mt (2030)
2)
Without and with Policies and Measures (P&M)
3)
Based on 187 kt bio-based polymers in Japan in 2010 according to BPS (2003). Applied scale-up factors: i) Scale-up factor, thermoplastics
consumption EU/Japan = 3.4; ii) Scale-up factor, population EU/Japan = 3.0.
Figure 3-16: Development of bio-based polymers in the EU until 2010 –

Scenarios “WITHOUT P&M” and “WITH P&M”
1200
EUROPE Starch polymers,
WITHOUT P&M
Production of bio-based polymers in Europe, kt
1000
EUROPE Starch polymers,
WITH P&M
800
EUROPE Polyester/PUR/PA,
WITHOUT P&M
600
EUROPE Polyester/PUR/PA,
WITH P&M
400
EUROPE Total Europe,
WITHOUT P&M
200
EUROPE Total Europe, WITH
P&M
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

Figure 3-17: Development of bio-based polymers in the EU (left) and worldwide

(right) until 2020 – Scenarios “WITHOUT P&M” and “WITH
P&M”
2000
4500
EUROPE Starch polymers, WORLDWIDE Starch
1800 WITHOUT P&M polymers, WITHOUT P&M
Production of bio-based polymers in Europe, kt
Worldwide production of bio-based polymers, kt

4000
1600 WORLDWIDE Starch

EUROPE Starch polymers, 3500
polymers, WITH P&M
WITH P&M
1400
3000
WORLDWIDE
1200 EUROPE Polyester/PUR/PA, Polyester/PUR/PA,
WITHOUT P&M 2500 WITHOUT P&M
1000
WORLDWIDE
EUROPE Polyester/PUR/PA, 2000
Polyester/PUR/PA,
800 WITH P&M WITH P&M
1500
WORLDWIDE Total World,
600
EUROPE Total Europe, WITHOUT P&M
WITHOUT P&M 1000
400
WORLDWIDE Total World,
500
200 EUROPE Total Europe, WITH WITH P&M
P&M
0
0
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
The projected volumes according to Table 3-6 and Figure 3-16 to Figure 3-17 are in line
with the plans/expectations described earlier, for example with those expressed by
Novamont, Cargill Dow and Hycail. The current global market potential of least 2
million tonnes that was derived above from Proctor & Gamble’s analysis, supports the
worldwide data for 2010 in Table 3-6. The EU market potential estimates according to
Table 3-5 indicate that the estimates in Table 3-6 for Europe by 2020 are plausible or
possibly even underestimated. Also according to Galactics’s view (1.18-1.84 million
t.p.a. by 2010 for films and non-woven/fibers products alone) and IBAW’s expectation
for 2020 (2-4 million t for all bio-based) the EU values for 2020 in Table 3-6 seem to be
underestimated. It must be recalled here that this report is based on information on
commercialised and emerging bio-based polymers. Other bio-based polymers which are
currently in an earlier phase of R&D are not taken into account even though some of
them might be produced on a respectable scale towards the end of the projection period
of this report (year 2020). Bio-based chemicals that are not used for polymer production
(e.g. solvents, lubricants and surfactants and other intermediates and final products) are
outside the scope of this report; if they develop favourably, this also could reinforce the
growth of bio-based polymers.
In order to account for possible breakthroughs and a more dynamic development a third
scenario called “HIGH GROWTH” is introduced. As shown in Table 3-7 this
scenario follows the same trajectory until 2010 as the scenario “WITH P&M” but
continues to expand at a high rate until 2020 especially due to enhanced growth of PLA
and the advent of PTT, PBT, PBS, PUR and PA – or at least some of them – in the
marketplace. The HIGH GROWTH scenario is backed by the higher estimate for
market potential in Table 3-7 (3.1 million tonnes).
The per-capita-production values in Table 3-7 point out once more the enormous
difference in scale between bio-based and petrochemical polymers: Today 66 grams of
bio-based polymers are produced per capita and year, while the yearly per-capita
production of petrochemical polymers is around 180 kg. The per-capita values for
2020 show that the quantities are reasonable (and “imaginable”) even in the HIGH
GROWTH case provided that bio-based polymers make their way into products of
everyday life (compare Table 2-33).

Table 3-7: Total production of bio-based polymers in the PRO-BIP scenarios

“WITHOUT P&M”, “WITH P&M” and “HIGH GROWTH” in the EU
Bio-based polymers Pchem.polymers

Total, Total,
Total,
WITHOUT HIGH "Base case"
WITH P&M
P&M GROWTH
Total 2000 25 (<0.1%) 25 (<0.1%) 25 (<0.1%) 44,900

production 2010 500 (0.9%) 1000 (1.7%) 1000 (1.7%) 57,400
in kt 2020 875 (1.25%) 1750 (2.5%) 3000 (4.3%) 70,000
2000 0.066 0.066 0.066 119
Production
2010 1.3 2.6 2.6 152
in kg/(cap*a)
2020 2.3 4.6 7.9 185
Percentages in brackets represent shares of bio-based polymers relative to petrochemical polymers (see footnote
of preceding table).
In the following an attempt is made to substantiate the projections given above, partly
by relating them to the size of production plants and partly by studying selected
application areas somewhat more deeply. The focus is on the scenarios “WITHOUT
P&M“ and “WITH P&M“ while it seems too speculative to discuss the possible
developments by groups of polymers for the scenario “HIGH GROWTH“. The
discussion begins with bio-based polyesters, polyurethanes and polyamides, which are
dealt with as a group, and continues with starch polymers. Cellulose polymers are not
taken into account in the remainder of the report since they are not expected to play a
key role in the future.
Bio-based polyesters, polyurethanes and polyamides

There seems to be consensus that bio-based polyesters/PUR/PA will only have a
chance to compete on bulk polymer markets if they are produced in world-scale plants
of similar size as those for petrochemical polyesters. Cargill Dow’s facility in Nebraska
is an example for such a world-scale plant, with an annual production capacity of 140 kt
p.a. Future unit sizes for large-scale plants may range between 100 kt p.a. to 200 kt p.a.
(and possibly even beyond) for a product like PLA (for other products such as PBS the
plants may be smaller). This means that the total volumes according to Table 3-6 can be
translated into a (rather limited) number of plants in Europe and worldwide. Such an
attempt has been made in Figure 3-18, with an indicative allocation to the possible key
players Cargill Dow, Hycail and others. The names of the players and the plant
capacities just mentioned show that within the group of bio-based polyesters, PLA is
seen to have a key role, at least in the first phase. Other bio-based polyesters,
polyurethanes and polyamides may, however, also be part of the “game“ and may enter
the scene after some delay. In particular, this could be the case for PTT, PBS/PBSA and
PUR and also for PHA and PA if the technological progress is fast enough. The number
of plants producing bio-based polyesters/PUR/PA in scenario “WITH P&Ms“ in 2010
has been assumed to be identical with the number of plants without P&Ms by 2020. The
limited number of actors and facilities in both scenarios makes this area amenable to
well-targeted policies.

Figure 3-18: Bio-based polyesters - Number of plants and indicative allocation to

players
EUROPE WORLD
WITHOUT P&M WITH P&M WITHOUT P&M WITH P&M
2 4 7 12
2010 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 4 3 2 7
HY OTH CD HY OTH CD HY OTH CD HY OTH
4 8 12 19
2020 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 7 4 4 11
HY OTH CD HY OTH CD HY OTH CD HY OTH
CD = Cargill Dow; HY = Hycail; OTH = Others
Starch polymers
For starch polymers, the quantities projected are comparable to those for bio-based
polyesters until 2010 and somewhat less in the following decade (Table 3-2). An
important difference is that to date, starch polymers have been produced in relatively
small facilities. For example, new production lines started up by Novamont in 1997 had
production capacities of 4 kt and 12 kt respectively. At the time of writing, it was
unknown to the authors of this report whether a scale-up by at least a factor of l0 would
be technically feasible and economically attractive. While deliberations about the plant
size do not provide much additional insight for starch polymers, considerations about
the application areas seem more helpful: Given the fact that the strong efforts and the
commercial success of the starch polymer business over more than a decade have led to
relatively small production capacities (in Europe 30 kt for Modified Starch Polymers,
70 kt including Partially Fermented Starch Polymers) it seems obvious that totally new
outlets are required in order to reach the overall quantities according to Table 3-2. The
use of starch polymers as filler and partial substitute for carbon black in tyres is the
only potential large-scale outlet that is known to the authors of this report and that could
play such an important role.
Data from various sources have been used to estimate the use of carbon black for tyres
in the EU, among them the UN production statistics (UN, 2002) and dispersed data
quoted from reports and given on websites. Since the available information is
conflicting, the estimates of carbon black produced for tyres in the EU are subject to
substantial uncertainties. The following data have been used:
• EU production of carbon black: 1.3 million t.p.a., possibly up to 2 million t.p.a.
• Share of carbon black used for tyres: 50-70%, average value 60%.
Based on this data the amount of carbon black produced for tyres in the EU is estimated
at 900 kt (average value), with the uncertainty ranging between 650 kt and 1250 kt. The
amount substituted is not only related to the carbon black production but to the volume
of tire production. Moreover, fillers are being traded and the supply of a new
advantageous filler type could, in principle, allow large exports of material processed

elsewhere. Finally, only the use in tyres has been looked into while there may be other
similarly interesting (industrial) rubber products that lend themselves to substitution.
For these reasons the wide range of carbon black production (650-1250 kt; medium
900) may not even capture the real situation. Finally it has been assumed that starch
polymer fillers can substitute 20% or 50% of the carbon black used in a tyre (Table 2-
7). This results in starch polymer outlets in the EU of
• 180 kt p.a. (range: 100-250 kt.p.a.) for a substitution rate of 20%
• 450 kt p.a. (range: 250-600 kt p.a.) for a substitution rate of 50%.
The full exploitation of these substitution potentials is estimated to take two rather than
one decade provided that the technology and the products prove to be clearly
advantageous. The comparison with the starch polymer projections for 2020 according
to Table 3-2 shows that half of the starch polymer production – possibly even three
quarters – could be devoted to tyre production. The remaining half to quarter would
then be used for proven application areas where it would partly compete with other bio-
based polymers. It can be expected that specific advantages allow substantial growth
rates also in these established areas (possibly for loose fills or clam-shells). This has not
been investigated since detailed market research is beyond the scope of this study.
The “HIGH GROWTH“ Scenario

While very little information is available on the market prospects of PTT, PBT, PBS,
PUR and PA, a few considerations may help to put the assumptions made in the “HIGH
GROWTH“ Scenario into perspective:
• PTT, PBT, PBS and PA are now all being produced from petrochemical feedstocks.
While this poses particular pressure on the bio-based counterparts a competitive edge
in manufacturing or product properties could translate into substantial returns in the
future. If the bio-based equivalents enter the market at the right time they can benefit
from the market introduction via their petrochemical equivalents and enjoy the
particularly high growth rates around the inflexion point of market penetration.
• Polyamides (PA) are characterised by their large number of processing steps and the
resulting high production cost and environmental impacts. A bio-based production
route with a modest relative advantage (in % of energy savings, cost savings etc.)
could therefore mean a decisive advantage for its producer, allowing fast market
introduction.
• The same argument holds for polyurethanes (PUR). Similar to PA, it is mostly used
in high-value application areas (especially furniture, apparel and automobiles; see
Figure 2-21) with relatively good substitution potentials.
Caveats
As explained earlier the values presented in Table 3-6 and 3-7 and in Figure 3-17 and 3-
18 are largely based on information originating from manufacturing companies. This
may lead to projections that are too optimistic.
An attempt was made to gain a better understanding of the situation by collecting more
information about the experience made by Cargill Dow. Cargill Dow could serve as a
valuable case study since other players producing new bio-based polymers might make

a similar experience in the market deployment phase. The idea was to draw some first
conclusions by
• comparing the scheduled start-up to full capacity (Section 2.2.5) with the actual
development and by
• gathering information from polymer processors about their experience.
However, only a limited amount of information could be collected on these two points.
There are rumours that the market development is behind schedule but it was not
possible to obtain any information from Cargill Dow on this point. According to an
interview with a polymer processor using PLA (Treofan, Germany) the market may
indeed be developing slower than anticipated. It was not possible to identify the current
status since this would require reliable information about the purchases of all clients of
Cargill Dow (worldwide) which is hardly manageable in practice. However, even if this
information were available, the lack of precedence cases would make it difficult to
arrive at judgements: After all, a new bio-based polymer is being introduced to the
market in large quantities and it is therefore not surprising that technical and acceptance
problems are encountered. Among these are the appearance of pure PLA film the
electrostatic charge of PLA film which causes problems when using it as windows for
envelopes and the lack of biodegradable printing inks that fully meet the consumers’
expectations (personal communication, Treophan, 2003). These problems seem
resolvable, albeit with (some) additional time and expenses. The potential consequences
are unknown. It is also unclear how other application areas such as fibres are
developing.
To summarize the situation concerning Cargill Dow, it is impossible to identify at this

stage whether any major delay exists and if so, whether it may be serious in terms of
further market development (compare Figure 3-18). With regard to the projections for
bio-based polymers in general it should be kept in mind that the (unavoidable) use of
information provided by producers may lead to projections which are too optimistic
(in terms of growth and final levels). This could even be the case for the scenario
“WITHOUT P&M” where the lowest growth rates of all scenarios have been assumed.
High uncertainty regarding the production volumes is obviously implicit in an emerging
industry. It has been addressed in the “Note of caution” at the beginning of this report
and will be taken into account in the concluding chapters of this report (Chapter 5 and
6).

4. Assessment of the environmental and socio-

economic effects of bio-based polymers
4.1 Goal and method of the environmental assessment
The main purpose of this chapter is to assess what the environmental effects would be
of substituting bio-based polymers for petrochemical polymers on a large scale. The
assessment is conducted for the scenarios developed in Chapter 3. Two perspectives
are taken. Firstly, the savings of fossil fuels, the effects on greenhouse gas emissions
and the consequences for land use are studied. Secondly, it is analysed whether the
lower specific environmental impact of bio-based polymers (e.g. kg CO2,eq. per kg of
polymer) can (over-)compensate the additional environmental impacts caused by
expected high growth in petrochemical plastics.
It is good practice for environmental analyses and life cycle assessments (LCA) to make
the comparison “as close to the end product as possible”. The rationale behind this
good-practice rule is that certain parameters at the end-use level may decisively
influence the final results. Such parameters may concern
• materials processing, where the amount of material required to manufacture a certain
end product might be higher or lower than for petrochemical polymers
• transportation, which can be substantial for end products with a low density such as
loose fill packaging material
• the use phase, where consumer behaviour can play a role (e.g., in the case of compost
bins without a bin liner where the way of cleaning the bin has a large influence on
the overall environmental impact)
• the waste stage where logistics and recycling processes can be tailored to a specific
product or product group.
If strictly applied, the good-practice rule of conducting the analysis at the end-use level
would necessitate an infinite number of comparisons because all possible end products
would need to be assessed and compared (from the TV housing to the toothpick
package). This is obviously not manageable. For this reason, a simple and uniform
functional unit must be chosen. The most commonly applied approaches are to conduct
a comparison for
• one mass unit of polymer in primary form (1 kg or 1 tonne of pellets or granules) or
3
• one volume unit of polymer in primary form (1 litre or 1 m of pellets or granules).
In this study, one mass unit of polymer in primary form has been chosen as the basis
of comparison (functional unit) since this approach is most frequently used. Such
comparative analyses at the level of polymers in primary form have the advantage that
they provide a first impression about the environmental advantages or disadvantages.
For example, if the environmental performance is not attractive at the material level
(pellets, granules), there is a good chance that this will also be true at the product level.

However, it must be borne in mind that the comparison may be distorted if, at the end-
use level, decisive parameters differ between bio-based and petrochemical polymers.
The environmental analyses conducted in this study refer to two types of system
boundaries, which are represented by two approaches:
• The cradle-to-factory gate approach covers the environmental impacts of a system
that includes all processes from the extraction of the resources to the product under
consideration, i.e. one mass unit of polymer in this study.
• The cradle-to-grave approach additionally includes the use phase and the waste
management stage. Since one mass unit of polymer in primary form has been chosen
as the basis of comparison in this study, the use phase (including further processing
to an end product and its use) is excluded for the sake of simplification. In other
words, the use phase is assumed to be comparable for the various types of polymers
studied and is therefore omitted.
A cradle-to-grave analysis covers the entire life cycle of a product (material) and
therefore generally represents the preferred approach. The reasons for applying both
approaches in this study will be explained in Section 4.3.
In order to obtain a comprehensive overview of the environmental impacts as many

impact categories (such as energy use, acidification, eutrophication, human toxicity,
environmental toxicity, particulate matter etc.) as possible should ideally be studied.
However, some of the impact categories included in a full-fledged LCA study require
measurements such as for toxicity and particulate matter. Given the early stage of
technology, these parameters are often unknown (e.g. if only small-scale pilot plants are
available) or they are kept confidential. Moreover, several impact categories are closely
related to energy use – i.e., they are determined by the fuel type (e.g. coal versus natural
gas) and the technology of the combustion process (e.g. air preheat) and flue gas
scrubbing. Thirdly, different life cycle assessment methodologies and indicators are in
use for some impact categories (e.g. for toxicity), making direct comparisons
impossible. For these reasons, it was necessary to limit the impact categories covered by
this study to the most relevant independent parameters. Against this background, the
parameters chosen are energy use, GHG emissions and land use (see also
Section 4.3).
4.2 Input data for the environmental analysis
The availability of life cycle assessment studies on bio-based materials (including

polymers) is still quite limited, which is in contrast to the wide interest in the topic. For
all bio-based materials, for which environmental assessments were available, the key
results have been presented in Chapter 2. The availability of relevant data for
conducting comparative environmental assessments, the quality of these data and some
general findings can be summarized as follows:
• For starch polymers, several studies have been prepared (e.g., Dinkel et al., 1996;
Würdinger et al., 2002 and Estermann et al., 2000). These address exclusively
Modified Starch Polymers (Table 2-6 and 2-7), while very little information is

available on their use as fillers in tyres (only published as final results, Corvasce,
1999; see Table 2-7) and on Partially Fermented Starch Polymers (only available as
internal report).
The analyses for Modified Starch Polymers deal with pellets (i.e., primary plastics)
and/or certain end products, especially films, bags and loose-fill packaging material.
Different types of starch polymer blends (different types and shares of petrochemical
co-polymers) and different waste management treatment options are assessed (for a
comparative overview see also Patel et al., 2003). Exceptions excluded, the results on
energy use and GHG emissions from the various studies are consistent, indicating
that clear environmental benefits can be achieved and that the environmental impacts
related to this group of materials are well understood (one example of an exception is
the carbon sequestration related to composting).
Modified Starch Polymers are the only product group for which results were
available for environmental impact categories other than energy use and greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions.32 Due to the use of different methodologies the comparability
of the results for these other indicators is, however, limited.
• For PLA, the only publicly available detailed environmental analysis (with a focus
on energy use and CO2) has been prepared by Cargill Dow (Vink et al., 2003; see
Table 2-11). Very simple analyses for PLA production from rye and whey have been
conducted by the authors of this study (Table 2-12).
• For PTT, a preliminary analysis has been performed by the authors of this study
(Figure 2-10); as discussed in Section 2.3.1.7 this analysis has shortcomings and
needs to be analysed in more depth (this requires the use of confidential data that will
become available in the BREW project; BREW, 2003).
• For PBT, no verified results on environmental impacts are available; as discussed in
Section 2.3.2.7 preliminary results indicate potential energy savings of about 10%.
• For PBS, no environmental analysis seems to have been published.
• For PHA, several studies are available resulting in a wide range of energy use and
CO2 emissions (Section 2.4.7). While the higher values reported are larger than those
for petrochemical polymers, clear benefits also seem to be possible. The fact that
PHA prices (see Section 2.4.6) are now clearly beyond those for other bio-based
polymers is a consequence of the low yields and efficiencies. These drawbacks need
to be overcome as a prerequisite for a wide commercial success. If achieved, the
environmental impacts of PHAs can be expected to be in the lower range of those
discussed in Section 2.4.7; the use of PHAs would then have clear advantages
compared to petrochemical bulk polymers.
• For PUR (bio-based), the U.S. United Soybean Board (USB) recently published
results. These are complemented by back-of-envelope calculations conducted by the
authors of this study.
• For nylon (PA; bio-based), no environmental analysis seems to have been published.
32
Results for other impact categories are also available for natural fibre composites and for a thickener
for a lacquer (Patel et al., 2003) but these products are outside the scope of this study.

Cellulose polymers are not included in the environmental assessment since they are not
seen as serious options for substituting large (additional) amounts of petrochemical
polymers.
For petrochemical polymers, the APME Ecoprofiles prepared by Boustead (1999-

2003) represent a generally acknowledged database that has been used as reference in
most cases (exception: lack of data, e.g. for petrochemical PBT).
A particular challenge of this study is the prospective nature of the environmental

assessment. This means that technological progress needs to be taken into account since
it generally contributes to reduce the environmental impacts per functional unit. Ideally,
time dependent datasets with a yearly resolution (for the period 2000-2020) would be
required for each type of polymer which did not seem reasonable in view of the
information available. For this reason it was decided to take a simplified approach; the
data compiled in the tables discussed below (Table 4-1 and Table 4-5) is hence
considered valid for both foresight years, 2010 and 2020. As will be shown later in
this chapter this simplified approach can be justified in hindsight.
4.2.1 Data basis for estimating energy use and GHG emission data
The input data used to project the effects of bio-based polymers on energy use and GHG
emissions largely originates from the LCA studies discussed in Chapter 2. In a few
cases, further adaptations have been made which are explained below.
The values in Table 4-1 refer to the following system boundaries:

• For energy data, cradle-to-factory gate values are used. At first glance this may
contradict the statement made above according to which an LCA study preferably
covers the entire life cycle. However, the use of cradle-to-factory gate energy values
does not conflict with this intention in the case of incineration without energy
recovery33. In addition, it must be assumed that the energy use for transportation to
waste treatment facility is relatively small; in general it is valid to assume that this is
the case. With these additional considerations the energy data in Table 4-1 can also
be viewed as cradle-to-grave values.
• For GHG emission data, cradle-to-grave data are used. In line with the assumption
made for energy, no emission credits due to energy recovery are assumed. This
means that the values in Table 3-4 are calculated by adding up the emissions from
the production stage (cradle-to-factory gate) with the emission from full oxidation of
the fossil carbon embedded in a (petrochemical) polymer.
The values printed in bold in Table 4-1 have been selected for conducting the
prospective environmental assessment for the foresight years 2010 and 2020. Rounded
values are being used to indicate that these are rough estimates. Data printed in italics
likewise indicate rough estimates. Use of these data for prospective analysis is generally
33
Also in the case of landfilling. Given upcoming directives for waste containing organic carbon
landfilling is, however, not a waste management option for the future.

avoided while data printed in bold are used for the projection of the environmental
impacts in the next two decades.
The chosen value for starch polymers (printed bold) is identical with the value for pure
starch polymers (first row of table) since experts in the field are confident that
complexing will allow superior material properties without using (petrochemical)
copolymers (Novamont, 2003b). For PLA, the value for the long term refers to the
biorefinery concept where lignocellulosic feedstocks (corn stover) are used as second
source for fermentable sugars (in addition to starch) and energy is generated from the
lignin fraction.
As discussed in Chapter 3 about half of the future amount of bio-based polymers is

assumed to represent starch polymers. It would therefore actually be necessary to have
good insight into the composition of the other bio-based polymers because the related
energy use and GHG emissions differ widely (see Table 4-1). Since this information is
not available rough estimates have been made. Apart from PLA a mixed category
“Other bio-based polyesters, PUR and PA” was introduced (see last row of Table 4-1).
In line with the categorisation in Chapter 3 this group is intended to include, apart from
PUR and PA, all polyesters except for PLA, i.e. PHA, PTT, PBT, PBS, PBSA (and
possibly others). For the scenarios “WITHOUT P&M” and “WITH P&M”, PLA has
been assumed to be by far the most important bio-based polyesters while the “Other
bio-based polyesters, PUR and PA” are considered to be negligible. In the scenario
“HIGH GROWTH” (see above), on the other hand, the total additional production
beyond the scenario “WITH P&M” is assumed to belong to the category “Other bio-
based polyesters, PUR and PA”.

Table 4-1: Specific energy use and GHG emissions of bio-based and petrochemical
bulk polymers
Energy1) in MJ/kg GHG emissions2) in kg CO2 eq./kg

Reference for data on bio-
Pchem. Bio-based Energy Pchem. Bio-based Emission based polymer
Polymer3) polymer savings Polymer3) polymer savings
4)
Starch polymers 76 25 51 4.8 1.1 3.7 Patel et al., 1999
Starch polymers + 15% PVOH 76 25 52 4.8 1.7 3.1 Patel et al., 1999
Starch polymers + 52.5% PCL 76 48 28 4.8 3.4 1.4 Patel et al., 1999
Starch polymers + 60% PCL 76 52 24 4.8 3.6 1.2 Patel et al., 1999
5)
Starch polymers, mix today 76 41 35 4.8 2.8 2.0 Estimated for this study
Starch polymers, long-term 50 4.0 Estimated for this study
PLA - Year 1 76 54 22 4.8 4.0 0.8 Vink et al, 2003
PLA - Whey 76 40 36 4.8 ca. 3.0 ca. 1.8 Vink et al, 2003
PLA - Biorefinery 76 29.2 47 4.8 1.89 2.9 Vink et al, 2003
PLA, long-term 50 3.0 Estimated for this study
PHA , fermentation 76 81 -5 4.8 n/a n/a Gerngross/Slater, 2000
PHB - Heyde, best case 76 66 10 4.8 3.7 1.1 Heyde, 1998
6)
PH(3B) ex glucose 76 59.2 17 4.8 2.5 2.3 Akiyama et al., 2003
7)
PH(3A) ex soybean 76 50.2 26 4.8 2.3 2.5 Akiyama et al., 2003
PTT (compared to PET) 77 65 13 5.5 4.6 1.0 Estimated for this study
PTT, long term 10 1.0 Estimated for this study
PBT, long term (10?) (1.0?) Estimated for this study
PBS, long term (10?) (1.0?) Estimated for this study
PUR - Rigid 99.5 77.8 21.7 5.9 5.0 0.9 Estimated for this study
PUR - Rigid, long term 20.0 1.0 Estimated for this study
PUR - Flexible 103.0 62.9 40.0 6.0 4.4 1.6 Estimated for this study
PUR - Flexible, long term 40.0 1.5 Estimated for this study
Category "Other bio-based polyesters,
8) 25 2.0 Estimated for this study
PUR and PA" , long term
Data printed in italics represent rough estimate. Data printed in bold are used for environmental assessment.
1)
Cradle-to-factory gate analysis. Without bio-based feedstock and bio-based energy byproducts used within the process.
2)
Cradle-to-grave analysis. Assuming full oxidation without any credits.
3)
50% LLDPE + 50% HDPE according to Boustead (1999).
4)
Without petrochemical copolymers
5)
Approximation: 20% pure starch polymers, 10% starch polymers with 15% petrochemical copolymers and 70% starch polymers with
52.5% petrochemical copolymers.
6)
Case 9 in Akiyama et al. (2003)
7)
Case 5 in Akiyama et al. (2003)
8)
This group includes, apart from PUR and PA, all polyesters except for PLA, i.e. PHA, PTT, PBT, PBS, PBSA (and possibly others).
The energy and emission savings resulting from bio-based polymers (see Table 4-1)
are rather high as the comparison with the energy use of other bulk material shows
(see Table 4-2): The lower end of energy savings related to bio-based polymers,
amounting to 10-15 GJ/t, are in a similar range as the total energy needed to make 2-3
tonnes of cement, 1-2 tonnes of secondary steel (electric arc steel) or of recycled glass,
about 1 tonne of paper/board or ca. ½ tonne of recycled aluminium. The relatively high
saving opportunities related to bio-based polymers are partly caused by the fact that
polymers in general are rather energy intensive to produce (on a mass basis); moreover,
some of the processes covered in Table 4-1 account for future technological progress.
On the other hand, it has already been shown in other publications that, in specific terms
(e.g. per mass unit of polymer), bio-based polymers offer very interesting saving
potentials already today (see Table 4-3).

Table 4-2: Energy requirements (cradle-to-factory gate; non-renewable energy)

for bulk materials
Öko- Worrell 3)
Energy, GJ/t 1) 2) Hekkert
Institut et al.
Cement (average) 5 3.6 - 6 3.8
Steel
- Primary 23 20 - 25
- Secondary 7.4 - 8.3
Paper/board (average) 10 - 17.5 10 - 20 ~10 - 15
Glass
- Container glass 8
- Flat glass ~12
- Glass fibres 36
- More recycling,
7.2
container glass
Aluminium
- Primary 182 187
- Secondary 26
1)
Data from Öko-Institut, see http://www.oeko.de/service/kea/ files/daten-
2)
Energy, Vol 19, 1994
3)
PhD thesis, 2000
Table 4-3: Energy savings and CO2 emission reduction by bio-based polymers
relative to their petrochemical counterparts (exclusively current
technology; cradle-to-factory gate) – Results from other studies,
compiled in Patel et al. (2003)
Energy savings GHG savings
MJ/kg bio-based kg CO2 eq./kg

in % in %
polymer bio-based pol.
Bio-based plastics (pellets)
TPS 51 -70% 3.7 (-75%) -75%
TPS + 52.5% PCL 28 -40% 1.4 (-35%) -35%
TPS + 60% PCL 24 -35% 1.2 (-30%) -30%
Starch polymer, foam grade 42 -60% 3.6 (-80%) -80%
Starch polymer, film grade 23 -55% 3.6 (-70%) -70%
PLA 19 -30% 1.0 (-25%) -25%
PHA -570 to 50 +700% to -35% n/a n/a
Printed wiring boards 5 -30% n/a n/a
Interior side panel for pass. car 28 -45% -0.9 -15%
Transport pallet 33 -50% 1.6 -45%
As explained above the data of Table 4-1 are valid for a system “cradle-to-grave” where
the waste management technology is incineration without energy recovery. This raises
the question how energy recovery could change the picture. Bio-based polymers
generally have lower heating values than most petrochemical bulk polymers (Table 4-
4). In some cases the difference is negligible (e.g., polyhydroxybutyrate versus PET),
while in other cases it is substantial (starch polymers versus PE). In practice, the
difference in recoverable heat may be even larger than indicated by Table 4-4 since
most bio-based polymers absorb water rather easily. On the other hand, bio-based
polymers may have an advantage in energy recovery because they are made of
oxygenated compounds that facilitate the combustion process and help to avoid extreme
temperatures; the latter can pose serious problems when incinerating petrochemical
polymers. While it would require further investigations to determine whether and how
this limits the scope of energy recovery, we take a conservative approach in this study
by assuming that incineration takes place in waste-to-energy facilities, especially with

high energy recovery yields; this is in favour of petrochemical polymers (in energy
terms). It is estimated that one quarter of the heating value of the waste is converted to
final energy in the form of power and useable heat34. The generation of the same
amount of final energy from regular fuels in power plants and district heating plants
requires only half of the energy input. As a consequence, the credit for energy recovery
is equal to half of the heating value. Concerning energy recovery the advantage of
petrochemical over bio-based polymers is therefore only half of the difference of their
heating values. This case is represented in Figure 4-1 by the vertical line for 50%
efficiency for energy recovery. The bold line for polyethylene (PE) serves as a
benchmark: all points below this line require less energy throughout their life cycle.
Table 4-4: Heating value of bio-based and petrochemical polymers (heating

values calculated according to Boie, compare Reimann and
Hämmerli, 1995)
Lower heating
Polymer
value, GJ/tonne
Starch polymers 13.6
Polyhydroxybutyrate (P3HB) 22.0
Polyhydroxyvalerate (P3HV) 25.0
Polylactic acid 17.9
Lignin (picea abies) 24.2
China reed 18.0
Flax 16.3
Hemp 17.4
Kenaf 16.5
PE 43.3
PS 39.4
PET 22.1
PVC 17.9
34
This estimate is based on an analysis for Germany (12% efficiency for both electricity and heat
generation from combustible waste; Patel et al., 1999) and for Western Europe (personal
communication, Pezetta, 2001). This estimate has also been used in the Clean Technologies project
(Phylipsen et al., 1999).

Figure 4-1: Overall energy requirements of polymers (cradle to grave) as a

function of the efficiency of energy recovery
90
80
70
Cradle-to-grave energy use, GJ/t
TPS
60
PHA (ferment.) Gerngross/Slater
PHA (ex glucose), Akiyama et al.
50
PLA, Cargill Dow (Year 1)
PLA, Cargill Dow (future biorefinery)
40
` PTT
PBT
30
PE (polyethylene)
20
10
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Efficiency of energy recovery
4.2.2 Data basis for estimating land use requirements
The LCA studies used contain information about the type and quantity of crop input
(number of tons of crop required per tonne of polymer ). Using average yields for crop
production (compiled by Dornburg et al., 2003) specific land use has been calculated
(see Table 4-5). In the preceding section, values printed in bold are used for further
calculations. The estimate for the category "Other bio-based polyesters, PUR and PA"
(see last row of Table 4-5) is rather uncertain because – due to lack of further data - it
has been based on one single data point only (for PH(3B), see preceding row). Since
this value (0.6 ha*a/t polymer) is four to six times higher than the values for starch and
PLA, underestimation is quite unlikely.

Table 4-5: Specific land use for bio-based and petrochemical bulk polymers
Crop yield Crop input Land use

Polymer type Reference for LCA on polymer Crop type Country t crop/t (ha*a)/t
t/(ha*a)
polymer polymer
1) Potato and 2) 3) 2) 3)
Starch polymers Dinkel et al., 1996 CH 37.5 , 12.5 2.23 + 0.385 0.09
corn
Starch polymers = 12.7% PVOH Würdinger et al., 2001 Corn D 6.45 0.786 0.12
1)
Starch polymers Estermann et al., 2000 Corn F 8.2 0.971 0.12
Starch polymers, long term 0.10
9)
PLA - Year 1 Vink, 2001 in Dornburg et al., 2003 Corn USA 9.06 1.74 0.19
9)
PLA - Mitsui 1 Kawashima, 2003 Corn USA 9.06 2.45 0.27
PLA - corn 2008 Galactic, 2003 Corn EU-15 0.31
PLA - wheat 2008 Galactic, 2003 Wheat EU-15 0.48
PLA - sugar beets 2008 Galactic, 2003 Sugar beet EU-15 0.18
9)
PLA - Mitsui 2 - 0.5corn + 0.5stover Kawashima, 2003 Corn USA 9.06 1.29 0.14
Vink et al., 2003 combined with 10)
PLA - Biorefinery Corn USA 9.06 1.36 0.15
estimates based on Aden et al., 2002
PLA, long-term 0.15
PHA - fermentation Gerngross and Slater, 2000 Corn USA 7.7 5.06 0.66
4)
P(3HA) ex soybean Akiyama et al, 2003 (higher range) Soybean 3.1 7.11 2.29
5) 8) 7)
P(3HB) ex glucose Akiyama et al, 2003 Corn 7.25 4.15 0.57
6)
P(3HA) ex soybean/lower yield Akiyama et al, 2003 Soybean 3.1 8.12 2.62
8)
P(3HB) ex glucose/lower yield Akiyama et al, 2003 Corn 7.25 5.12 0.71
PH(3B), long term (ex glucose) 0.55
Category "Other bio-based polyesters,

11) 0.60
PUR and PA" , long term
1)
Without petrochemical copolymers
2)
Potato (data for fresh matter, fm; for all other crops in this table dry matter, dm)
3)
Corn
4)
High fermentation yield; applies to case 5 (and also case 6-8) in Akiyama et al. (2003)
5)
High fermentation yield; applies to case 9 in Akiyama et al. (2003)
6)
According to Akiyama et al., 2003. 1 kg of soybean oil from 5.4 kg of soybeans , Fig.1. PHA yield = 0.7 g/g, Tab.1. 95% PHA recovery, Tab.1.
7)
According to Akiyama et al., 2003. 1 kg of glucose from 1.46 kg of corn , Fig.2. PHA yield = 0.37 g/g, Tab.1. 95% PHA recovery, Tab.1.
8)
Average of range in Dornburg et al., 2003
9)
Using same crop yields as for Cargill Dow case
10)
Using same crop yields as for PLA-year 1 case
11)
This group includes, apart from PUR and PA, all polyesters except for PLA, i.e. PHA, PTT, PBT, PBS, PBSA (and possibly others). Due to lack
of other data the value for PH(3B) was used as basis for the estimation.
According to discussions with experts in the field, wheat in Europe could become a
similarly or even more important starch source for bio-based polymers as corn (maize).
However, most datasets in Table 4-5 refer to the use of corn. The data compiled in
Table 4-6 give insight into the extent to which a switch to wheat would influence the
land requirements: while the average yield of corn (maize) is 9.1 t/ha (which is in line
with the figure for US corn in Table 4-5), the average yield for wheat is substantially
lower (5.8 t/ha). As a consequence a switch from corn to wheat would result in 50%
higher land requirements (compare column titled “Specific land use”).

Table 4-6: Land use, yield and production of corn (maize), wheat and selected
other carbohydrate crops. Western Europe averages for 2002
(FAO, 2003).
Starch Specific land

Area Harv Crop yield Crop prod 2), 3)
content use
1000 ha t/(ha*a) 1000 t/a t starch/t crop (ha*a)/t starch
1)
Corn (maize) 4,470 9.1 40,824 0.6 0.18
Wheat 18,158 5.8 105,659 0.6 0.28
Potato 1,318 36.0 47,399 0.2 0.15
4)
Sugar beet 1,921 61.0 117,126
Soy bean 244 3.3 795
1)
Maize and wheat: dried to less than 14% moisture; others: fresh matter
2)
For corn, wheat: Venturi and Venturi (2003)
3)
For potato: Wuerdinger et al. (2002)
4)
16% sugar.
Only very few of the LCA studies that have been prepared for bio-based polymers over
the past few years address the aspect of land use. As a recent study prepared by
Dornburg et al. (2003) shows, disregard of land use can lead to false policy conclusions.
The reason is that relating energy savings and GHG emission reduction of bio-based
polymers to a unit of agricultural land instead of a unit of polymer produced, leads
to a different ranking of options. If land use is chosen as the basis of comparison,
natural fiber composites and thermoplastic starch score better than bioenergy production
from energy crops, while polylactides score comparably well and
polyhydroxyalkaonates score worse. Additionally, including the use of agricultural
residues for energy purposes improves the performance of bio-based polymers
significantly. Moreover, it is very likely that higher production efficiencies will be
achieved for bio-based polymers in the medium term. Bio-based polymers thus offer
interesting opportunities to reduce the utilization of non-renewable energy and to
contribute to greenhouse gas mitigation in view of potentially scarce land resources.
While bioenergy has been actively addressed by policy for many years bio-based
materials, some of which are more attractive in terms of efficient land use, have been
given much less attention by policy makers. This is reasonable given the modest total
land use required by bio-based polymers in comparison to other land uses. However
should the “HIGH GROWTH” scenario eventuate, the observation that per unit of
agricultural land, some bio-based polymers yield greater energy savings and GHG
emission reductions than if the land were used to generate bioenergy should be duly
considered by policy-makers.
It seems useful to deliberate about the underlying reason for the potentially higher
land use efficiency of bio-based polymers: As explained by Dornburg et al. (2003)
energy savings of bioenergy production are limited by crop yields. For a high yield crop
like miscanthus, average yields in Central Europe are about 270 GJ/(ha*yr). In an ideal
situation, biomass can thus substitute for fossil fuel on a 1:1 basis35, which leads to
energy savings of about 270 GJ/(ha*yr). On the other hand, the energy savings related
to bio-based polymers can exceed this value since the energy requirements (i.e.
feedstock and process energy) for petrochemical polymers can be much higher than for
the corresponding bio-based polymers.
35
Even slightly higher substitution rates are possible if biomass is used as solid fuel in a more efficient
energy conversion process than the reference

4.3 Results of the environmental assessment of the large-scale

production of bio-based polymers
This chapter presents the results of the environmental analysis for the large-scale
production of bio-based polymers in Europe for the three scenarios WITHOUT P&M,
WITH P&M and HIGH GROWTH. The results are summarized in Table 4-7. The
outcome for energy savings and GHG emission reduction is discussed in Section 4.3.1,
while Section 4.3.2 deals with various aspects of land use (Figure 4-2 to 4-4 and
Table 4-7).
Table 4-7: Summary of the results on the large-scale production of bio-based

polymers in Europe for the three scenarios WITHOUT P&M, WITH
P&M and HIGH GROWTH
WITHOUT WITH HIGH

For comparison
P&M P&M GROWTH
Production Bio-based polymers, kt
2002 25 25 25
2010 500 1,000 1,000 500/1000 1) ECCP, 2001
2020 875 1,750 3,000
Additional land use, 1000 ha
2002 3 3 3
2010 63 125 125
2020 113 225 975
Energy savings, PJ
2002 1 1 1
2010 25 50 50
2020 44 88 119
GHG emission reduction, million t CO2 eq.
2002 0.1 0.1 0.1
2010 1.8 3.5 3.5 2.0/4.0 1) ECCP, 2001
2020 3.0 6.0 8.5
Specific energy savings, GJ/(ha*a)
2002 296 296 296
2010 400 400 400
2020 389 389 122
Specific GHG em. red., t CO2eq/(ha*a)
2002 17.2 17.2 17.2
2010 28.0 28.0 28.0
2020 26.7 26.7 8.7
1)
Without and with Policies and Measures (P&M) respectively.

Figure 4-2: Production volumes of bio-based polymers for the three scenarios
WITHOUT P&M, WITH P&M and HIGH GROWTH
3,500
3,000
Production Bio-based polymers

2,500
2,000
in kt
1,500
1,000
500
0
2002 2010 2020
WITHOUT P&M WITH P&M HIGH GROWTH
4.3.1 Energy savings and GHG emission reduction by bio-based polymers
As Figure 4-3 shows the potential energy savings by 2010 due to bio-based polymers
ranges between 25 and 50 PJ depending on the extent to which P&Ms are implemented.
By 2020, 44 to 119 PJ could be saved. Relative to the total energy consumption by the
EU chemical industry in 200036 these savings are equivalent to (Table 4-8):
• 0.5% without P&Ms by 2010
• 1.0% with P&Ms by 2010 and
• 0.8-2.1% by 2020 (range covers all three scenarios).
Compared to the total primary energy consumption by the total economy (total EU)37
the energy savings mentioned are equivalent to
• 0.04-0.08% by 2010 and
Also from Figure 4-3, the potential GHG emission reductions by 2010 due to bio-based
polymers range between 1.8 and 3.5 million t CO2 eq. depending on the extent to which
P&Ms are implemented and by 2020, 3.0 to 8.5 million t CO2 eq. could be saved.
Relative to the total CO2 emissions from the EU chemical industry in 200038 these
savings are equivalent to:
• 1.0% without P&Ms by 2010
36
Energy consumption by the EU chemical industry in primary energy terms (including feedstocks)
amounted to 5600 PJ in 2000 (IEA, 2003).
37
Total primary energy consumption by the EU amounted to 61400 PJ in 2000 (IEA, 2003).
38
CO2 emissions from the EU chemical industry amounted to 175 Mt CO2 in 1998 (CEFIC, 2001);
Scaling with CEFIC index CO2 emissions 2000 vs 1998, one obtains 177 Mt (CEFIC, 2002). This
figure includes only CO2 emissions from energy use, i.e. from the production of process heat, steam
and electricity; CO2 emissions from non-energy use are excluded.

• 2.0% with P&Ms by 2010 and
Compared to the GHG emissions from the total economy (total EU)39 the GHG
emission reductions mentioned are equivalent to
• 0.04-0.08% by 2010 and
• 0.07- 0.20% by 2020 (range covers all three scenarios).
The order of magnitude of the results is confirmed by the estimates for 2010 that were
prepared under the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP, 2001). The totals
according to the ECCP study are about a factor 2 larger since also other important bio-
based materials were taken into account, i.e. lubricants, solvents and surfactants.
Limiting the comparison to polymers only, the ECCP still results in somewhat higher
savings (as shown in Table 4-7: 2.0-4.0 Mt CO2 eq. savings compared to 1.8-3.5 Mt
CO2 eq.; all data for 2010). While this comparison solely seems to confirm earlier
insights, there is a rather fundamental difference between the two studies:
• In the ECCP study it was argued that, as a consequence of the scope of the study,
practically only starch polymers were considered within the materials category
‘polymers’ (Patel, Bartle et al., 2002/2003) and that no other bio-based polymers
(e.g., polylactides) were assumed to be produced in larger quantities. This approach
was taken in order to avoid overestimation of the potential for emission reduction. At
the same time, this approach implies that the real emission reduction potentials may
be substantially larger.
• In contrast, this study (PRO-BIP) attempts to make realistic projections covering all
bio-based polymers. Even though “conventional bio-based polymers”, especially
cellulosic polymers, have not been taken into account and the potentials related to
PTT, PBT, PBS, PHA, PUR and PA were only roughly estimated, we believe that all
major bio-based polymers have been accounted for in this study.
The different views of the two studies basically boil down to different expectations
about the growth potentials for starch polymers. In this study, an attempt was made to
substantiate the potentials by distinguishing between starch-based fillers for tyres and
“classical” application areas. Clearly higher growth prospects might seem realistic if
other, novel application areas have been overlooked or if the estimates for the
application areas covered could be proven to be too conservative. Further information
from the producers would be required to clarify these points. Depending on the outcome
the calculations of this study would need to be revised.
39 Total GHG emissions from the total EU economy amounted to 4112 Mt CO2eq. in 1998 (Gugele and
Ritter, 2001). Scaling with CEFIC index CO2 emissions 2000 vs 1998, obtain 4165.

Figure 4-3: Energy savings and GHG emission reduction for the three scenarios
WITHOUT P&M, WITH P&M and HIGH GROWTH
140 9.0
120 8.0
7.0
100
GHG emission reduction

6.0
in million t CO2 eq.

Energy savings
80
5.0
in PJ
60 4.0
3.0
40
2.0
20
1.0
0 0.0
2002 2010 2020 2002 2010 2020

If bio-based polymers develop successfully the reduced environmental benefits

discussed above should be viewed as an important contribution of the chemical industry
to sustainable development. At the same time the production of petrochemical
polymers is also expected to grow substantially over the next two decades. This leads
to one of the key questions posed at the outset of this study, i.e. whether the avoidance
of environmental impacts enabled by the wide-scale production of bio-based polymers
can (over-)compensate the negative environmental impacts caused by further growth of
petrochemical plastics.
The upper part of Table 4-8 shows a simple calculation for petrochemical polymers. The
projected production volumes have been taken from the so-called Base Case of the
Clean Technologies project (Phylipsen et al., 2002). According to this study
petrochemical polymer production in Western Europe is expected to increase by about
55% or 2.2% p.a. between the years 2000 and 2020 (for comparison: between 1980 and
2000, polymer production increased from 20.7 to 44.9 million tonnes, i.e. by 3.9% p.a).
In line with the calculations for bio-based polymers the cradle-to-grave CO2 emissions
reported in Table 4-8 for petrochemical polymers do not account for possible credits
related to energy recovery. These cradle-to-grave CO2 emissions for petrochemical
polymers have been estimated to increase from 220 million tonnes in 2000 to 350
million tonnes by 2020, i.e. by 130 million tonnes. This is 15 to more than 40 times
more than the emissions saved by bio-based polymers in the three secnarios WITHOUT
P&M, WITH P&M and HIGH GROWTH (see last row of Table 4-8; reciprocal of this
number gives the factor by which emission increases due to petrochemical polymers
exceed emission reductions due to bio-based polymers). This definitively shows that
the lower specific environmental impact of bio-based polymers will not be able to
(over-)compensate the additional environmental impacts caused by expected high
growth of petrochemical plastics.

Table 4-8: Emission projections for petrochemical polymers and of bio-based

polymers in perspective
2000 2002 2010 2020
Production, Mt 44.9 47.3 57.4 70
1)
Cradle-to-Factory Gate energy , PJ 4000 4200 5100 6200
Relative to 2000 EU chemical industry primary

2) 71% 75% 91% 111%
energy consumption of 5600 PJ (2000=100%)
Relative to 2000 EU total primary energy
3) 6.8% 7.1% 8.6% 10.5%
consumption of 61400 PJ (2000=100%)
Petro-
Energy consumption increase for petrochemical
chemical - 200 900 1100
polymers compared to year 2000, PJ
polymers
4)
Cradle-to-Grave CO2 emissions , Mt CO2 220 240 290 350
Relative to 2000 EU chemical industry CO2

124% 136% 164% 198%
emissions of 177 Mt5) (2000=100%)
6)
Relative to 2000 EU total emissions of 4165 Mt
5.3% 5.8% 7.0% 8.4%
(2000=100%)
CO2 emission increase for petrochemical
- 20 70 130
polymers compared to year 2000, Mt CO2
Production, Mt - 0.025 0.5/1.0/1.0 0.88/1.75/3.0
Energy reduction due to bio-based polymers (w/o

- 0.9 25/50/50 44/88/119
P&M, w.P&M, HG), compared to year 2000, PJ
Relative to 2000 EU chemical industry primary

2) - 0.02% 0.5/1.0/1.0% 0.8/1.6/2.1%
energy consumption of 5600 PJ (2000=100%)
Relative to 2000 EU total primary energy
Bio-based 3) - 0.00% 0.04/0.08/0.08% 0.07/0.14/0.19%
polymers consumption of 61400 PJ (2000=100%)
CO2 emission reduction due to bio-based polymers
(w/o P&M, with P&M, High Growth), compared to year - 0.1 1.8/3.5/3.5 3.0/6.0/8.5
2000, Mt CO2
Relative to 2000 EU chemical industry CO2

- 0.06% 1.0/2.0/2.0% 1.7/3.4/4.8%
emissions of 177 Mt5) (2000=100%)
6)
Relative to 2000 EU total emissions of 4165 Mt
- 0.00% 0.04/0.08/0.08% 0.07/0.14/0.20%
(2000=100%)
Energy reduction for bio-based polymers compared to
Compen- energy increase for petrochemical polymers, base - 0.5% 2.8/5.6/5.6% 4.0/8.0/10.8%
satory year 2000
effect of CO2 emission reduction for bio-based polymers
7)
BBPs compared to energy increase for petrochemical - 0.5% 2.6/5.0/5.0% 2.3/4.6/6.5%
polymers, base year 2000
1)
Calculated with a weighted overall value of 88 GJ/t polymer
2)
EU chemical industry energy use including feedstocks: 5600 PJ in 2000 (IEA, 2003).
3)
EU total energy use (all countries, entire economy): 61400 PJ in 2000 (IEA, 2003).
4)
Calculated with a weighted overall value of 5 t CO2/t polymer
5)
EU chemical industry emissions: 175 Mt CO2 in 1998 (CEFIC, 2001); scaled to figure for 2000 of 177 Mt.
6)
EU total emissions (all countries, entire economy): 4165 Mt CO2 in 2000.
7)
100% = Full compensation (reduction due to bio-based polymers equal to increase due to petrochemical polymers)
At the beginning of Section 4.4 and when explaining the input data used (Table 4-1 and
Table 4-5) it was pointed out that a few simplifying assumptions are made which could
result in overestimation of the energy and CO2 savings. This potential overestimation is
not of concern in view of the relatively low contribution of bio-based polymers to
emission reduction at the national level and overcompensation by additional emissions
caused by the continued growth of the petrochemical polymers. In other words, lower
values for the input data could not change the overall picture of this analysis.

4.3.2 Land use requirements related to bio-based polymers
As described in Section 4.2 the land use requirements assumed for the product category
“Other bio-based polyesters, PUR and PA”. These materials have been assumed to
emerge only in the HIGH GROWTH scenario. This explains why the land use for this
scenario is five to ten times higher than for the scenarios WITHOUT P&M and WITH
P&M (see Figure 4-4). This feature is also apparent in the specific indicators shown in
Figure 4-5.
Figure 4-4: Additional land use related to the production of bio-based polymers
for the three scenarios WITHOUT P&M, WITH P&M and HIGH
GROWTH
1,200
1,000
Additional land use
800
in 1000 ha
600
400
200
0
2002 2010 2020
Figure 4-5: Specific energy savings and specific GHG emission reduction (in
both cases per unit of land used) for the three scenarios WITHOUT
P&M, WITH P&M and HIGH GROWTH
450 30
400
25
Specific GHG emission reduction
350
Specific energy savings
in 1000 t CO2eq/ha
300 20
in TJ/ha
250
15
200
150 10
100
5
50
0 0
2002 2010 2020 2002 2010 2020
WITHOUT P&M WITH P&M HIGH GROWTH WITHOUT P&M WITH P&M HIGH GROWTH
As discussed at the end of Section 4.2.2 the maximum specific energy savings related to
bioenergy production lie in the range of 270 GJ/(ha*yr) or 0.27 TJ/(ha*yr). According
to Figure 4-5 this is less than the savings that are achievable in the scenarios WITHOUT
P&M and WITH P&M. The production of bio-based polymers with larger land
requirements in the HIGH GROWTH scenario (compare also Table 4-5) causes the

overall specific energy savings to fall below the 0.15 TJ/ha mark by 2020 (Figure 4-5).
This should be avoided and ‘land-efficient’ forms of bioenergy should be implemented
instead.
The additional land use in thousands of hectares per annum (see Figure 4-4 or Table 4-
3) can be put into perspective by comparing it with total land use in EU15 for various
purposes. Table 4-4 shows additional land use as a proportion of the total land use in
EU15 for wheat (2002) (FAO, 2003), cereals (1997), set-aside land (1997) and
industrial crops (1997) (Eurostat, 2003).40 If all bio-based polymers were to be
produced from wheat, just over 1% of the land would be required for the case WITH
P&M; up to a maximum of 5% for the HIGH GROWTH scenario. As a proportion of
total cereals these figures are a factor 2 lower. This means that bio-based polymers
will not cause any strain within the EU on agricultural land requirements in the
near future. Compared to total set-aside land (1997 values), the percentage of land
required is 3.6% WITH P&M and 15.4% for HIGH GROWTH; requirements as a
proportion of total industrial crops (1997) are similar to those for set-aside land41. Land
use requirements for bio-based polymers are thus seen to be quite modest. There
could, however be some conflict of interest with bioenergy crops for utilisation of
set aside or industrial crop land after 2010 with the HIGH GROWTH scenario.
Table 4-9: Additional land use for bio-based polymers as a proportion of other
land uses in EU-15 for the three scenarios WITHOUT P&M, WITH
P&M and HIGH GROWTH
WITHOUT WITH HIGH

For comparison
P&M P&M GROWTH
Additional land use, 1000 ha
2002 3 3 3
2010 63 125 125
2020 113 225 975
Additional land use as % of total for wheat (EU15, 2002) *)
2002 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.16 million ha wheat
2010 0.3 0.7 0.7
2020 0.6 1.2 5.4
Additional land use as % of total cereals (EU15,1997)
2002 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.96 million ha cereals
2010 0.2 0.3 0.3
2020 0.3 0.6 2.5
Additional land use as % of total set-aside land (EU15, 1997)
2002 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.33 million ha total set-aside
2010 1.0 2.0 2.0
2020 1.8 3.6 15.4
Additional land use as % of total industrial crops (EU15, 1997)
2002 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.55 million ha total ind. crops
2010 1.0 1.9 1.9
2020 1.7 3.4 14.9
*) Wheat: Eurostat (2003); Other data: FAO (2003)
40
Assume these figures for land use land use will not change between 2000 and 2020. While this is a
gross assumption it is considered adequate for the rough estimate required here.
41
This proportion is probably already significantly lower in 2003 terms since according to EC DG XII
(1994) the amount of set-aside land in the EU should increase substantially up to 25%, equivalent to
about 30 million ha (Metabolix, 2003).

4.4 Socio-economic effects of the large-scale production of bio-

based polymers
Apart from environmental benefits the production of bio-based polymers is also

expected to have positive socio-economic effects, particularly in relation to employment
in the agricultural sector (employment in the chemical industry is expected to be
comparable to petrochemical polymers, therefore resulting in no net additional
employment). If the assumption is made that agricultural land will be utilised that would
otherwise be set aside or used in a less productive manner, then the production of bio-
based polymers leads to increased employment in the cultivation and harvesting of
starch and sugar crops. Estimations for additional employment (expressed in full-time
equivalents, FTE) are given in Table 4-5. These figures were calculated using labour
requirements for the production of corn and wheat in the Netherlands and Germany
(averaged figures: 8.5 h/(ha*a) until 2005, thereafter 11 h/(ha*a), together with volume
projections already discussed in section 4.3. Employment effects are seen to be very
modest - employment generated by bio-based polymers in 2010 is projected to be about
0.005-0.01 percent of the current EU employment in the agricultural sector. In 2020, in
the HIGH GROWTH scenario, about 0.08 percent are employed. These low values may
seem obvious in view of the rather low per capita production discussed earlier (Table 3-
3).
Table 4-10: Additonal employment in the agricultural sector for the three
scenarios WITHOUT P&M, WITH P&M and HIGH GROWTH
1), 2)
Additional employment (FTEs)
For comparison: Total
WITHOUT WITH HIGH agricultural sector, 2002 3)
P&M P&M GROWTH
2002 16 16 16 Germany 917,000
2010 260 510 510 EU-15 excluding NL, FR:
2020 460 920 3,980 5,081,000
1)
Data from PAV (2000) and Wintzer et al. (1993).
2)
1 FTE = 2080 hours.
3)
LABORSTA (2003); assumption 1 unit employment = 1 FTE according
to ER (2000): avg worked hours in agriculture, 1996 = 40.3 h
4.5 Production value and potential leverage of fiscal

measures/subsidies
This chapter first discusses briefly the production value that could be generated by the
emerging bio-based industry. Secondly an attempt is made to assess the leverage of
subsidies or fiscal measures that are equivalent to those for bioenergy.
4.5.1 Production value
A first estimate of the production value of the bio-based industry can be made by
estimating its turnover, i.e. by multiplying its production with the sales price of the

merchandise. Obviously the two parameters are related, with higher production volumes
being coupled with relatively low prices. In the extreme case, bio-based polymers
would reach similar price levels as their petrochemical counterparts. An assumed price
range of 1-2 EUR/kg bio-based polymer translates to a maximum production volume
of roughly 1-2 billion EUR by 2010 (scenarios WITH P&M and HIGH GROWTH)
and 3-6 billion EUR by 2020 (scenario HIGH GROWTH).
4.5.2 Subsidies, fiscal measures and tax reduction
As discussed in Section 4.2.2, bio-based polymers offer the potential of saving energy
and reducing GHG emissions with lower land requirements than bioenergy. This may
lead to the conclusion that bio-based polymers should be eligible for similar supportive
policy measures as bioenergy. These could, for example, be analogues (or equivalents)
of green certificates or of feed-in tariffs that are both applied for the promotion of
renewable electricity. Theoretically, the inclusion of bio-based materials in the EU
Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) would be another option. The latter can be
expected to be relatively unattractive for the bio-based industry, due to the
comparatively low value of the so-called emission allowances. For this reason this
chapter discusses only the financial implications of a linkage between bio-based
polymers on the one hand and feed-in tariffs or Green Certificates on the other.
Vries de et al. (2003) have compiled feed-in tariffs for green electricity in all European
countries. Outliers excluded, most values for the various forms of bioenergy fall in the
range of 5 to 7.5 ct/kWh. Bioenergy was chosen as basis for comparison since biomass
is used as a resource also in the case of bio-based polymers. Other forms of green
electricity differ not only with regard to the resource base but also concerning cost (e.g.,
photovoltaics is much more expensive) and are therefore not comparable. Based on
information provided for Austria on base prices we estimate the price level of
conventional electricity to be around 2.5 ct/kWh (2-3 /kWh). This means that the net
financial support of producers of green electricity is around 2.5-5 ct/kWh.
Similar values are reported by Uyterlinde et al. (2003) who estimated the certificate
price for the case that an EU market for tradable Green Certificates emerges. The
authors point out that the equilibrium price directly depends on the level of the demand
created in this market, in other words on the ambition level of policies. Assuming that
the quotas are based on the EU targets for 2010, the prices of Green Certificates are
expected to be in the range of 5-6 ct/kWh. This price is additional to an average
electricity commodity price of 3 ct/kWh in the baseline scenario. In the period beyond
2010, the level of the Green Certificate price is directly dependent on whether new
targets are agreed in the EU. For the case that the ambition level does not further
increase and targets only see a moderate increase in absolute terms as a result of the
growth in electricity demand, Uyterlinde et al. (2003) expect the Green Certificate price
to stabilise at a lower level of 3-4 ct/kWh.
Combining the two sources, the net support of green electricity producers is in the range
of 2.5-6 ct/kWh, with the higher end being representative for the period until 2010 and
the lower end serving as estimate for the period beyond 2010. Assuming an average
efficiency for power generation of 33% in the EU, this translates to a net support of

2.3-5.55 EUR per GJ of primary energy.42 As shown in Table 4-1 the (primary)
energy savings for average to very attractive cases amount to 25-50 GJ/tonne of bio-
based polymer. Combining these two pieces of information yields
• for the period 2000-2010 (calculated with 6 ct/kWh or 5.55 EUR per GJ of primary
energy) a maximum range of 0.14-0.28 EUR/kg bio-based polymer, with an
optimistic value lying at ca. 0.2 EUR/kg bio-based polymer (valid for savings of
35-40 GJ/tonne of bio-based polymer)43
• for the period 2010-2020 (calculated with 2.5 ct/kWh or 2.3 EUR per GJ of primary
energy) a maximum range of 0.06-0.12 EUR/kg bio-based polymer, with an
optimistic value lying at ca. 0.1 EUR/kg bio-based polymer (valid for ca. 40
GJ/tonne of bio-based polymer).
These values (0.1-0.2 EUR/kg bio-based polymer) can also be interpreted as the
willingness to pay of society for the environmental benefits of a bio-based polymer
with a good to outstanding environmental performance. A financial support of this level
(0.2 EUR/kg until 2010) would represent a maximum of 10% of the current selling price
of bio-based polymers (e.g. about 2.2–3.0 EUR/kg for PLA and most starch polymer
grades). This leads to the following considerations:
• In the first instance, this result may be surprisingly low in view of the outstandingly
attractive position of some bio-based polymers (including some starch polymers)
compared to bioenergy with regard to land use. While land use efficiency and the
cost of production obviously represent different dimensions, a higher equivalent
financial support for bio-based polymers could possibly have been expected. The
main reason why this is not the case is the difference in scale and maturity of
production. While bioenergy can be produced with rather mature technology at
comparatively low price, this is not (yet) the case for bio-based polymers.
• On the other hand Table 4-11 shows the consequences for a hypothetical SME
producing bio-based polymers. One may conclude that a financial support of
0.2 EUR/kg can indeed decisively increase the resources that are available at the
company level for conducting R&D and improving the competitiveness in many
other ways.
42
The calculation made is presented at the example of the higher value of 6 ct/kWh:
6 ct/kWh * 1 kWh/3.6 MJel * 1000 MJel/GJel * 1 GJel/ 3 GJprimary * 1 EUR/100 ct
= 5.55 EUR/GJprimary
43
The calculation for this case is:
40 GJprimary/tonne bio-based polymer * 5.55 EUR/GJprimaryG
= 222 EUR/tonne bio-based polymer = ca. 0.2 EUR/kg bio-based polymer

Table 4-11: Possible effects of a financial support of bio-based polymers for a

hypothetical producer (SME)
Specific monetary Absolute monetary

Production
flows flows
kt EUR/kg milllion EURO
Financial support 25 0.2 (P&M) 5.00
Turnover 25 3.0 (price) 75.00
Value added*) 45.00*)
*) Rough estimate based on the assumption that about 40% of the total production
cost are caused by purchases of raw materials
It can be concluded that the society’s willingness to pay for green electricity (from
biomass) can translate into a level of financial support that would help to improve
the competitiveness of bio-based polymers. This seems to be the case for the short
term and possibly even more so for the longer term: If production costs decrease
substantially then a financial support of 0.1-0.2 EUR/kg bio-based polymer could
possibly contribute in an even more meaningful way to accelerated diffusion. However,
it would then also remain to be seen whether society would be equally willing to pay for
green polymers as for green electricity (results of the Kassel Project indicate that this
could be the case; IBAW, 2003; Lichtl, 2003). Moreover, verification of the savings
realised is more easily possible in the case of power generation (with commercialised
technology) than for a complex chemical plant with its numerous flows, the changes
that may be made to the process and/or to the product and the confidentiality that may
represent an obstacle to verfication. Differences in energy savings by types of bio-based
polymers would possibly also need to be taken into account. In economic terms, this
means that the transaction costs are probably relatively high for implementing an
equivalent of feed-in tariffs or of Green Certificates for bio-based polymers.
The latter disadvantages are not present in other forms of financial support, such as a
reduction of VAT rates. Full exemption from VAT (16-20% for most of the EU
countries; spread 15-25%) would, however, represent a much larger financial support of
bio-based polymers than the equivalent values derived above from green electricity and
could therefore not be justified on a large scale. Exceptions could be certain products
with additional indirect financial or other benefits (e.g. biodegradable bags in waste
management); here, full VAT exemption could be justified. For all other products, a
reduced VAT rate would be an option, e.g. a tax deduction by 4% as has been
proposed by the working group “Renewable Raw Materials“ (RRM) as part of its work
under the European Climate Programme. For current bio-based polymer prices of 2.2–
3.0 EUR/kg, the resulting savings for the consumer are around 0.1 EUR/kg bio-based
polymer, i.e. on the lower side of the range derived above from the support granted to
green electricity (0.2 EUR/kg until 2010 for a bio-based polymer saving 35-40
GJ/tonne). This lower value could be justified by the fact that the transaction costs
related to verification and monitoring are avoided; the tradeoff is lower specificity of a
(generally defined) reduction in VAT rates.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

In this chapter, limitations to the report are identified, the findings of Chapters 2 to 4 are
revisited and discussed, and the ground prepared for the discussion in Chapter 6 of
possible EU policy instruments.
5.1 An emerging sector
Technology developments and markets

As seen from the in-depth look at technologies in Chapter 2, bio-based polymers is an
emerging field that is characterised by a number of different developments as shown in
Figure 5-1. One development is that established chemical companies are moving into
biotechnology and engaging in R&D efforts: examples include BASF, Cargill,
Degussa, Dow, DSM, DuPont and Uniqema. Since such companies may not have
enough in-house expertise to make the transition to biotechnology on their own, they
may choose to set up new collaborations with biotechnology companies. Apart from
having a knowledge base in the life sciences, biotech companies are typically able to
work in a more flexible and innovative manner, engage more in high tech and can
accept a higher risk. Main drivers are the biodegradability of the product, the reduction
in production costs associated with using carbohydrate feedstocks due to advances in
fermentation and aerobic bioprocesses, unique properties of bio-based polymers and (to
a lesser extent) the use of renewable resources. As an example of such a collaboration,
DuPont and Genencor have developed a high yield bioprocess for 1,3-propanediol
(PDO) from glucose. DuPont plans to utilise this PDO in the production of the polyester
poly(trimethylene terephthalate) (PTT) in the near future. Another example is the
partnership between consumer goods producer Procter &Gamble (P&G) and Kaneka,
in which Kaneka holds the composition of matter patent to a type of PHA polymer and
is developing the production process in Japan, while P&G holds the processing and
application patents and is developing the product slate. While such collaboration is
nothing new in itself, it presents a particular challenge to the plastics manufacturer, who
is traditionally closely tied to the ‘materials and methods’ of the petrochemical industry.
In contrast to the approach taken by fine chemicals and pharmaceuticals producers,

companies interested in harnessing biotech for bulk volume markets are adopting a
different approach in the pursuit of profitability targets, an important element of which
is integrated process development. In this approach, rather than focusing primarily on
optimisation of the fermentation step, the entire production chain from preprocessing
through fermentation to product workup is scrutinised in an attempt to optimise the
whole so as to meet a number of targets including simplified and more cost-effective
fermentation media, higher productivity (from the entire process train), improved
robustness of microorganisms (extended lifetime, more tolerant to processing
conditions) and reduction in quantity and/or potential environmental impact of liquid
and solid waste streams. Two companies solidly pursuing this approach are Cargill Dow
and DuPont, both of which have received considerable funding from US agencies
within the context of the development of biorefineries with corn (maize) as the primary
feedstock.

In the biorefinery concept, a highly integrated facility utilises a bulk-volume renewable

resource feedstock to produce a slate of products ranging from low price commodity
chemicals to higher price and lower volume specialty chemicals. Analogous to the
petrochemical refinery, the biorefinery starts up producing one or a few principal
products and evolves with time and technology development to add value to what may
otherwise be considered waste products. Thus the Cargill Dow production facility could
equally be considered as a biorefinery in an early stage of development where the
product with the highest added value, in this case polylactic acid, is the first to be
produced and marketed, to be followed at a later stage by other lactic acid derivatives
such as esters (e.g. ethyl-, n-butyl-, isopropyl lactate, used as biodegradable solvents
and cleaning agents) and lactic acid salts (e.g. sodium-, potassium- and calcium lactate,
used mainly in the processed foood industry). Also as the plant develops, corn biomass
(e.g. stalks and husks), typically a waste product, will be increasingly utilised for on-site
energy generation and as a process feedstock via hydrolysis of lignocellulosics.
Another development is that polymer manufacturers are setting up joint ventures with
agricultural companies to guarantee cost, quality and consistent supply of raw material
(primarily, carbohydrate crops). This may be seen as a value chain analogous to that of
the oil winning plant, the petrochemical refinery, and the plastics manufacturer and is
best represented by Cargill Dow’s value chain from corn wet milling (offsite) through
lactic acid fermentation to polylactic acid production
One notabledifference between these two value chains is that while the supply (and thus
the price) of oil may be subject to political conflicts and/or scarcity, industrial crops can
be grown within the national boundaries and are generally viewed as a politically secure
supply option. New uncertainties, however, are introduced due to the effects on crops of
weather, disease and pests. Crops are also not as easily stored as petroleum.
Another important impact of the new value chain is that while petrochemical complexes
are ideally located close to the oil supply (typically, a port) large-scale bio-based
polymer plants are most economically placed in an agricultural region. In the longer
term, this could be expected to lead to a diversification of the industrial base and an
increase in infrastructure in agricultural areas while reducing the intensity of industry in
the vicinty of (overcrowded) ports/coastal areas where petrochemical refineries and
associated chemical plants are typically sited.

Figure 5-1: Synergies and collaborations in the emerging bio-based polymer

industry
Bulk Volume Integrated Process

Producers Development
enter Biotech
Cargill Dow,
P&G DuPont
Toyota ‘Biorefinery concept’
Bio-based
Polymers
New Supply Chain Chemical +

(Agricultural + Chemical) Biotech
Collaborations
Cargill + Dow – Cargill Dow
Toyota + Mitsui – Toyota Bio P&G + Kaneka
Indonesia BASF + Metabolix
DuPont + Genencor
Cargill Dow +
The bio-based polymer industry is thus characterised by new synergies and

collaborations, with strong links to biotechnology, with nanotechnology (e.g. addition
of nanoparticle clay to PLA for improved thermal properties; starch polymer fillers for
tyres) starting to play a role. Higher value-added products within the main market
sectors are being targeted; e.g. Sony PLA Walkman™, starch-blend foils for food
packaging. This view of development is also supported by todays’ major producers,
who more or less uniformly state that innovation must play an important role alongside
substitution in gaining market share for bio-based polymers. As an example, P&G is
developing applications for PHA polymers both to fill material performance gaps and to
meet the demand for biodegradable short-life products (e.g. nappy backing material).
Today, numerous activities related to bio-based polymers are under way involving both
small to medium enterprises (SME) and large scale chemical companies in Europe
(EU-15), the US, and Japan, with some participation from Australia, Latin America
and other Asian countries. Technology push features strongly in the activities of all
major players. Innovative products are now on the market in the packaging, electrical
& electronics, and agricultural sectors (see Table 2-35), and according to P&G
(2003), numerous requests and ideas for new products from bio-based polymers are
submitted by customers each week. While we can be reasonably accurate in identifying
the handful of current major bio-based polymer producers (including Cargill Dow,
Novamont, Rodenburg, Biotec) and some companies quite clearly state their intentions
to enter the market (Hycail, Toyota, P&G, DuPont); there are still a lot of unknown
future players in the market, since companies are generally reluctant to disclose
information at the pre-commercial stage. Shell, BP, and Bayer are among the major
companies exploring (or in some cases revisiting) options for using bio-based
feedstocks for the production of polymers and bulk chemicals. Aside from the detailed
company plans presented in Chapter 2, a few companies have provided the authors of
this report with confidential information concerning their plans for bio-based polymers;
among these: one European company is preparing the construction of a bio-based
polyester production facility in a tropical country; and a large-scale Japanese enterprise

is currently developing a strategy for the extension of their product portfolio towards
bio-based polymers.
While the interest in bio-based polymers at the company level essentially boils down to
a combination of new market opportunities and more sustainable solutions for
established markets, national or regional interests served by bio-based polymers differ
substantially at present: in the US, resource security and resource utilisation are
paramount; in Japan, a recent strong drive towards products with a green image (e.g.
Panasonic, Teijin and Toyota); in Europe, resource utilisation, GHG, and
compostability). It is expected that by 2010 there will be a much greater alignment of
national interests steering bio-based polymer development at the global scale; with
environmental benefits and biodegradability coming to the fore, together with a stronger
focus on renewable feedstocks. For Europe, other important issues will be land
allocation, socio-economic effects (e.g. job-creation in agriculture); and the ongoing
debate concerning genetically modified organisms.
Behaviour of actors and obstacles

While patents are often considered to determine the course of an industry’s
development, patents filed in the bio-based polymers sector do not seem to be perceived
as an insurmountable obstacle. This may be attributed to two main reasons: in the first
place, some of the basic technology was patented a long time ago and is therefore
equally available to all current players. Secondly, there is no uniform strength and
reliability of patents in the various world regions; for example, European producers
consider U.S. patents to be relatively easily contestable in Europe. These two reasons
explain why despite the fact that Cargill Dow has filed patents in Europe, Hycail,
Inventa-Fischer, Snamprogetti and possibly further European actors are seriously
working on implementation strategies for PLA.
Because the bio-based polymer industry is still in its infancy, there is a lack of
experience with bio-based consumer goods. Products now emerging on the market (see
Table 2-35) are thus in many cases the prototypes or pioneers. These products will play
an important role in shaping public perception, which could fall either way. Taking the
example of the fibres market: if the new bio-based fibres fail to meet these performance
requirements within their target markets (e.g. sports clothing), this could prove to be a
major setback to producers. If, on the other hand, bio-based fibres live up to
expectations for e.g. moisture wicking, comfort and strength, these fibres may be
expected to gain recognition as belonging to an ‘own’ category alongside
petrochemical-based synthetic fibres, natural fibres and man-made cellulosics, and of
sporting both the ‘high-tech’ label as well as the ‘natural’ label.
Further to the subject of consumer perception, Metzeler (2003) presents the argument
(in relation to PUR) that the public is often under the false impression that such a bio-
based material is less durable than the 100% petrochemical-derived equivalent. In the
Kassel project it was found that on the one hand, consumers were interested in principle
in purchasing a bio-based polymer product instead of a conventional polymer product.
However, according to the experience of one producer, most consumers were not
prepared to pay a higher price (even 5c higher) unless there were clearly perceived
performance improvements associated with the new bio-based polymer product
(Rodenburg, 2003). This is an example of one of the many hurdles that producers of

bio-based polymers must successfully clear in order to reach economic viability.

Another hurdle comes in the form of the polymer converter’s resistance to the
introduction of a new material. The existence of such hurdles can set back a company’s
plans to go bio-based, and lend weight to the notion that the government should actively
support company efforts to develop and market bio-based polymers, rather than simply
‘scheduling the transition’.
Apart from the innovators and leaders of the bio-based polymer world (i.e., those doing
the ‘pioneering and prototyping’, the herd instinct (imitation of competitors) also seems
to be at work. While this may be thought of as increasing the total momentum of bio-
based polymer developments, it also entails substantial risks to the emerging sector.
However, to a certain extent this is a feature of any technological innovation – whether
ultimately successful or not.
Little study has been done concerning the desires and views of the interested and
affected parties (e.g., consumers that will or do use products made of bio-based
polymers). Among them, consumers’ willingness to support the development of
products because of their superior environmental performance or conservation of
nonrenewable resources is a crucial element. However, consumer views are notoriously
complex and it is not sufficient to assume that because there is a willingness to pay for
one environmental good, this same support will accrue to bio-based polymers. This is
hence an area that should be addressed in future analyses.
5.2 Limitations of the report
A number of limitations to this study may be identified, particularly in relation to the

projections and to the environmental analysis.
Technology and product characterisation
In the first place, this study makes use of information obtained from personal
communications with representatives of current and prospective producers of bio-based
polymers. While these individuals are generally highly qualified in terms of their
technical knowledge and knowledge of the market, it must be clearly stated that no strict
cross-checking of the validity of information takes place, as opposed to literature
published in refereed journals. In some cases, pointers are also taken from trade journals
that are generally focused on industry needs and often make use of company press
releases announcing company intention (to build at location Y or produce X thousand
tonnes) rather than simply reporting annual production and tonnage sales. The literature
in the field of bio-based polymers is often focused on materials engineering (e.g. for
surgical implants) or microbiological engineering rather than process improvement and
innovations in the bulk materials sector. For these reasons, a pragmatic approach has
been taken, whereby the ‘best available source’ is quoted and any speculative elements
stated as clearly as possible.
In the study, the polymers of interest have been identified and the most attention given
to those with a foothold in the market. Five years ago, only starch-based polymers were
considered as having prospects for bulk production; now PLA is the largest type in
capacity terms, and in five years time it may well be other (partially) bio-based
polyesters such as PTT exhibiting the strongest growth and thereby polarising the field

of bio-based polymers into a set of ‘inherently biodegradable’ and one of ‘hardly

biodegradable’ materials.
Two main frames of reference may be considered when determining criteria for the
success of bio-based polymers. One is the company’s ability to produce a material of
consistent quality, to place this on the market at a competitive price and to develop the
market in co-operation with polymer processors and their clients. The other is the ability
of the material to meet all demands at both the bulk use stage (by the converter) and the
end use stage (consumer) so that the material is viewed by the customer as being an
appropriate substitute for the given application, or as an appropriate material for a novel
application. For both of these, the substitution potential is an important reference point.
This involves considering the full range of material properties for the bio-based
polymer, and placing these alongside the property set of equivalent petrochemical
polymers. Relative quantities for a given application need to be known, and relative
prices. Other less tangible qualities will also affect the extent to which substitution takes
place. As this field of knowledge is the domain of the polymer chemist, the materials
scientist and to a certain extent the marketing specialist, in this study polymer properties
are considered only cursorily and a weighting of ‘low’, ‘medium’ or ‘high’ substitution
potential (by polymer type) is used to make a first estimate of the maximum possible
substitution potential.
In determining the price competitiveness of each biopolymer, the economic optimum

for each of the bio-based polymers at any point in time is most accurately determined
based on a number of process specific parameters including the substrate-related yield,
productivity, final (or steady-state) concentration of the product in the fermentation
broth, and the % loss in the product recovery steps; which in turn are dependent on
technological developments. Analysis at this level, while undoubtedly being more
systematic and giving greater insight into specific processes (e.g. analysis of
bottlenecks, data sensitivities), is beyond the scope of this study. Instead it was chosen
to perform a meso level analysis for current and future price competitiveness by
compiling growth data at the company level and projecting this at the industry and
macro levels with the use of experience curves (Section 3.3).
Environmental assessment
While according to best practice the comparison of environmental impacts should be
based on the full life cycle of the product, the range of materials and the large number of
possible end products covered in this study render a product-by-product analysis
infeasible. As such, it was chosen to take a functional unit of one kilogram of polymer
in primary form (pellet/granule) for each polymer type or sub-type. A cradle-to-grave
approach (excluding the use phase) has been chosen. Assuming energy neutral
incineration (no net energy export) and assuming further that energy use for
transportation in the waste management stage may be neglected, it follows that the total
energy requirement of the system ‘cradle-to-grave’ is practically identical to that of the
system ‘cradle-to-factory-gate’; therefore the latter has been used. For greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, the results for each of the two system boundaries cannot be equated
due to the release of CO2 from fossil carbon embodied in the polymers (some fossil
carbon may be embodied in bio-based polymers and fossil carbon is definitely
embodied in petrochemical polymers which serve as the basis for comparison). For this
reason, the cradle-to-grave approach has been chosen for calculating GHG emissions.

For a more accurate analysis at the EU level, it would be necessary to know for all
(major) end products the share of each of the polymers involved in their production, the
weight, the transportation distances and modes and the mix of waste treatment
technologies applied including their key characteristics. While this may be possible for
a few end products, a simplified approach is unavoidable when calculating the impacts
for an entire group of materials (here: polymers) in a country or a region. It could,
however, be worthwhile to conduct several calculations for different types and
combinations of waste management technologies.
A note of caution should accompany the simplified approach referred to above:

Different biopolymers may have very different impacts in different localities at different
times. As such, the results presented in this report are generalities that apply to the
broad category of bio-based polymers. Since the body of current scientific knowledge
regarding the environmental impact of bio-based polymers is still growing substantially,
the relative uncertainty of reported impacts is still high.
The environmental impact categories covered in this study are energy use, GHG
emissions and land use. Lack of data due to the early stage of technology development
and variations in life cycle assessment methodologies found in published studies are
among the reasons for choosing to focus on a limited number of impact categories.
Other impact categories (e.g. human and environmental toxicity, water quality, soil
fertility) are likely to be very significant for these materials, but cannot be assessed.
Making general conclusions about the environmental desirability of bio-based polymers
is thus not justified on the basis of this limited assessment. It is quite possible that
inclusion of other impact categories might make biopolymers even more attractive from
an environmental perspective, but this is not known with any certainty.
In terms of specific polymer types, the quality and availability of data for conducting
environmental impact assessments varies considerably: for starch and PHA, several
studies are available though each is limited to specific products (e.g. modified starch,
P(3HB); for PLA one study has been published by Cargill Dow; and own estimates had
to be made for the group of potentially bio-based polyesters (PTT, PBT, PBS).
In Section 5.1 some impacts associated with the new value chain for bio-based
polymers were identified. Taking a broader view of this, it is clear that the transition
from petroleum-based polymers to bio-based polymers and associated with this will
bring to the fore many additional environmental impacts, some of which are not yet
fully appreciated by society and the scientific community alike. Society will most likely
evaluate the impacts of an industrial feedstock based system quite differently to that of a
primarily food-based agricultural production system. An appraisal of these factors is
beyond the scope of this study; additional research is required to address this. Again,
these limitations necessarily limit the conclusions which may reasonably drawn by
policy-makers and others based on the content of this report.
To summarise: while the quality and availability of data for conducting environmental
impact assessments for the long term is not fully satisfying, in view of the final results
the information basis may be considered sufficient for this type of study.

Influencing factors and projections

The study is by nature subject to major uncertainties, since a set of assumptions must be
drawn up about how technologies and markets will develop between the present time
and 2020. Expectations change from year to year with regard to both the extent and the
direction of technological development; particularly in the field of molecular
engineering of microorganisms. As an example, DuPont and Genencor have been
successful in significantly improving productivity with a new bioprocess to 1,3-
propanediol. On the other hand, failure of a key player (as experienced by Monsanto
some years ago) could have a substantial negative effect on the ‘self-confidence’ of the
emerging bio-based polymer industry and consequently slow down the dynamics. In
this study, attempts have been made to account for such uncertainties related to
influencing factors and projections by distinguishing between three scenarios: a base
case without policies and measures (P&M), a case with P&M (the most likely case) and
an optimistic high growth case. As stated in Section 3.0, while these scenarios should
not be mistaken for forecasts, they are nevertheless of crucial importance in developing
a strategy. We believe that these three scenarios adequately address the range of
possible developments for the bio-based polymer industry up until the year 2020 and
allow for a comprehensive analysis of the effects thereof.
To conclude, we believe that we have made, wherever necessary, appropriate

choices to avoid false conclusions. Scenario analysis is applied to account for
diverse future trajectories. However, as for every study concerning the future, a
large degree of uncertainty cannot be avoided. The reader is therefore requested to
keep in mind this limitation and is referred to the “Note of caution” at the
beginning of this study.
5.3 Substitution potential and growth projections
In Chapters 2 and 3, estimates have been made firstly for the technical substitution
potential and then for more realistic production scenarios that implicitly take into
account price differentials and other influencing factors.
For the technical substitution potential, the material property set of each bio-based
polymer was compared to that of each petrochemical-based polymer, a score given for
the maximum percent substitution and these scores added up to give a total (Tables
2.31a and 2.31b). For EU-15, it is estimated that up to 14.7 million tonnes or 34% of the
total current polymer production could be substituted with bio-based plastics. For the
smaller synthetic fibres market, maximum substitution amounts to 700 thousand tonnes
or 20% of EU-15 production. For total polymers (plastics plus fibres), the maximum
substitution potential of bio-based polymers in place of petrochemical-based
polymers is thus estimated at 15.4 million tonnes (2002 terms), or 33% of total
polymers (time independent). An important point concerns the apportioning of market
share due to novel applications on the one hand and direct substitution on the other.
This has been addressed by assuming as follows: at low volumes (i.e. the current
situation), novel applications may represent a significant percentage of the total volume
of bio-based polymers; but the higher the volume of bio-based polymers, the larger the
amount of petrochemical polymers that are directly substituted by bio-based polymers.

Before attempting to make growth projections, an analysis of influencing factors along

the value chain for the whole life cycle of bio-based polymers is called for. This is
addressed in Chapter 3.1: main influencing factors are first identified in a mind map
(Figure 3-1); these factors are then organized into stages in the value chain (Figure 3-2
and Section 3.1); and key influencing factors and their impeding or stimulating impacts
further qualified in Table 3.1. What we see from this analysis is that there are a large
number of economic, social, ecological and technological influencing factors relating to
the bio-based polymer value chain; and that the relationship between these must
somehow be weighted to enable value judgements about possible growth scenarios to be
made. This weighting takes place in section 3.1.2, where out of the consistency matrices
of influencing factors (Figures 3-3 to 3-5) three scenarios emerge: WITHOUT P&M
(policies and measures); WITH P&M and HIGH GROWTH.
Projections for production volumes of bio-based polymers were then made by

considering information on the supply of polymers according to company growth
expectations, comparing this with market demand by application area, and developing
time series that take these supply and demand expectations as well as economies of
scale into account. Results obtained (Chapter 3.4) show that with a growth rate in the
order of 40-50% p.a. for 2000-2010 (i.e. factor 20 to 40 growth between 2002 and
2010); and 6-12% p.a. for 2010-2020, growth rates of bio-based polymers are
substantial, providing strong evidence that this is an emerging business. Bio-based
polymers will continue to penetrate the polymer market. In absolute terms, they are
projected to reach a maximum of 1 million tonnes by 2010 in the scenario WITH
P&M and max. 1.75-3.0 million tonnes by 2020 in the scenarios WITH P&M and
HIGH GROWTH respectively. While these are sizable quantities a one million tonne
growth in bio-based polymers corresponds to a 10 million tonne growth in
petrochemical polymers. Thus, the market share of bio-based polymers will
remain very small, in the order of 1-2% by 2010 and 1-4% by 2020. For 2020 with the
HIGH GROWTH scenario, somewhat higher market shares are reached: bio-based
polymers increase by a maxiumum of 3,000 t while petrochemical polymers increase by
25,000 t; the difference still being a factor of 8.
Going one step further and comparing the maximum (technical) substitution potential
estimated in Chapter 2.8 with the projected volume of bio-based polymers according to
the three scenarios in Chapter 3.4 (see Table 5.1), it is apparent that there is a sizeable
gap between the share of bio-based polymers according to the maximum substitution
potential (33%), and the projected share, even in the case of the HIGH GROWTH
scenario (4.3%; thus a gap of 29%). This firstly shows that there is, in principle,
substantial scope for further growth beyond the HIGH GROWTH scenario. Secondly it
strengthens the conclusion drawn above that bio-based polymers, while growing rapidly
in absolute volumes, will not provide a major challenge, nor present a major threat,
to conventional petrochemical polymers. On the other hand it should firstly be noted
that this report discusses exclusively the possible developments in Europe (EU-15)
while bio-based polymers might enjoy higher growth rates in other world regions
(such as Asia). Secondly, it must be recalled here that this report is based on
information on commercialised and emerging bio-based polymers. Other bio-based
polymers which are currently in an earlier phase of R&D are not taken into account
even though some of them might be produced on a respectable scale towards the end of
the projection period of this report (year 2020). Bio-based chemicals that are not used
for polymer production (e.g. solvents, lubricants and surfactants and other intermediates

and final products) are outside the scope of this report; if they develop favourably, this
could reinforce also the growth of bio-based polymers.
Table 5-1: Projected market share of bio-based polymers according to three

scenarios and the maximum (technical) substitution potential
Production in million tonnes 2000 2002 2010 2020

Petrochemical polymers,
6
production in 10 t 44.9 47.3 57.4 70
Bio-based polymers, production
6
in 10 t
- Without P&M 0.018 0.025 0.05 0.875
- With P&M 0.018 0.025 1.00 1.75
- High Growth 0.018 0.025 1.00 3
- Max substitution - 15.61 18.94 23.1
Market share of bio-based
polymers, %
- Without P&M 0.04% 0.05% 0.09% 1.25%
- With P&M 0.04% 0.05% 1.74% 2.50%
- High Growth 0.04% 0.05% 1.74% 4.29%
- Max substitution - 33.00% 33.00% 33.00%
Further considering the growth projections, it may be concluded that while

petrochemical polymers will continue to have a much stronger position in the polymers
market, the bio-based polymers industry is an emerging competitive business which is
considered to have a better chance in the growth phase of polymers (as a group of
materials), i.e. in the now/near-term future, than in the maturity stage (medium/long-
term future). Thus, time may be a critical issue in establishing a favourable environment
for bio-based polymers should the EU wish to strengthen its global competitive basis in
this industry.
5.4 Environmental, economic and societal effects
Energy and GHG emission savings in specific terms were found to be 20-50 GJ/t
polymer and 1.0-4.0 t CO2eq/t polymer respectively (in Chapter 4.2.1). Bio-based
polymers are thus very attractive in terms of specific energy and emissions savings.
In absolute terms, savings are rather small: as a proportion of the total EU chemical
industry, energy savings amount to 0.5-1.0% by 2010, up to 2.1% by 2020; compared
to the total EU economy the figures are 0.1% until 2010 and 0.2% until 2020 (Chapter
4.3.1). Greenhouse gas emissions savings amount to 1-2% by 2010, up to 5% by 2020;
compared to the total EU economy the figures are 0.1% until 2010 and 0.2% until
2020. Bio-based polymers therefore cannot offset the additional environmental burden
due to the growth of petrochemical polymers (which is understandable in view of a gap
of a factor of about 20 to 40). It is also out of the question that, within the next two
decades, bio-based polymers will be able to meaningfully compensate for the
environmental impacts of the economy as a whole. However, it is not unthinkable that
the boundary conditions for bio-based polymers and the energy system will change
dramatically in the decades after 2020, e.g. due to substantially higher oil prices. If,
ceteris paribus, bio-based polymers would ultimately grow ten times beyond the HIGH
GROWTH projection for 2020 (i.e., to about 30 million tonnes), this could avoid half
of the chemical sector’s current GHG emissions, without accounting for major

technological progress that should have been made until then. These considerations for
the very long term do not justify any concrete (policy) action today, they are rather
intended to demonstrate the implications of the comparatively low production volumes
until 2020 (compare also per capita values in Table 3-3).
While bio-based polymers can contribute to energy savings and GHG emission
reduction compared to petrochemical polymers, their production obviously entails the
use of land. The results of the calculations on land use requirements (Chapter 4.3.1)
show that by 2010 a maximum of 125,000 ha may be used for bio-based polymers in
Europe and by 2020 an absolute maximum of 975,000 ha (High Growth Scenario).
Comparing this with total land use in EU-15 for various purposes, shows that if all bio-
based polymers were to be produced from wheat, land requirements range from 1%
WITH P&M to 5% in the case of HIGH GROWTH. As a proportion of total cereals
these figures are a factor 2 lower. Compared to total set-aside land (1997 values), the
percentage of land required ranges from 3.6% to 15.4%; as a percentage of industrial
crops the range is similar. Bio-based polymers are thus seen to have modest land
requirements and will not cause any strain within the EU on agricultural land
requirements in the near future. There could, however be some conflict of interest
with bioenergy crops for utilisation of set aside or industrial crop land after 2010
in the case of HIGH GROWTH.
One socio-economic effect of the growth of bio-based polymers will be to generate

employment in the agricultural industry by utilising land that will otherwise be set
aside. Net employment effects for the three scenarios are as follows: WITHOUT P&M,
500 extra fte will be employed; WITH P&M, 1000 fte; and for High Growth, 4500 fte.
The employment potential in the agricultural sector is thus very limited.
Summarising the potential environmental and socio-economic effects it may be

concluded that while environmental effects in specific terms are high, effects in
absolute terms relative to those of total industry or society are low. Job creation
potential is also low. It must be emphasized that these relatively low contributions
have their reason in the comparatively low production volumes of bio-based
polymers until 2020. Even so, the societal ramifications may be significant and
positive in the “green chemistry” arena, for education, for the image of the
companies involved (including producers and users of bio-based polymers) and
ultimately also for the innovation climate.
An additional positive impact of bio-based polymers is that coupled with the growth and
development of the bio-based polymers market is a reduction in the economic
risk/uncertainty associated with reliance on petroleum imported from unstable regions
such as the Middle East, Angola, and Venezuela. In many ways, the volatility of oil
price has as great an economic impact as the absolute price of oil. Biobased products
may have their own price volatility due to natural factors, but they may still usefully
serve as a hedge against uncertainty in oil prices. This point has been studied in detail
elsewhere (see e.g. Lovins et al., 2004) and is indeed one of substantial weighting in the
global political arena today.

6. Policy recommendations
The preceding chapters have shown that the main societal benefits of bio-based
polymers are
• the reduction of potential environmental impacts (studied for energy and greenhouse
gas emissions),
• the exploitation of new synergies and collaborations with other emerging areas, most
notably with biotechnology44 and nanotechnology but also with established polymer
chemistry,
• an – albeit low - increase of income and employment in the agricultural sector,
• opportunities for growth and improved products in many important areas of polymer
use, especially in packaging, automotive, electrical & electronics and the agricultural
sector and
• the contribution to a positive attitude towards technological innovations that serve
societal goals.
While only a limited number of quantitative indicators (mainly energy, GHG emissions,
land use and employment) could be studied in this report it is important to realise that
no obvious disadvantages could be identified for bio-based polymers. According to the
insight gained in this study bio-based polymers are fully consistent with the European
Union’s “Integrated Product Policy” (IPP)”, the central aim of which is that "the
products of the future shall use less resources, have lower impacts and risks to the
environment and prevent waste at the conception stage” (IPP, 2001). Given this
outcome which is, in principle, clearly in favour of bio-based polymers, the next
questions seem to be
1. whether bio-based polymers need any policy support and if so;
2. which objective(s) (e.g. competitiveness, diffusion of consumer acceptance) should
be pursued and how the targets should be set;
3. which Policies and Measures (P&Ms) should be implemented toward this end; and
4. at what level bio-based polymers should be supported.
This chapter cannot give any final answers to these four questions but it can provide
some hints and indications.
6.1 Considerations about the need of policy support, an adequate

support level and the implications of implementation
Both the question as to whether bio-based polymers require any policy support
(Question No. 1), and if so, at what level (Question No. 4), can be answered by taking
into account the developments and requirements in other policy domains. Both
questions are related to a requirement that any policy or measure should fulfill, i.e. to
44
For the application of biotechnology for the production of bulk chemicals, the expression “White
Biotechnology” has been coined (see for example Sijbesma, 2003).

maximise cost effectiveness and to avoid “free riding”. The term “free riding” is, in this
particular case, used to describe the problem of providing benefits to induce behaviour
in a recipient who would have acted in the desired way without inducement. Freeriders
reduce the cost-effectiveness of a measure (in the extreme case: zero cost-effectiveness).
A first attempt to answer Question No. 1 and No. 4 has been made in Section 4.5.2 by
using the public expenses for supporting green electricity from biomass to estimate the
equivalent for bio-based polymers. Assuming a comparable funding level based on the
amount of primary energy saved, we estimate an equivalent level of financial support of
0.1-0.2 EUR per kg of bio-based polymer (see Section 4.5.2). This means that the
society’s willingness to pay for green electricity (from biomass) can translate into a
level of financial support that would help to improve the competitiveness of bio-
based polymers.
With regard to implementation, a few practical aspects need to be taken into account.
Firstly, a suitable way of administrative implementation would need to be found. To
this end, one could possibly adopt similar approaches as those implemented for green
electricity (feed-in tariffs or tradable certificates). If the idea is followed that the degree
of reduction of environmental impacts should determine the level of the financial
support (as is the case for feed-in tariffs or tradable certificates), then this could require
quite an ambitious monitoring and verification system. In view of the complexity of
chemical processes and products and the restrictions to the information flow for reasons
of confidentiality, this may lead to a considerable administrative burden (for both the
company and the government) and hence to rather high transaction cost. On the other
hand, the limited number of actors and facilities now and also in the medium-term
future helps to limit the transaction cost and makes this area in principle amenable to
well-targeted policies . While it is difficult to make a tradeoff, it seems safe to say that
the transaction cost will be higher for bio-based polymers than for green
electricity. The high administrative effort could possibly even make implementation of
such a model rather unattractive for some companies of the bio-based polymer industry.
The latter disadvantages are not present in other forms of financial support, such as a
reduction of VAT rates (Section 4.5.2), with the disadvantage of lower specificity (no
distinction between differences in energy savings across the different types of bio-based
polymers). Apart from lower transaction cost (in regular implementation) a reduction of
VAT rates might also have the advantage of a lower risk of litigation.
A thorough discussion about reduction of VAT rates would actually require a

comprehensive overview of all existing fiscal measures and subsidies that may
ultimately influence the final prices of both bio-based polymers and petrochemical
polymers in a decisive way and hence also clearly infuence the relative competitiveness.
While it is not part of this project to study these issues, it seems important to point out
two areas which may require further investigations in this regard. These are firstly
subsidies to the agricultural sector and secondly tax exemptions for the feedstock
use of fossil fuels. While the first is not expected to have any major impact on the
current final prices of bio-based polymers (due to the world market price level and the
low cost share of agricultural inputs to the process chain), the latter could have a

dampening effect on the price level of petrochemical polymers.45 Assuming full tax
deduction of the naphtha feedstock only (avoided taxes amounting to about 2 EUR/GJ
naphtha46) and combining this with the heating value of a polymer (assumed:
polyethylene, PE) or – alternatively – with the cradle-to-factory gate energy use of this
polymer – leads to an equivalent of 0.10 to 0.15 EUR/kg polymer. This is a
conservative47 first estimate which should be checked and possibly corrected. If it
proves to be correct, then
• the current financial support for petrochemical polymers by tax exemption of
the feedstocks is in the same range as the level of financial support discussed
above for bio-based polymers.
• only after introduction of a similar support for bio-based polymers as currently
received by petrochemical polymers, a level playing field would be established.
• the current production of 45 million tonnes of petrochemical polymers would be
equivalent to a hidden subsidy of 4.5-6.75 billion EURO and the additional
growth by 2020 would imply an extra 1.25-1.9 billion EURO until 2010 and 2.5-
3.8 billion EURO until 2020.
Further analysis is recommended on these issues.
A limiting factor for future policy for bio-based polymers could be its affordability if,
after some years, high production volumes are reached. A first lower estimate of the
cost of supportive P&Ms for bio-based polymers in line with the discussion above can
be made by multiplying a VAT reduction of 4% with the production value. For the
latter, (upper) estimates amounting to 1-2 billion EUR by 2010 (scenarios WITH P&M
and HIGH GROWTH) and 3-6 billion EUR by 2020 (scenario HIGH GROWTH)
(discussed in Section 4.5.1). This results in total expenditures (or rather: lost state
income) of 40-80 million EUR by 2010 and 120-240 million EUR by 2020. In order to
draw a first conclusion (beyond the scope of this study), these values, which refer to a
very successful development of the bio-based polymer industry, should be compared
with government spendings for other sectors including the tax exemptions for fossil
feedstocks. If the estimates for the latter in the preceding paragraph prove to be in
the right ballpark, then the potential hidden expenses for bio-based polymers
quoted above do not seem prohibitively high.
Except for those estimates in the last paragraph the considerations in this Section (6.1)
do not build on long-term projections for production volumes and future environmental
effects and they are therefore not subject to the Note of Caution at the very beginning of
this report. Neverthess it is recommended that further investigations be conducted in
order to check and substantiate the estimates made in this section.
45
This statement should not be interpreted as recommendation to remove the tax exemption of
petrochemical feedstocks if important competitors in non-EU countries have similar policies in place
since this could seriously affect the competitiveness of the European chemical industry.
46
Estimated on the basis of IEA (2000b).
47
The estimate is conservative because the gross feedstock input to steam crackers is higher than the
total amount of high-value chemicals produced in steam crackers plus the process energy to drive the
cracking process. The reason is that fuel byproducts are also produced and returned to the refinery.

6.2 Overview of possible policies and measures to promote bio-

based polymers
Using the policies and measures (P&Ms) for bioenergy as a starting point, the
discussion in the preceding section revolved around different ways of providing tangible
financial support to the emerging bio-based polymer industry. While these P&Ms are
rather expensive, there are other possibilities to promote bio-based polymers that differ
also with regard to their objectives. These options are discussed in this section, thereby
linking up with the question of which objective(s) should be pursued and with which
targets (see above, Question No. 2) and which policies and measures (P&Ms) should be
implemented to achieve these objectives (Question No. 3).
A wide range of P&Ms can be implemented in order to increase the market share of bio-
based polymers. Table 6-1 provides an overview of policies and measures (P&Ms) for
bio-based materials in general (referred to as renewable raw materials, RRM), which is
equally relevant to bio-based polymers. Apart from bio-based polymers the group of
RRMs comprises bio-based lubricants, solvents and surfactants. An earlier version of
Table 6-1 was originally prepared by the Working Group “Renewable Raw Materials”
(RRM Working Group) under the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP). The
RRM Working Group also prepared an overview of P&Ms for bio-based polymers; this
overview is included in the appendix (Appendix 4) and not in this chapter since it is
strongly directed towards biodegradable polymers while this study deals with bio-based
polymers – whether they are biodegradable or not.
Table 6-1: Suggested general policies and measures to promote wider use of
renewable raw materials (RRM) *) (modified table from ECCP,
2001)
Suggested policies and measures Objective

1. Medium and longer term RD&D Improve scope of application as well as technical
(research, development and and economic performance by basic and applied
demonstration) RD&D. Provide a range of (bio-degradable
among others) additives for bio-based polymer
processors
2. Standardisation Harmonised standards (e.g. on composting)
3. Public procurement Facilitating commercialisation, creating
economies of scale and contributing to higher
awareness
4. Limited fiscal and monetary support (e.g. Facilitating commercialisation, creating
reduced VAT rate) economies of scale
5. Inclusion in the CAP (Common Secure, sufficient and stable supply of biomass
Agricultural Policy) feedstocks
6. Inclusion of RRM in climate and product CO2 credits for manufacturers/users of RRMs,
policy e.g. represented by tradable Green Certificates
7. Adaptation of waste legislation and waste Improve infrastructure for separate collection and
management treatment of biodegradable materials (especially
polymers and financial incentives for the
consumer, lower waste costs for consumers)

Suggested policies and measures Objective

8. Awareness raising among consumers, • Create a wide public understanding about the
processors and producers (top possibilities and the environmental benefits of
management) of RRM RRMs (conferences, workshops, information
campaigns, courses, seminars and giving
companies the opportunity to learn from
positive examples)
• Provide for coherent approach and political
attention for the short, medium and long term,
possibly by means of a European Commission
inter-service task force
*) RRM is used here as a synonym for bio-based materials. Apart from bio-based polymers the group of
RRMs comprises bio-based lubricants, solvents and surfactants.
In the following the P&Ms proposed in Table 6-1 will be briefly discussed.
Recommendations will be given for bio-based polymers, thereby linking up with
relevant activities in the EU and in non-EU countries.
1. Medium and longer term RD&D (research, development and demonstration)

Further RD&D into bio-based polymers, including critical technologies such as
biotechnology and nanotechnology, is crucial. The European Commission is con-
tinuing its RD&D funding in these areas under the 6th Framework Programme. It
will have to be critically assessed whether the change in the funding strategy when
shifting from the 5th to the 6th Framework Programme was justified and which
conclusions can be drawn. In this context, the experience in other countries,
especially in the U.S., should be taken into account, where sizable awards have
recently been granted to consortia of large scale bio-based polymer producers,
universities, research organisations and SMEs (e.g. the Integrated Corn-Based
Bioproducts Refinery (ICBR) project with partners DuPont, NREL, Diversa
Corporation, Michigan State University and Deere & Co. (NREL, 2003). More
information about the U.S. policy on bio-based products can be found in
Appendix 5.
2. Standardisation
By defining and enforcing minimum quality levels for products and processes,
standardisation is a necessary condition for the creation of a large common
market that is an important requirement to realize economies of scale. For
example, in the past 1-2 years much effort has been put into the standardisation of
compostability. While standardisation is undoubtedly important, it requires little
to no direct input by policy makers (which is the focus of this Chapter 6).
3. Public procurement
Public procurement has been successfully applied to environmentally benign
products. Within Europe, ample experience seems to be available especially in
Switzerland where a contact point has been set up for environmental public
procurement at the federal level48 and where several initiatives exist at the
municipal level. In the U.S, the EPA Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
Program has been set up (see Appendix 5). Under sponsorship of the EPA
Purchasing Program, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a calculation tool called BEES
48
In German: Fachstelle umweltorientierte öffentliche Beschaffung.

(Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability) has been developed

that follows the principles of environmental life cycle assessment and is meant to
help in making federal purchase decisions (BEES, 2003). In BEES, special
attention is being paid to bio-based products.
4. Limited fiscal and monetary support (e.g. reduced VAT rate)
As discussed above in Section 4.5.2 and Section 6.1, a fiscal or monetary support
of 0.1-0.2 EUR/kg bio-based (for the long term and for the short term
respectively) would be equivalent to the widely accepted public spending on
green electricity. It would help to improve the competitiveness of bio-based
polymers and is recommended for further analyses. In this context, also tax
exemptions for the feedstock use of fossil fuels should be studied with regard to
their effects on the relative competitiveness of bio-based versus petrochemical
polymers.
5. Inclusion in the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy)
Pursuing the objective of a secure, sufficient and stable supply of biomass
feedstocks. The inclusion of bio-based polymers (as part of RRM) in the CAP can
be expected to become particularly important when bio-based polymers start to be
produced in very large volumes, e.g. beyond 1 million tonnes. In the meantime
the policy pursued for set-aside land, i.e. to reserve it for bioenergy, may
have to be rethought. The reason is that recent analysis by Dornburg et al.
(2003) has shown bio-based materials to be more attractive in terms of
efficient land use than bioenergy. It is recommended to policy makers that they
consider this insight in their deliberations.
Another, largely independent, recommendation is to make use of the experience
gained by the U.S. Department of Enery and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) since the start of their U.S. 2020 Vision of Plant/Crop-
Based Renewable Resources (DOE, 1998; 1999; compare Appendix 5).
6. Inclusion of RRM in climate and product policy
As indicated in Section 4.5.2 and Section 6.1, tradable Green Certificates could
be a suitable instrument to incorporate bio-based polymers into climate policy.
As a precondition, a trading scheme with Green Certificates would first have to
be established. It seems recommendable to investigate this further and to make
also comparisons with other instruments (e.g. reduction of VAT etc.).
Compared to the inclusion in the Green Certificate Scheme, integration of bio-
based polymers in the EU Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is expected to be
relatively unattractive for the bio-based industry, due to the comparatively low
value of the so-called emission allowances.
Regarding the EU product policy, no recommendation can be made at this stage
since it is not clear what shape it will take and how bio-based polymers could be
included.
7. Adaptation of waste legislation and waste management
Adaptation of legislation in the waste sector as put forward under the ECCP
(2001) mainly concerns the permission to compost biodegradable polymers.
There is serious controversy between stakeholders about the advantages and
disadvantages of composting and digestion on the one hand and incineration on
the other. Apart from GHG emissions and energy use, other parameters such as
nutrient recycle and natural carbon cycling and the quality and fertility of soil

play a role. Especially in the latter areas there are serious knowlegdge gaps; it is
recommended to close these before drawing policy conclusions.
8. Awareness-raising among consumers, processors and producers for RRM
It is important to ensure a coherent approach to RRM in the short, medium and
long term, possibly by means of a European Commission inter-service task force.
Such a task force should include representatives of DG Enterprise, DG
Agriculture, DG Transport & Energy and DG Environment. A European
Commission inter-service task force could act as contact for key players and
similar establishments in other countries/regions, such as the BT Strategy and
Biomass Nippon in Japan and the U.S. 2020 Vision of Plant/Crop-Based
Renewable Resources (DOE, 1998; 1999). It should be checked whether the
networks of government, industry and academia that have been established in
Japan and the U.S. can serve as a model also for the EU (compare Appendix 5).
The RRM Working Group could be associated to this inter-service task force and
could play a very useful role by creating the direct link to industry, institutes,
stakeholders and NGOs. Possibly the co-operation of the networks in Japan, the
U.S. and Europe should be stimulated.
6.3 Recent developments
As a follow-up to the RRM Working Group under the ECCP, the European RRM task
force was formed. The task force comprises companies, policy makers and academia. It
is jointly co-ordinated by the Directorate General Enterprise of the European
Commission (represented by Dr. Joachim Ehrenberg) and by the European Renewable
Resources and Materials Association (ERRMA, represented by Dr. Ian Bartle and Mr.
Dietrich Wittmeyer; Dr. Catia Bastioli for the working group on polymers). By
facilitating the replacement of fossil resources with RRMs, the task force aims to
promote sustainable development that was recently endorsed by the heads of EU States
and Governments at the summit in Gothenburg as one of the European Community’s
main political aims for the future. It its recent report (Ehrenberg, 2002) the task force
points out that the increased use of RRM-based materials is fully consistent with the
aims of the EU Sixth Environment Action Plan ‘Environment 2010: Our Future, Our
Choice’. RRMs are expected to play a beneficial role in all four environmental priority
areas, i.e.
• climate change
• nature and biodiversity
• environment and health and
• natural resources and waste.
Apart from advantages for the environment the report (Ehrenberg, 2002) identifies the
provision of a stable and secure resource supply, new and growing markets providing
economic benefits to industry and employment opportunities in processing industries
and the agricultural sector as the key benefits. It concludes: "EU policies and measures
would be required to establish a more supportive political framework for this industry
sector to prosper in the future". The following concrete steps are recommended
(Ehrenberg, 2002):

• Continued funding of research into RRMs and their applications, to encourage new
technical solutions and high performance products, co-ordinated at the EU level.
• Integrated product design, as already incorporated into the EU Integrated Product
Policy, to promote the development of sustainable products in a comprehensive
approach.
• Adaptation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to provide specific support for
non-food crops.
• Specification of Best Practice protocols for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for use
with existing decision supporting tools in industry’s Responsible Care programmes.
• Introduction of EU-wide market penetration programmes to create more attractive
cost/performance ratios and improve consumer awareness.
• Encouragement of industry to commit itself to voluntary agreements.
• New incentives to encourage the wider use of RRM, such as reduced rates of VAT
on RRM-based products and public procurement.
• Support for the establishment of common EU standards for RRM-derived products.
• Development of approved EU Eco-Labels.
• An awareness campaign to promote RRM, involving support for conferences and

concerted actions.
• EU co-ordinated measures for the waste management of polymers.
It is an important step forward that, in June 2002, the Industry and Energy Council of
the European Union explicitly mentioned Renewable Raw Materials in their
conclusions on the contribution of enterprise policy to sustainable development
(Council of the European Union, 2002): As one of its recommendations the Council
proposes to build on the report of the task force mentioned above (Ehrenberg, 2002) and
therefore calls on EU Member States and the European Commission to further
encourage the use of Renewable Raw Materials in manufacturing industry (Council of
the European Union, 2002).

7. References
Abe, H. and Doi, Y. (1999): Structural effects on enzymatic degradabilities for

poly[(R)-3-hydroxybutyric acid] and its copolymers. International Journal of
Biological Macromolecules 25: 185-192.
Aden, A.; Ruth, M.; Ibsen, K.; Jechura, J.; Neeves, K.; Sheehan, J.; Wallace, B.;
Mntague, L.; Slayton, A.; Lukas, J. (2002): Lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol
process design and economics utilizing co-current dilute acid prehydrolysis and
anzymatic hydrolysis for corn stover. Report prepared by the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden Colorado and the Harris Group, Seattle,
Akiyama, M.: Tsuge, T.; Doi, Y. (2003): Environmental life cycle comparison of
polyhydroxyalkanoates produced from renewable carbon resources by bacterial
fermentation. Polymer Degradation and Stability 80: 183-194.
Amass W., Amass A., Tighe B. (1998): A review of biodegradable polymers: uses,
current developments in the synthesis and characterization of biodegradable
polyesters, blends of biodegradable polymers and recent advances in biodegradation
studies. Polym Int, 47: 89-144.
Anex, R. (2004): Personal Communication with Dr. Robert Anex of Iowa State
University, Oct 7 2004.
API (2003). Website of the Alliance for the Polyurethanes Industry, Arlington, VA,
USA: http://www.polyurethane.org. Accessed 18 July 2003.
APME (2003): Consumption data by plastics type: thermoplastics in Western Europe
2000-2002. Website of the Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe.
http://www.apme.org. Accessed 1 Oct 2003.
ASA (American Soybean Association, 2003): Carpet Backing Made with SoyOyl
Introduced. Website of ASA, Illinois Soybean Farmer Leader Newsletter,
http://www.soybean.org.tw/biodiesel-6.htm. Accessed 8 December.
Asrar, J., Gruys, K.J. (2001): Biodegradable Polymer (Biopol®) in Biopolymers,
Polyesters I, vol 3a, Wiley-VCH, p. 53-90.
AzoM (2003): AzoM - Metals, Ceramics, Polymers, Composites, An Engineers Resource.
Website of AZoM.com Pty. Ltd. http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1998.
Accessed 25 Sep 2003.
Bastioli, C. (2003): Mater-Bi: Biodegradable Material for Various Applications, in
Steinbuchel, A. (ed): “Biopolymers”, Wiley-VCH.
BEES (Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability, 2003). Developed by
the Office of Applied Economics (OAE) at the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST). BEES homepage: http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees.html;
for bio-based products: http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees/please/USDA/
bees_please.html. Accessed 17 December 2003

BenBrahim, A. (2002): Degrade and Deliver. Royal Society of Chemistry, London UK.
Chembytes e-zine, April 2002. http://www.chemsoc.org/chembytes/ezine/2002/
benbrahim_apr02.htm. Accessed 11 September 2003.
Berndt, E.R (1991): The Practice of econometrics. Classic and Contemporary. Addison-
Wesley. Reading, MA.
BioMatNet (2003): Biodegradable polyesters from 1,3-propanediol and succinate
produced by fermentation of regrowing resources. http://www.nf-2000.org/secure/
Fair/F495.htm. Accessed 14 Oct 2003.
BioMatNet (2003): QLK5-1999-01298 BIOFOAM: Bio-source based recyclable poly
(ester-co-amide)s and poly (ester-co-urethane)s for industrial foam applications
http://www.nf-2000.org/secure/FP5/S1183.htm. Accessed 19 Jul 2003.
Biomer (2003): Website of Biomer, Krailling, Germany. http://www.biomer.de.
Accessed 12 August 2003.
Biomer (2003a): Personal Communication with Urs Haenggi of Biomer, Krailling,
Germany. 30 June 2003.
BIOP (2003). Website of BIOP Biopolymers AG. www.biopag.de.
Biopack (2003): Biopack: Short status after year 1. http://www.biopack.org/
publications/BIOPACK-shortstatusafter1year-final110303.pdf. Accessed 24 Jun
2003.
Biotec (2003). Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG, Emmerich,
Germany. http://www.biotec.de/engl/index_engl.htm. 20 August 2003.
Bohlmann, G., Yoshida, Y (2000): CEH Marketing Research Report Biodegradable
Polymers. Chemical Economics Handbook-SRI International. p.19.
Bohlmann, G.M. (2004): Process Economics of Biodegradable Polymers from Plants.
Lecture presented at the 227th ACS National Meeting, March 2004,
www.sriconsulting.com/SRIC/ Public/NewsEventsArt/ACSBohlmann.pdf. Accessed
10 Oct 2004.
Bohlmann, G.M. (2004): Process Economics of Biodegradable Polymers from Plants.
Lecture presented at the 227th ACS National Meeting, March 2004,
www.sriconsulting.com/SRIC/ Public/NewsEventsArt/ACSBohlmann.pdf. Accessed
10 Oct 2004.
Börgardts, P.; Krischke, W.; Trösch, W. (1998): Integrated bioprocess for the
simultaneous production of lactic acid and dairy sewage treatment. Bioprocess
Engineering , 19, 321-329
Boustead, I. (1999-2003) Eco-profiles of plastics and related intermediates (about 55
products). Prepared for the Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe
(APME). Downloadable from the internet (http://www.apme.org), Brussels,
Belgium.
BPS (2003): Industrial Biodegradable Plastics as Bio-based Materials in Japan.
Presentation by K. Ohshima, Biodegradable Plastics Society, (BPS), Tokyo, Japan.

International conference on Bio-based Polymers 2003 (ICBP), RIKEN, Japan, Nov

12-14 2003.
BPS (2003a): Private communication with K. Ohshima, Biodegradable Plastics Society,
(BPS), Tokyo, Japan, Dec 2003.
Brandrup J., Immergut E. H., Grulke E. A. (1999): Polymer Handbook, 4th ed. John
Wiley and Sons, New York. p 163.
Brandrup J., Immergut E. H., Grulke E. A. (1999): Polymer Handbook, 4th ed. John
Wiley and Sons, New York. p 163.
Braunegg, G., Bona, R., Koller, M. and Wallner, E (2002): Sustainable Polymeric
Materials from Renewable Resources and Agro-Industrial Waste. Expert Group
Meeting on Environmentally Degadable Plastics and Sustainable Development,
Trieste, Italy, 5-6 September 2002. Institute of Biotechnology, Graz University of
Technology, Austria.
BREW (2003): Medium and long-term opportunities and risks of the biotechnological
production of bulk chemicals from renewable resources (acronym: BREW). Ongoing
project conducted by ca. 15 institutes and companies in the field, funded by the
European Commission’s GROWTH programme and co-ordinated by Utrecht
University. http://www.chem.uu.nl/brew/
Brikett, D. (2000): 'A PET subject' chembytes e-zine. http://www.birkett_jul02.htm. 5
August 2003.
British Plastics (2003): DuPont plans commercial bio-manufacture of PTT (January 31
2003). Website of British Plastics and Rubber, Caterham, England.
http://www.polymerage.co.uk/archive59.htm#DuPont%20plans%20commercial%20
bio-manufacture%20of%20PTT. Accessed Sep 24, 2003.
Brown H., Casey, P. and Donahue, M. (2000): Poly(Trimethylene Terephthalate)
Polymer for Fibers (1 July 2000). Shell Chemical Company Westhollow Technology
Centre, Houston, Texas. http://www.technica.net/NF/NF1/eptt.htm. Accessed 24 Sep
2003.
Brydson, J.(1989): Plastics Materials, Fifth Edition. Butterworths.
C.A.R.M.E.N. (2001): Auf Sonnenblumen schlafen. Centrals Agrar-Rohstoff-
Marketing-und Entwicklungs-Netzwerk, Straubing, Germany. Dec.
Callihan, C., Clemme, J. (1979) in Rose, A (ed.): Microbial Biomass, Academic Press,
New York. p. 271, in: Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, Fifth
Edition. Wiley-VCH, 1997.
Cargill Dow (2003). Personal communication with Bob Springs of Cargill Dow
Polymers LLC, Naarden, the Netherlands. 3 June 2003.
Cargill Dow (2004). Website of Cargill Dow Polymers LLC.
http://www.cargilldow.com/ingeo/applications_furnishings.asp. Accessed 8 Oct
2004.

Carothers, W. H., Dorough, G.L., van Natta, F. J. (1932): Studies of polymerization and
ring formation. X. The reversible polymerization of six-membered cyclic esters. J.
Am. Chem. Soc., 54: 761-772.
Carpi, A. (2003): Carbohydrates. Visionlearning Vol. CHE-2 (5).
http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=61
CEFIC (European Chemical Industry Council, 2001). Brochure VEEP 2005. Brussels,
Belgium.
CEFIC (European Chemical Industry Council, 2002). Responsible Care Report 2002.
Brussels, Belgium. http://www.cefic.be/Files/Publications/RCreport2003.pdf.
Chahal, S. P. (1997): Lactic Acid. In: Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry
5th Edition, Wiley-VCH, 1997.
Chuah, H.(1996): CORTERRA Poly(trimethylene terephthalate) - New Polymeric Fiber
for Carpets. Paper presented at The Textile Institute Tifcon '96, November 6, 1996 in
Blackpool/UK. Shell Chemical Company, Houston, Texas, USA.
http://www.shellchemicals.com/chemicals/pdf/corterra/NewPolymericFiber.pdf
CIRFS (2003): Website of the International Rayon and Synthetic Fibres Committee.
Brussels, Belgium. Http://www.cirfs.org/index.asp. Accessed 11 Nov, 2003.
Clark, A. (2001): Low-cost sythesis and evaluation of polymers prepared from oilseed
rape and Euphorbia Lagas-cae oils. I: Project at University of Warwick, HGCA
Project Report No. OS47, Mar.
COM(2002) 27 final: Communication from the Commission to the Council, the
European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions: Life Sciences and Biotechnology – A Strategy for Europe, Brussels 2002,
p.6.
Cooper, J.S.; Vigon, B. (2001): Life Cycle Engineering Guidelines. Prepared by Balette
Columbus Laboartories (Columbus, Ohio) for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinatti, Ohio, report No. EPA/600/R-01/101, November 2001
Cornilks, B., Lappe, P. (1997): Dicarboxylic acids, Aliphatic. Introduction. In:
Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry 5th Edition, Wiley-VCH, 1997.
Corvasce, F. (1999) Environment friendly tire concepts using a biopolymeric filler
derived from starch. Goodyear Tires. Bioplastic Conference, 24.6.1999
Council of the European Union: Outcome of proceedings of the Industry and Energy
Council on 6 and 7 June 2002 (Industry) – Council conclusions on the contribution
of enterprise policy to sustainable development. 9938/02 – ECO 210 (OR. fr).
Brussels, 17 June 2002 (20.06)
CTS (2003) CTS Machinery, Keysborough, Australia. http://www.ctsmachinery.com.au/
glossary/default.asp?letter=&page=9. Accessed 23 Sep 2003.
Cyberlipid (2003): Dicarboxylic acids. http://www.cyberlipid.org/fa/acid0004.htm.
Accessed 07 Nov 2003.

Datta R, Tsai S-P, Bonsignore P, Moon S-H, Frank JR (1995). Technological and
economic potential of poly(lactic acid) and lactic acid derivatives. FEMS Microbiol
Rev 16/2-3: 221-231.
Datta, R. Tsai S-P (1998): Esterification of fermentation-derived acids via
pervaporation. WO 9823579 to The University of Chicago.
Dechema (2003): Trendreport No.12: Biotechnology. ACHEMA 2003: 27th
International Exhibition-Congress on Chemical Engineering, Environmental
Protection and Biotechnology. Frankfurt am Main, 19 - 24 May 2003. Website
Dechema e.V, Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany. http://aurum2.dechema.de/
achema2003/new/presse/tb12e.htm. Accessed 25 Sep 2003.
Degli Innocenti, F.; Bastioli, B. (2002): Starch-Based Biodegradable Polymeric
Materials and Plastics-History of a Decade of Activity. Presentation at UNIDO,
Trieste, Sep 5-6 2002. http://www.ics.trieste.it/documents/chemistry/plastics/
activities/egm-Sept2002/DegliInnocenti.pdf.
Dieterich, D.: Polyurethanes. Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, Fifth
Edition. Wiley-VCH, 1997.
Dinkel, F., Pohl, C., Ros, M., Waldeck, B. (1996): Ökobilanz stärkehaltiger Kunststoffe
(Nr. 271), 2 volumes. Study prepared by CARBOTECH, Basel, for the Bundesamt
für Umwelt und Landschaft (BUWAL), Bern, Switzerland
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy): Plant/crop-based renewable resources 2020 – A
vision to enhance U.S. economic security through plant/crop-based resource use.
DOE/GO-10098-385, Washington, 1998
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy): The technology roadmap for plant/crop-based
renewable resources 2020 – Research priorities for fulfilling a vision to enhance U.S.
economic security through renewable plant/crop-based resource use. DOE/GO-
10099-706, Washington, 1999
Dorgan,G. (2003): Polylactides: Plastics from Corn. EPA Science Forum on Emerging
Technologies, 2 July 2003. http://www.mines.edu/academic/chemeng/faculty/
jdorgan/Dorgan.EPASciForum.pdf
Dornburg, V., Lewandowski, I., Patel, M. (2003): Land requirements and energy
savings and greenhouse gas emission reduction by biobased polymers compared to
bioenergy - An analysis and system extension of LCA studies. Accepted by Journal
of Industrial Ecology.
DSM (2003): Personal communication with Peter Nossin of DSM N.V., Geleen, the
Netherlands. 22 April 2003.
DuPont (2003): SoronaTM. Website of du Pont de Nemours and Company.
http://www.dupont.com/sorona. Accessed 24 Sep 2003.
DuPont (2003a): SoronaTM: From polymer to fiber to fabric to future. Website of du
Pont de Nemours and Company. http://www.dupont.com/sorona/pdfs/
backgrounder.pdf. Accessed 24 Sep 2003.

DuPont (2003b): Personal communication with Watze de Wolf of du Pont de Nemours

and Company. 14 Nov 2003.
DuPont (2004): Press Release: DuPont and Tate & Lyle Form Bio-Products Joint
Venture. May 26, 2004.
ECCP (2001): European Climate Change Programme – Long Report. European
Commission, June 2001, pp.78-90, 2001
eFunda (2003): Engineering Fundamentals. Polymer material properties. Cellulosics.
http://www.efunda.com/materials/polymers/properties/polymer_datasheet.cfm?Major
ID=cellulose&MinorID=1. Accessed 23 Sep 2003.
Ehrenberg, J. (ed.): Current situation and future prospects of EU industry using
renewable raw material. Prepared by the Working Group "Renewable Raw
Materials", co-ordinated by the European Renewable Resources & Materials
Association (ERRMA). Brussels, 2002
Eibl, M.; Mengeng, B.; Alber, S. (1996): Ökobilanz von Lenzing Lyocell – Eine Stoff-
und Energiebilanz. Zweites Internationales Symposium “Alternative Cellulose –
Herstellen, Verformen, Eigenschaften“. Schloss Heidecksburg in Rudolstadt,
Germany, 4-5 September 1996
ENI (2001): Health Safety & Environment Report 2000. Downloadable from
http://www.eni.it/eniit/eni/servlet/view/eni/upload/press_center/documentazione/area
_governance_e_responsabilita_d_impresa/20_salute_sicurezza/_24eAy_0_xoidcmW
opk/HSE2002Eniingl.pdf?BV_UseBVCookie=Yes&lang=en. Accessed on 12
October 2003; see p. 56
ER (2000): Summary, European Report, Sept 26, 1998. Gale Group.
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0WXI/2345/53045098/p1/article.jhtml.
Estermann R., Schwarzwälder, B. (1998) Life cycle assessment of Mater-Bi bags for the
col-lection of compostable waste. Study prepared by COMPOSTO , for Novamont,
Novara, It-aly. Olten, Uerikon, Switzerland.
Estermann, R. (1998) Test von Säcken aus biologisch abbaubaren Werkstoffen für die
Grünabfallsammlung. Study prepared by COMPOSTO for the Kompostforum
Schweiz. Olten, Uerikon, Switzerland.
Estermann, R., Schwarzwälder, B., Gysin, B. (2000) Life cycle assessment of Mater-Bi
and EPS loose fills. Study prepared by COMPOSTO for Novamont, Novara, Italy.
Olten, Switzerland.
Estes, L., Sattler, H. et al. (1997): Fibers, 4. Synthetic Organic. In: Ullmann’s
Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, Fifth Edition. Wiley-VCH, 1997.
EUROSTAT (2003): Arable Land in the EU, 1975 to 1997. Report no. 89/2000.
Eurostat Press Office. http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/. 27 Jul 2000.
Ewire (2001): New Corn to Plastic Technology Receives Department of Energy Honors
(14 Mar 2001). http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm?Wire_ID=176.
Ewire (2002): Cargill Dow Technology Wins Presidential Green Chemistry Award (25
Jun 2002). http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm?Wire_ID=1217.

FAO (2003). Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN.

http://apps.fao.org/page/collections?subset=agriculture. Updated 10 June 2003.
Accessed 1 Dec 2003.
FAO (2003). Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN.
http://apps.fao.org/page/collections?subset=agriculture. Updated 10 June 2003.
Accessed 1 Dec 2003.
Fibresource (2003): Cellulose. American Fiber Manufacturers Association (AFMA),
Arlington, VA, USA. http://www.fibersource.com/f-tutor/cellulose.htm. Accessed 23
September 2003.
Fichtner et al.: Fichtner, W.; Ardone, A.; Tsai, W.; Wietschel, M.; Rentz, O. (1996): Die
Wirtschaftlichkeit von CO2-Minderungsoptionen. Energiewirtschaftliche Tages-
fragen, No. 46 (1996), volume 8, p.504, 1996
Foodstarch (2003): Dictionary of Food Starch Terms. Website of the National Starch
and Chemical Company. http://www.foodstarch.com/dictionary/s.asp. Accessed 30
September 2003.
Franklin (2002): A Brief Overview of the Nylon 6 Market in North America. Franklin
International, LLC, Broomall, PA. May. http://www.polymerplace.com/
articles/update%20nylon6.pdf
Galactic (2003), Website of Galactic Laboratories, Brussels, Belgium. www.lactic.com.
Accessed 14 Jul 2003.
Garlotta, D. (2001): A Literature Review of Poly Lactic Acid. Journal of Polymers and
the Environment, 9(2): 63-84.
Genencor (2003): Genencor/DuPont Team Receives U.S. EPA's Presidential Green
Chemistry Award for New Innovation. Press Release, June 24, 2003.Website of
Genencor International, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, U.S. http://www.genencor.com/
wt/gcor/pr_1056468867. Accessed 25 Sep 2003.
Gerngross, T. U. (1999) Can biotechnology move us toward a sustainable society?
Nature Biotechnology 17 (June 1999), 541-544.
Gerngross, T. U., Slater, S. (2000): How Green are Green Plastics? Scientific American,
August, 2000, 37-41.
Greenbiz (2004): NEC Develops Flame-Resistant Bioplastic. Jan 27, 2004.
www.greenbiz.com.
Gross, R., Kalra, B. (2002): Biodegradable Polymers for the Environment. Science 297:
805.
Grothe, E. (2000): Konzeption und Wirtschaftlichtkeit der industrielen
Glycerinvergärung zu 1,3-Propandiol. Forschr-Ber VDI Reihe 17 Nr. 200.
Düsseldorf. VDI Verlag.
Gruber, P., O’Brien, M. (2002): Polylactides “Natureworks® PLA”. In: Doi Y,
Steinbüchel A, editors. Biopolymers in 10 volumes, volume 4, polyesters III
applications and commercial products. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH (ISBN 3-527-30225-
5). pp.235-49.

Gugele, B.; Ritter, M.(2001): European Community and Member States Greenhouse
Gas Emission Trends 1990-1999. European Topic Centre on Air and Climate
Change. European Environment Agency. Copenhagen, 2001
Hagen, R. (2000): New process to reduce cost price of polylactide. Chemical Fibres
International, Volume 50, December 2000, p.540-542
Hedley, C. (2002): Starch structure. John Innes Centre, Norwich, UK.
http://www.jic.bbsrc.ac.uk/STAFF/cliff-hedley/Starch.htm.
Heine. L.: Plastics and the Environment: Environmental Issues and Current
Controversies. Zero Waste Alliance. Undated. http://www.zerowaste.org/
publications/06m_plastics_101.pdf. Accessed 25 April 2003.
Hekkert, M.: Improving material management to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht University, Netherlands, 2000.
Herzog, H.; Drake, E.; Adams, E. (1997): CO2 capture, reuse, and storage technologies
for mitigating global climate change. A White Paper. Prepared by MIT for DOE.
January, 1997
Heyde, M. (1998) Ecological considerations on the use and production of biosynthetic
and synthetic biodegradable polymers. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 59 (1-3), 3-6
Höfer, R.(2003): Oleochemical polyols: New raw materials for polyurethane
applications. Coatings. de, Vincentz Network, Hannover, Germany.
http://www.coatings.de/articles/hoefer/hoefer.htm. Accessed 16 June 2003.
Hood, S. (2003): Extrusion of Starch and Starchy Products.
http://www.engr.usask.ca/classes/FDSC/898/notes/FDSC898-Lecture7.pdf.
Houck, M., Huff, R., Lowe, P, Menold, R. (2001): Poly(Trimethylene terephthalate): A
“New” Type of Polyester Fibre. Forensic Science Communications, July 2001,3(3).
Hüsing, B.; Angerer, G.; Gaisser, S.; Marscheider-Weidemann, F. (2003):
Biotechnologische Herstellung von Wertstoffen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung
von Energieträgern und Biopolymeren. Study (No. 200 66 301) prepared by the
Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research IISI), Karlsruhe, Germany
for the German Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt, UBA), Berlin,
2003
Hwo, C., Shiffler, D. (2000): Nonwovens from poly(trimethylene terephthalate) staple.
Shell Chemicals. www.corterra.com. Accessed 4 September 2003.
Hycail (2003):Personal communication with Chris Claesen of Hycail B.V., Noordhorn,
the Netherlands. 23 June 2003.
Hycail (2003b): Website Hycail B.V. www.hycail.com. Accessed 1 Dec 2003.
IBAW (2003): Kassel Project (Information about the world’s only pilot project for
marketing and recycling of compostable packaging made from biodegradable
polymers). International Biodegradable Polymers Association & Working Groups
(IBAW), Berlin, Germany

IEA (2003). Energy Balances OECD countries, 2000-2001. OECD/IEA, Paris, France.
pp.11.34
IEA (International Energy Agency, 2000): Experience Curves for Energy Technology
Policy, IEA, Paris
IEA (International Energy Agency, 2000b): Energy prices and taxes. IEA, Paris
Ilcorn (2003): New tire made from corn may mean ‘good year’ for growers. Illinois
Corn Growers Association, Illinois, US. http://www.ilcorn.org/Corn_Products/
AMaizing_Tires/amaizing_tires.html. 21 July 2003.
INFORRM (2003): Case Study Solyanyl - mouldable bioplastic pellets. Industry
Network for Renewable Resources and Materials. http://217.148.32.203/cs1.asp.
Accessed 4 July 2003.
Inventa Fischer (2000): Entwicklung von Verfahren zur Herstellung von Polymeren auf
Milchsäurebasis und ihre Anwendung als biologisch abbaubare Kunststoffe, Basic
Engineering. Bericht zum Forschungsvorhaben 98NR006 der Fachagentur
Nachwachsende Rohstoffe
Inventa Fischer (2003): Personal communication
IPP (2001): Draft Council conclusions on the Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy
(IPP). European Commission document 8772/01, Working Party on the
Environment, Brussels, Belgium
IVC (2003). Industrievereinigung E.V., Frankfurt/Main, Germany. http://www.ivc-
ev.de/englisch/welcome.htm. Accessed 10 Nov 2003.
Japan Corn Starch (2003): Personal Communication with a representative of Japan Corn
Starch Co., Subsidiary Evercorn, Nagoya, Japan. 12 Nov 2003.
Jogdana, S. (2003). Personal homepage of S.N.Jogdand, Mumbai, India.
http://members.rediff.com/jogsn/BP14.htm. Accessed 11 Sep 2003.
JPIF (2003). The Japan Plastics Industry Federation. http://www.jpif.gr.jp/english/
statistics/annual/a_import.html. Accessed 4 Dec 2003.
Käb, H. (2002). EPN Conference on Biodegradable Plastics, Frankfurt/M. Germany
Käb, H. (2003a): Markteinführung Biologisch Abbaubarer Werkstoffe in Deutschland
und in Europa. In: Nachwachsende Rohstoffe für die Chemie. 8. Symposium 2003.
Münster: Landwirtschaftsverlag GmbH, pp. 189-210
Käb, H. (2003b): State of the Art Report Biodegradable Polymers / Bioplastics: EU
Market Development., International Symposium "Advanced Bioplastics 2003“. Held
at the World Organic Trade Fair BioFach, 12-13 February 2003, Nuremberg,
Germany
Kaltschmitt, M.; Wiese, A. (1997): Erneuerbare Energien – Systemtechnik,
Wirtschaftlichkeit, Umweltaspekte. Springer 1997
Kamm, A., Schüller, K.: Insulation, electric – Insulating Materials – Thermoplasts. IN:
Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, Fifth Edition. Wiley-VCH, 1997.

Kaup, M. (2002): Entwicklungs- und Erfolgsfaktoren für Produkte aus nachwachsenden

Rohstoffen in Deutschland und der EU im Spannungsfeld zwischen Ökonomie und
Ökologie. Köln: Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeographisches Institut der Universität zu
Köln (Kölner Forschungen zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeographie), 299 p.
Kawashima, N. (2003): Issues to be solved to realise bio-based polymers industry.
International Conference on Bio-based Polymers, Nov 12-14 2003, Tokyo, Japan.
Kawashima, N. e.a. (2002): Polylactic acid "LACEA"' in Biopolymers, Polyesters III,
vol 4. Wiley-VCH, p. 251-274.
Kimball, J. (2003). Kimbal’s Biology Pages: Carbohydrates. Website John Kimball.
Updated 10 August 2003. http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/
C/Carbohydrates.html. Accessed 23 August 2003.
Kohan, M. (1997): Polyamides. In: Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry,
Fifth Edition. Wiley-VCH, 1997.
Koning de, J. (2003): Internet sites voor verpakkers, Techniek Haagse Hoge School, z.j.
http://www.st.hhs.nl/~ipo_kon/frontpage/cases1-5.htm.
Kopf, N. (1999): Kunststoffe aus nachwachsenden Rohstoffen – Polyhydroxybutyrat
und Stärkekunststoffe – Abschätzungen zum kumulierten Energieaufwand und zu
CO2-Emissionen. Student's report, prepared at the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems
and Innova-tion Research (FhG-ISI), Karlsruhe for Engler-Bunte-Institut at
Karlsruhe University. Karlsruhe, Germany, 1999
Krässig, H. (1997). Cellulose. In: Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry,
Fifth Edition. Wiley-VCH, 1997.
Kubra Kunststoffen (2003). http://www.kubra.nl/product/eigenschappen/tabel.htm.
Kurdikar, D., Paster, M., Gruys, K. J., Fournet, L., Gerngross, T. U., Slater, S. C.,
Coulon, R. (2001) Greenhouse gas profile of a plastic derived from a genetically
modified plant. Journal of Industrial Ecology. Volume 4, No. 3, 107-122.
Laborsta (2003): ILO Bureau of Statistics, International Labour Organization.
http://laborsta.ilo.org/. Updated 27 Nov 03.
Laborsta (2003): ILO Bureau of Statistics, International Labour Organization.
http://laborsta.ilo.org/. Updated 27 Nov 03. Accessed 01 Dec 2003.
Leaversuch, R. (2002): Renewable PLA Polymer Gets ‘Green Light’ for Packaging
Uses. Plastics Technology, Gardner Publications Inc, March 2002.
http://www.plasticstechnology.com/articles/200203fa2.html.
Lichtl, M.: Reviewing the Kassel Project. Presentation by M. Lichtl (Lichtl
Sustainability Communications) at the International Symposium Advanced
Bioplastics 2003, held at the World Organic Trade Fair BioFach, 12-13 February
2003, Nuremberg, Germany
Linden van der, M. (2003): Zijn de biopolymeren polymelkzuur en
polyhydroxyboterzuur een duurzaam alternatief voor polyetheentereftaal bij
toepassing in kunststofflessen? University of Utrecht, Dept. Science Technology and
Society (unpublished).

Lipinsky, E., Sinclair, R.(1986). Chem. Eng. Prog., August 1986.

Liu, Yan (2000): New Biodegradable Polymers from Renewable Resources. Dept.
Polymer Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden. Thesis, unpublished.
Lockwood, L.(1979) in Peppler, H., Perlman, D. (eds.): Microbial Technology, vol. 1,
Academic Press, New York, p. 356.
Lovins, A.B., Datta, K.E., Bustnes, O., Koomey, J.G., Glasgow, N.J. (2004): Winning
the Oil Endgame. Innovation for Profits, Jobs and Security. Rocky Mountain
Institute. www.oilendgame.com
Mapelston, P. (2003): Automakers Work on Sustainable Platforms. Modern Plastics,
Mar:45.
Mapelston, P. (2003a): Polyurethanes: Suppliers Trim Capacity and Innovate to sustain
margins. Canon Communications LLC, Los Angeles, U.S.A. Modern Plastics, May
7.
Mateja, J.; Tribune, C.: Green Garage - Model U taps the cream of the crops. Article on
latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/classified/automotive/highway1/la-hy-
greenford5feb05,0,5649106.story?coll=la-headlines-highway1-manual), dated 5
February 5, 2003, accessed 9 December 2003.
McDonald, A. and Schrattenholzer, L. (2001): Learning Rates for Energy Technologies,
Energy Policy 29, p. 255-261.
McGraw-Hill (1997) (Sybil P. Parker, Editor in Chief), McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of
Science & Technology. McGraw-Hill, New York. Vol 10.
Metabolix (2002). Website of Metabolix Inc., Cambridge MA, U.S.
http://www.metabolix.com.
Metzeler (2003): Personal communiation with Manfred Hohenhorst of Metzeler
Schaum, Memmingen, Germany. 9 July 2003.
MGC (1999). Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company, Tokyo, Japan. Annual Report 1999.
http://www.mgc.co.jp/eng/investor/annual/1999anu.pdf.
Morgan, M. (1998): Polyesters branch out. European Plastics News, Dec: 26-28.
N.N. (2002): Native Polymere. Chapter in Fraunhofer IAP Annual Report 2001
(Kapitel 3). Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Polymer Research (IAP). Downloadable
from http://www.iap.fhg.de/. Potsdam, Germany, 2002
Nandini (2003). Nandini Chemical Journal. http://www.nandinichemical.com/
online_journal/may03.htm. pp. 6-8. Accessed 19 Sep 2003.
Narayan, R. (2003). Biodegradable Plastics. http://www.msu.edu/user/narayan/
researchareas.htm#Biodegradable%20Plastics.
National Starch and Chemical Company (2003). ECO-FOAM®: About Starch
Production. http://www.eco-foam.com/production.asp

NEAsiaOnline (2003): Sanyo Subsidiary Develops Discs Made from Corn (September
29, 2003). Nikkei Business Publications Asia Ltd, http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/
wcs/leaf?CID=onair/asabt/news/268922. Accessed 27 Oct 2003.
Nexant (2002): PERP Program – New Report Alert. Nexant Chem Systems, White
Plains, New York, U.S.A. http://www.chemsystems.com/search/docs/abstracts/0102-
S3-abs.pdf.
Nolan-ITU (2002): Environment Australia. Biodegradable Plastics- Development and
Environmental Impacts. Nolan-ITU, East Kew, Victoria.
Norberg, K (2003): DuPont Revs Up Global Marketing Push For Sorona ‘Smart” Polymer.
Website Dupont. http://www.dupont.com/sorona/news/InternationalFiberJournal.pdf.
Accessed 14 Oct 2003.
Nossin, P. and Bruggink, A. (2002): A fermentative route to caprolactam (DSM
Feasibility Study). Poster. NCCIII, March 4-6 2002, Noordwijkerhout, NL
Novamont (2002): Industrial Production of High Quality Performance Starch Based
Plastics: Novamont S.p.A. The Industrial Applications of BioPlastics 2002,
International Congress and Trade Show, 3-5 February 2002, Central Science
Laboratory, York, UK.
Novamont (2003). http://www.materbi.com. 13 June 2003.
Novamont (2003a): News. http://www.novamont.com/v/news/inglese.html. 25 August
2003.
Novamont (2003b): Personal communication with Catia Bastioli of Novamont S.p.A.,
Novara, Italy. 15 May 2003.
Novamont (2003c): Personal communication with Francesco Degli Innocenti of
Novamont S.p.A., Novara, Italy. 24 Oct 2003.
NREL (2003): News Release - Research To Develop Both Fuels And Value-Added
Chemicals From Corn & Other Renewable Resources. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. Golden, Col. and Wilmington, Del., U.S. Monday October 06.
http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2003/2903_corn_fuel.html?print
OECD (Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development, 2002): The
Application of Biotechnology to Industrial Sustainability – A Primer, Paris, 2002
Oeko-Institut (2001): Transgenic plants for industry - production of primary products in
transgenic plants. http://www.biogene.org/e/themen/biotech/e-newssp8.htm
OIT (2001): Clean Fractionation for the Production of Cellulose Plastics (Project Fact
Sheet). Office of Industrial Technologies, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
US Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.,USA. DOE/GO-102001-1457, Sep
2001.
OTA (1993). U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment: Biopolymers: Making
Materials Nature’s Way - Background Paper OTA-BP-E-102. Washington, DC U.S.
Government Printing Office.

P&G (2001): Procter & Gamble Licenses Innovative Application Technology of

Biodegradable Plastics to Kaneka Corporation. www.nodax.com/news101501.htm.
P&G (2002): Summary of Nodax® Properties and Applications. www.nodax.com.
P&G (2003): Personal communication with Norma McDonald, Isoa Noda and Karuna
Narasimhan of the Procter and Gamble Company, OH, USA. 4 June 2003.
Patel, M. (2003): Cumulative energy demand (CED) and cumulative CO2 emissions for
products of the organic chemical industry. Energy 28 (2003), pp.721-740.
Patel, M., Jochem, E., Marscheider-Weidemann, F., Radgen, P., von Thienen, N. (1999)
C-STREAMS - Estimation of material, energy and CO2 flows for model systems in
the context of non-energy use, from a life cycle perspective (Volume I) (in German;
English abstract). Report by Fraunhofer ISI Karlsruhe, Germany.
Patel, M.; Bartle, I.; Bastioli, C.; Doutlik, K.; Ehrenberg, J.; Johansson, D.; Käb, H.;
Klumpers, J.; Luther, R.; Wittmeyer, D. (2002/2003): Towards the integration of
renewable raw materials in EU climate policy, Part 1 and 2. Agro-Food-Industry Hi-
Tech, Nov./Dec. 2002 (Anno 13), pp.28-31 (Part 1) and Jan./Feb. 2003 (Anno 14),
No 1, pp.52-56 (Part 2)
Patel, M.; Bastioli, C.; Marini, L.; Würdinger, E.: Life-cycle assessment of bio-based
polymers and natural fibres. Chapter in the encyclopaedia “Biopolymers”, Vol. 10,
Wiley-VCH, 2003, pp.409-452
PAV (2000). PAV. Kwantitatieve Informatie Akkerbouw en Vollegrondsgroenteteelt
2000/2001. Praktijkonderzoek voor de Akkerbouw en de Vollegronds groenteteelt,
Lelystad, The Netherlands.
Petersen, K., Nielsen, P. V., Bertelsen, G., Lawther, M., Olsen, M.B., Nilsson, N. H.,
Mortensen, G. (1999): Potential of biobased materials for food packaging. Trends in
Food Science and Technology, 10: 52-68.
Pezetta, O. (2001): Personal communication with Mr. O. Pezetta, TN-Sofres, Paris,
France, 2001.
PHB IND (2003): Product and Process Technology of Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate)-PHB
Obtained from Sugar Cane. PHB Industrial S/A, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Presented at ICS-
Unido, Triest, Italy July 2003. http://www.ics.trieste.it/documents/chemistry/
plastics/activities/egm-july2003/ortega.pdf.
Phylipsen, D.; Kerssemeeckers, M.; Blok, K.; Patel, M.; de Beer, J., Eder, P. (Ed.),
Wolf, O. (Ed.) (2002): Clean technologies in the materials sector – Current and
future environmental performance of material technologies. Institute for Prospective
Technological Studies (IPTS), Seville, and co-ordinated by Ecofys Utrecht (with
contributions from Utrecht University), April October 2002. (unpublished)
Plasticbottle Corporation (2003): Properties of Resins. http://www.plasticbottle.com/
techinfo/resin.html.
PlasticsNews (2003). Website PlasticsNews.com. Price lists dated 29 Sep 2003.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/subscriber/rprices.phtml. Accessed 1 Oct 2003.
Potatopak (2003). Website of Potatopak Ltd. www.potatopak.com.

Pré Consultants (2000): The Ecoindicator 99 - a damage oriented method for Life Cycle
Impact Assessment. www.Pré.nl. Netherlands, 2000
PTO (2003): Resin pricing effective Mid-Sep 2003. http://www.plasticstechnology.com/
articles/200310rprice.html. Accessed 15 Oct 2003.
Rensselaer (1997). Cellulose. Website of Rensselaer Polythechnic Institute, Troy, NY,
USA. Howard P. Isermann Dept. Chemical Engineering. http://www.rpi.edu/
dept/chem-eng/Biotech-Environ/CELLULOSE/maria2.htm. Modified 20 Jan 1997.
Roberts, M., Etherington, D. (2003). Bookbinding and the Conservation of Books: A
Dictionary of Descriptive Terminology. Cellulose. Accessed 23 Sep 2003.
Rodenburg (2003) Personal communication with Remy Jongboom, Jules Harings
and Jaap van Heemst of Rodenburg Biopolymers, Oosterhout, the Netherlands. 27
May 2003.
Schmidt, B., Langer, E. (2002): Biomass for Industry: German Strategies for the 21st
Century; in Palz, W. et al. (eds): Proceedings of the Twelfth European Biomass
Conference, Amsterdam,17-21 June 2002. Vol II: 1198-9.
Shell (1997). New TP Polyester Family Challenges Nylon, PET and PBT (SC:2589-97).
Http://www.shellchemicals.com. Accessed 1 Dec 2003.
Shell (2003). Website of Shell Chemicals (the Royal Dutch/Shell Group), Houston,
Texas, USA. Website http://www.shellchemicals.com. Accessed 24 Sep 2003.
Shimbun, Y. (2003): Toyota is planning to use a more eco-friendly plastic from Kenaf
plant in next generation Prius. PR Newswire, www.evworld.com/databases/
printit.cfm?pageid=news030103-08.
Showa HP (2003): Personal Communication with Yoshiro Okino of Showa
Highpolymer Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan. 3 December 2003.
Sijbesma, F. (2003): White Biotechnology: Gateway to a More Sustainable Future.
Presentation held on behalf of EuropaBio and DSM at the BIOVISION conference
on 10 April 2003 in Lyon, France (slides, booklet and background information are
downloadable from EuropaBio’s website on L:\BioBasedMat_Lit\
macro_info_reports\BioVision_2003_DSM\Europabio.htm; accessed 15 December
2003)
SINAS (2003): Starch Institute for Non-Traditional Applications of Starch, Center for
Plant Products and Technology. http://gaea.bch.msu.edu/~sinas/starch.html.
Smith Cooper, J., Vigon, B. (2001): Life Cycle Engineering Guidelines. Chapter 5: New
Design. National Risk Management Research Laboratory. Office of Research and
Development, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/R-01/101. pp 51-52.
Södergård, A., Stolt, M. (2003): Properties of lactic acid based polymers and their
correlation with composition. Prog. Polym. Sci. 27: 1123-1163.
SPI (2002): World Thermoplastic Consumption and Forecasts. The Society of the
Plastics Industry, 2002. http://www.plasticsdatasource.org/global.htm. Accessed 4
Dec 2003.

SPI (2003). Society of the Plastics Industry, Washington, DC, U.S.

http://www.socplas.org/industry/defs.htm. Accessed 01 Oct 2003.
Steinbüchel, A., Lütke-Eversloh, T. (2003): Metabolic engineering and pathway
construction for biotechnological production of relevant polyhydroxyalkanoates in
microorganisms. Biochemical Engineering Journal 16: 81-96.
Stevens, E.S. (2002): Green Plastics – An Introduction to the New Science of
Biodegradable Plastics by. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2002, 238 pp.
Stickelmeyer, J (1969): History of Plastic Films in W. R. R. Park (ed.): Plastics Film
Technology, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, pp. 3–9. In: Ullmann’s
Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry 5th Edition, Wiley-VCH, 1997.
Stottmeister, U. (2004): Pers. Comm. with Ulrich Stottmeister of the University of
Leipzig, July 7th.
Struszczyk, H., Ciechanska, D., Wawro, D. (2002): Comparison of Alternative
Technologies for Regenerated Cellulosic Fibres Production to Viscose Method.
Institute of Chemical Fibres, Lodz, Poland. Cost Action 628, April 2002.
http://www.texma.org/Cost-Action_628/Strusz2.pdf. Accessed 13 Nov 2003.
Struszczyk, H., Ciechanska, D., Wawro, D. (2002a): New Alternative Technologies for
Regenerated Cellulosic Fibre Production in Comparison with Viscose Method.
http:www.texma.org/Cost-Action_628/Strusz1.pdf. Accessed 13 Nov 2003.
Struszczyk, H: (2002b). Notes from WG1. http://www.texma.org/Cost-
Action_/Notes_WG1_3.pdf. Accessed 13 Nov 2003.
TCE (2003). TCE Today. Website of The Institution of Chemical Engineers,
Warwickshire, UK. http://www.tcetoday.com/tce/temp/CompanyList.asp?nid=4448.
Tech (2003): Sanyo Develops Corn-Based Biodegradeable CD (Oct 21, 2003).
http://tech.surfwax.com/files/Sanyo.html.
Textile World (2002): Zimmer to Build Plant for PTT Poly Canada (May 2002).
http://www.textileworld.com/News.htm?CD=1258&ID=3293. Accessed 11 Sep
2003.
Textile World (2002a): Inventa-Fischer Awarded Dubay Polymer Contract (May 2002).
http://www.textileworld.com/News.htm?CD=1258&ID=3292. Accessed 11 Sep
2003.
Thiele, U. (2000): Structural Change in the Polyester Industry. Dr. Thiele Polyester
Technologie, Bruchkoebel, Germany. http://www.polyester-technology.com/
shotland.htm. Accessed 01 Oct 2003.
Thiele, U. (2001): The Polyester Resin FamilyPET, PBT, PTT, PEN and Modified
Polyester - Latest Stage of Development. Global Conference on New Plastic
Materials and Processing Technology; 23. 24- Oct. 2001, Düsseldorf. Schotland
Business Research, INC. http://www.polyester-technology.com/shotland.htm.
Accessed 01 Oct 2003.

Thornton, A. (2002). Rayon. Website Anne Thornton. http://members.tripod.com/

~wackyanne/studio/rayon.htm. Accessed 23 Sep 2003.
TIG (2001). DMT/PTA (10 August 2001). The Innovation Group. http://www.the-
innovation-group.com/ChemProfiles/PTA-DMT.htm. Accessed 14 Oct 2003.
Titech (2001). Website of Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan. Chemical
Resources Laboratory, Laboratory of Resources Recycling, SHODA & ANO
Laboratory. http://www.res.titech.ac.jp/~junkan/english/cellulose/. Modified 15 Mar
2001. Accessed 23 Sep 2003.
TMC (2000): Toyota, Mitsui to set up biotech firm in Indonesia.
www.toyota.co.jp/IRweb/corp_info/pr/2000/1027.html.
TMC (2003): Toyota Motor Corporation Special Report: New Raum showcases design
for recycling. www.toyota.co.jp/IRweb/specialrep/pdf.specialreport_13.pdf. p. 4.
TMC (2003a): Toyota to Build Bio-plastic Plant. www.toyota.co.jp/
IRweb/corp_info/pr/2003/0724.html.
Treofan (2003): Personal Communication with Dieter Scheidecker of Treofan Group,
Trespaphan GmbH & Co. KG, Raunheim, Germany. 18 Nov, 2003.
UC (2003): What is starch?. University of Cambridge, Department of Physics, Polymers
& Colloids Group. http://www.poco.phy.cam.ac.uk/research/starch/whatis.htm.
UC (2003a): Why study starch?. University of Cambridge, Department of Physics,
Polymers & Colloids Group.
http://www.poco.phy.cam.ac.uk/research/starch/whystudy.htm.
UK Ecolabelling Board (1997): Title of original document unknown. Organisation no
longer exists. Document found at DuPont website, http://www.dupont.com/
tactel/pdf/edukit01.pdf.
UN (2002): Uited nations (UN) Production Statistics of Industrial Commodities, CD-
ROM Database 1950-2000
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1997): Kyoto
Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Kyoto,
December 1997
UNICI (2002): Industrial Commodity Statistics Yearbook 2002. Industry and Energy
Section, Statistics Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United
Nations Secretariat.
UR (2003): Polyamides. Website of the University of Rochester, Department of Chemical
Engineering. http://www.che.rochester.edu/Courses/CHE286/polyamides.htm.
USB Weekly: Short abstract on life cycle inventories prepared by the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST). United Soybean Board (USB), October 14,
2003
USDA (1996): Ethanol Production Down, But Packaging and Adhesives Uses Are Up.
US Dept. Agriculture, Washington D.C. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/
ius6/ius6b.pdf. Website accessed 17 Sep 2003.

Uyterlinde, M. A.; Daniels, B. W.; Noord de, M.; Vries de, H. J.; Zouten de, C.; Skytte,
K.; Meibom, P.; Lescot, D.; Hoffmann, T.; Stronzik, M.; Gual, M.; Rio del, P.;
Hernández, F. (2003): Renewable electricity market developments in the European
Union - Final report of the ADMIRE REBUS project. Report ECN-C--03-082.
ECN/Risoe/Observer/ZEW/CSIC. Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands
(ECN), Petten/Amsterdam, Netherlands
Vilar, W. (2002): Chemistry and Technology of Polyurethanes. Vilar Consultoria
Técnica Ltda., Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Third updated edition.
http://www.poliuretanos.com.br. Accessed 29 Oct 2003.
Vink, E. (2001) NatureWorks – A new generation of biopolymers. Presentation by E.
Vink, Cargill Dow on 29 March 2001, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Vink, E. (2002) Personal communication with E. Vink, Cargill Dow, Netherlands, 2002.
Vink, E.T. H., Rábago, K. R., Glassner, D. A., Gruber, P. R. (2003): Applications of life
cycle assessment to Natureworks® polylactide (PLA) production. Polym. Degrad.
Stab. 80: 403-419.
Visser de, R. (2003). R. de Visser of PRI, Wageningen UR: ‘Taxonomy of Risks and
Risk Assessment’. Presentation, Utrecht, NL. Sep 9.
VKE (2003), Verband Kunststofferzeugende Industrie e.V.: Wirtschaftsdaneblatt
Wirtschaftsdatenblatt (downloadable data sheets). Frankfurt, Germany, www.vke.de.
Vries de, H. J.; Roos, C. J.; Beurskens, L. W. M.; Kooijman-van Dijk, A. L.;
Uyterlinde, M. A. (2003): Renewable policies in Europe – Country fact sheets 2003.
Report ECN-C—03-071. Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN),
Petten/Amsterdam, Netherlands
Washington. NREL/TP-510-32438, www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/32438.pdf.
Weber, C. (ed) (2000): Biobased Packaging Materials for the Food Industry: Status and
Perspectives. KVL Department of Dairy and Food Science, Frederiksberg, Denmark
(ISBN 87-90504-07-0).
Wilke, D. (1999): Chemicals from biotechnology: Molecular plant genetics will
challenge the chemical and fermentation industry. J Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 52:
135-145.
Wintzer, D.; Fürniß, B.; Klein-Vielhauer, S.; Leible, L.; Nieke, E.; Rösch, Ch.; Tangen,
H. (1993): Technikfolgenabschätzung zum Thema Nachwachsende Rohstoffe.
Landwirtschaftsverlag Münster, Germany.
Woodings (2000) (Calvin Woodings Consulting): Crop-based polymers for non-
wovens. Paper presented at the Insight Conference, Toronto, November 2000.
http://www.nonwoven.co.uk/CRWINSIGHT2000.htm.
Worrell, E.; van Heijningen, R. J. J.; de Castro, J. F. M.; Hazewinkel, J. H. O.; Beer, J.
G. de; Faaij, A. P. C.; Vringer, K.: New gross energy-requirement figures for
materials production. Energy, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 627-640. Elsevier, 1994.
Würdinger, E.; Roth, U.; Wegener, A.; Borken, J.; Detzel, A.; Fehrenbach, H.; Giegrich,
J.; Möhler, S.; Patyk, A.; Reinhardt, G.A.; Vogt, R.; Mühlberger, D.; Wante, J.;

(2002) Kunststoffe aus nachwachsenden Rohstoffen - Vergleichende Ökobilanz für

Loose-fill-Packmittel aus Stärke bzw. aus Polystyrol (final report, DBU-Az. 04763).
Bayrisches Institut für Angewandte Umweltforschung und –technik, Augsburg
(BIFA; project leader), Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg
(IFEU), Flo-Pak GmbH, Germany, March 2002.

8. Abbreviations
a year
CH4 methane
CO2 carbon dioxide
d day
ECCP European Climate Change Programme
EPS expanded polystyrene
eq. equivalents
g grams
GHG greenhouse gas emissions
GJ Gigajoule (109 joules)
GM Genetic modification, genetically modified
ha hectare
HDPE high density polyethylene
kg kilogramme
kt kilotonne
l liter
LCA life cycle assessment
LDPE low density polyethylene
LLDPE linear low density polyethylene
MD Machine Direction (test method for elongation, tensile strength)
MJ Megajoules (106 joules)
Mt Megatonne (106 tonnes)
m3 cubic metre
MSWI municipal solid waste incineration plant
N 2O nitrous oxide
P&M Policies and Measures
PA polyamide (nylon)
p.a. per annum
PCL polycaprolactone
PE polyethylene
PET polyethylene terephthalate
PHA polyhydroxyalkanoates
PHB polyhydroxybutyrates
PJ petajoule (1015 joules)
PLA polylactides
PO4 phosphate
PP polypropylene
PS polystyrene
PUR polyurethane
PVOH polyvinyl alcohol
RRM Renewable raw material
R&D Research and Development
SO2 sulphur dioxide
t metric tonnes
Tg (GTT) Glass Transition TemperatureTm Crystalline Melt Temperature
TD Transverse direction (test method for elongation, tensile strength)
TJ tetajoule (1012 joules)
t.p.a. metric tonnes per annum

TPS thermoplastic starch

, (comma) thousand separator
. (point) decimal separator
Conversion factors
1 metric tonne = 2205 pounds
1 metric tonne = 1.102 tons
€ 1 = US $ 1.1 (unless otherwise stated)
Country Groupings
EU-15 European Union-15: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,

Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal,
Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom.
EU-25 EU-15 plus 10 accession countries: Cyprus, the Czech Republic,

Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak
Republic and Slovenia
W.Europe Faroe Islands, EU-15, Gibraltar, Iceland, Malta & Gozo, Norway,
Switzerland

9. Appendices

Appendix 1: 2001-2002 Potential Applications for Nodax® based on Product Advantages (world-wide market

potential, % of total within application).
Table reprinted with permission from Procter & Gamble.

Application Description/ Market Market Potential Specific Nodax™ advantages that provide market potential,
(Examples) Potential(% of (t.p.a. of either alone or in combination with other biopolymers or
total) compounded resin) cellulosics
Ag Film Weed & moisture control 15 41,000 Product benefits include a tillable/biodegradable film. Blends with
(mulch film) starch to achieve cost/performance target. Bans on Starch/PE
versions and burning waste film open market opportunity.
Binders for Paper towels, interfacing, 10 1800 Performance, disposal (including flushability), blendability. Nodax™
Nonwovens paper fibers as well as Nodax™ resin.
Coated Corrugated Shipping cartons, display 5 56,800 Repulpability, barrier properties, and printability offer niche
cartons and stands opportunities in the coated linerboard area.
Coated Paper Printed materials, 5 68,200 Regulations in Asia requiring compostable food packaging open
linerboard, laminates large market for “lunchboxes” and other paper/poly food packaging.
page 207
Detergent boxes, candy bar Replace OPP on printed cartons (used for moisture and odor barrier.)
packages
Fast Food Industry Coating/lamination to starch 10 720,000 Product benefits are same as the above. Clearest market
Cups foam articles, or coated opportunities are in the closed loop environment—i.e. Disney, cruise,
Plates paper articles. etc.
Utensils
Fertilizer coating or Slow release, encapsulated 100 454 Anaerobic degradability is a key need in this area. This effort would
use in Japan rice pellets co-evaluate potential for broader fertilizer/delivery system
paddies applications.
Flexible Packaging Flexible plastic food 5 36,200 Blends with PLA to enhance PLA’s suitability for this market (makes
containers (oily snacks) it softer, better barrier, and more readily compostable and
biodegradable).
Flushables Tampon Applicator 40 8100 Flushability provides consumer benefits of convenience, discretion
Pad Back Sheet and hygiene; Nodax™ uniquely provides flushability for
Baby Wipes anaerobic/septic systems.
Final Report
Ostomy bags
Islands in the Sea Artificial Leather 75 3400 Used as bicomponent, coextruded fraction which is later digested and
Final Report

Fibers Specialty fibers & not part of final product. Digestibility without use of chemical
Nonwovens solvents (TCE), resulting in neutral, innocuous effluent. Cost
savings and environmental benefit.
Lawn, Leaf and All sizes 20 7300 Product benefits include odor control and compostability.
Compostable Bags
Synthetic paper Commercial papers (prime 3 1700 Product benefits include printability and environmental impact; there
& in-mold labels, flexible is potential to reduce Nodax™ costs and improve cost
packaging) competitiveness through filler addition.
Thermoformed Disposable containers & 5 227,200 Product benefits include biodegradability and barrier properties.
products tubs (dairy products) Regulations requiring composting of food waste open market
opportunity.
US Navy Cup This is a starting point for 100 32 Competitive advantage in affinity to cellulose and hot beverage
other Government required compatibility. Product benefits include reduced environmental
“green” or marine impact, marine degradability, printability, and cup reuseability.
degradable materials Budget for finished goods targeted by the US EO 13101 is $1.5
targeted by EO 13101 billion. Specific opportunities are still to be determined. This
application helps validate benefits and opportunities in other paper
page 208
coating markets.
USPS one-way bag Replace PP Woven Bag. 30 2300 Product benefits include compliance with overseas disposal
requirements as well as EO13101.
TOTAL LEAD N/A 1,174,486 Actual t.p.a. that is Nodax™ will vary by application, but in total is
POTENTIAL estimated at 40%.
Appendix 2.1: Property comparison table for some bio-based polymers

Polymer name Starch-poly(ε-caprolactone) Poly(lactic acid) or Poly(3-hydroxy-butyrate-co-3- Poly(3-hydroxy-butyrate-co-3- Cellulose
blend Poly(lactate) hydroxyvalorate) hydroxyhexanoate) hydrate
Acronym Starch-PCL PLA P(3HB-co-3HV) P(3HB-co-3HHx) Cellophane
Chemical properties
Polymera structure polysaccharide aliphatic polyester aliphatic copolyester aliphatic copolyester Polysaccharide
Molecular weight (103 Dalton) 100-300 200-400
Crystalline content (%) 10-40 30-80
Physical properties
Melt flow rate (g/10 min) - aa 0.1-100
3
Density (g/cm ) 1.23 1.25 1.23-1.26 1.07-1.25 1.454
Transparency (%) 0.7 -
Hazeb(%) 1.5-3.0 - 1-24
Mechanical Properties
Tensile strength at yield (MPa) 31 53 10-20
Elongation at yield (%) 900 10-40; 10-100ab 10-25
Flexular modulus (MPa) 180 350-450 40
page 209
Thermal properties
Heat deflection temp (°C) 40-45; 135ac 60-100
VICAT Softening point (°C) close to GTT 60-120
Melting point (°C) 64 58-63ad 171-182 80-170
Glass transition temp (°C) 55-65 5-70
Chemical Resistance
Mineral oil good good
Solvents poor poor
Acid avg/poor poor
Base avg/poor poor
Barrier Properties
CO2 permeability 51000
(cm3/m2/day, 25µm, 1atm)
O2 permeability (cm3/m2/day, 25µm, 1atm) 4400
WVTR (g/m2/day, 50µm, 23°C, 90% humidity) 3400
Brandrup, 1999; Boustead, 2002; Gruber et al., 2002; Garlotta, 2001; Metabolix 2002; Plastics Technology 2002; Leaversuch, 2003.
a
bio-based polymer only in case of blend
Final Report
Appendix 2.2: Property comparison table for some potentially bio-based and main petrochemical-based polymers
Final Report

Raw material basis Petchem- Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential Petchem- Petchem- Petchem- Potential Petchem- Petchem-
based bio-based bio-based bio-based bio-based bio-based based based based bio-based based based
monomer monomer monomer monomer monomer monomer
Polymer name Poly Poly Poly Poly Poly Poly Poly Poly Poly Poly Low High
(ethylene (trimethyl (butylene (butylene (amide)-6 (amide)-9T (amide)- (carbona- (propy- (urethane) density density
terephthal ene tereph tereph- succinate) (nylon-6) (nylon-9T) 6,6 (ny- te) lene) poly poly
ate) thalate) thalate) lon-6,6) (ethylene) (ethylene)
Acronym PET PTT PBT PBS PA 6 PA 9T PA 6,6 PC PP PUR LDPE HDPE
Chemical properties
Polymer structure aromatic aromatic aromatic aliphatic poly- poly- poly- poly- poly- poly- poly- poly
polyester polyester polyester polyester amide amide amide carbonate olefin urethane olefin olefin
Molecular weight (103 Dalton) 170-350
Crystalline content (%) > 30
Physical properties
Melt flow rate (g/10 min) 3c 0.3 0.5
Density (g/cm3) 1.40 1.35 1.34 1.25 1.13 1.14 1.2 0.91 1.45 0.92 0.95
Transparency (%) 4.1
Hazeb (%) 2-5 2-3a 2-3a 1-4 1-2
page 210
Tensile strength at yield (MPa) 72.5 67.6 56.5 80 82.8, 90 65 28 26 60
Elongation at yieldd (%) 50-100 20 500 530 300
Flexular modulus (MPa) 3110 2760 2340 2410 2830 2350 1690
Thermal properties
Heat deflection temp (°C) 65 59 54 55-753 90 129
VICAT softening point (°C) 79
Melting point (°C) 265 228 222-232 90-120 220 265 168 115 135
Glass transition temp (°C) 80 45-65, 80e 30-50 -45 to -10 40-87 50-90 -17 to -4
Chemical Resistance
Mineral oil good good
Solvents good good
Acid avg
Base poor
Barrier Properties
CO2 permeability (cm3/m2/day, 25µm, 1atm) 240
O2 permeability (cm3/m2/day, 25µm, 1atm) 95 228 255
WVTR (g/m2/day, 50µm, 23°C, 90% humidity) 23 59 54
1
Refs: Hwo & Shiffler (2000); Grothe (2000); Brandrup et al. (1999); Leaversuch (2002); Galactic (2003); Chuah (1999); Morgan (1998); Brydson (1989); Brandup (1989); Brikett (2003); Kubra
Kunstoffen (2003); Kawashima et al. (2002); deKoning (2003); Plasticbottle Corp (2003).
a
Gen. fig. for nylons; bBiaxially oriented films; cATSM D 1238, 230°C; dASTM D 882; elower range is for resin, higher figure is for drawn and textured fibre.
Appendix 2.3: Property comparison table for commercialized ‘GreenPlas’ in Japan: bio-based and

petrochemical-based biodegradable polymers (BPS, 2003a)
Thermodynamical Prperties Mechanical Properties
olten-Stat Gas Perm
Properties Amorphous Phase Crystalline Phase Bulk Combustion Stress-Strain Properties ardness(*o
Impactness
Classification Tg(*b) HDT(*c) Vicat(*d) Tc(*e) Tm(*f) Xc(*g) d(*j) C(*h) MFR(*j)bending(*kstress(*l TS(*m) EL(*n) (R/Sh) Izod(*p) Water
℃ ℃ ℃ ℃ % g/cm3 Cal/g g/10min (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) % J/m (*q)
PHB 4 145/87 141 180 1.24 2,600 2,320 26 1.4 73/ 12 3.6
PHB/V 151 1.25 1,800 800 28 16 161
58-60 /55 58 160-170 1.26 4,000 3,700 2,800 68 4 115/79 29 4
/66 114 160-170 4,710 44 3 43
/57 113 160-170 2,400 39 220 65
hard type PLA
60-62 172-178 0.5-3.0 3,500 63 2-5
60-62 150-170 5-12 60 59 2-5
45-55 not observed 50-100 2,250 45 1-2
CA 77/53 111 1.25 1,100 240 27 62 120
PVA 74 175-180 200-210 1.25 6,000 0.5-20 39 1 2 13 6
(ref) GPPS 80 /75 98 1.05 9,600 3,400 2,500 50 2 120/ 21 4
page 211
PCL -60 56/47 55 60 1.14 280 230 61 730 ｎｂ 23

-32 97/ 75 114 35-45 1.26 5,640 1.5 600 57 700 30 18
-32 97/ 76 115 35-45 1.26 5,640 25 685 21 320
PBS -32 97/ 88 115 35-45 1.26 5,640 4.5 685 35 50
-32 112 1.26 590 510 73 550 nb
-45 87 1.25 250 230 53 560 nb
-45 69 50 94 20-30 1.23 5,720 1.4 325 47 900
PBSA
soft type -45 69 53 95 20-30 1.23 5,720 25 345 34 400
PBSC -35 /87 106 1.26 510 330 46 360 84/ 96 27
PEST 200 1.35 11 2,000 55 30 1.6
PBAT -30 80 115 1.26 100 25 620 /32 45 5
PTMAT -30 108 1.22 28 22 700 13.8
PES -11 100 40 1.34 750 550 25 500 186 11
-54 68 1.17 4,500 6 280 17 670
Starch
1.25 180 30 800 22
(ref) HDPE -120 82 104 130 69 0.95 11,000 2? 230C) 900 1000 70 800 nb
(ref) LDPE -120 49 96 80 108 49 0.92 11,000 2? 230C) 150 420 12 800 /48 ｎｂ 0.085
Final Report
(ref) PP 5 110 153 120 164 56 0.91 10,500 4? 230C) 1,400 1,100 32 500 20 0.12
(ref) PET /67 78 260 1.38 5,900 2,650 57 300 108/ 59 0.5
Key to table (see previous page for table)
Final Report

(*a) based on Catalogue Data Base
(*b) Tg Glass Transition Temperature based mainly on DSC-Method
(*c) HDT Heat Distortion Temperature based on JIS K 7207 **/** = lower loading/higher loading
(*d) Vickers Softening Point based on JIS K 7207
(*e) Tc Maximum Crystallization-Rate Temnperature based on DSC-Method
(*f) Tm Crystallite-Melting Temperature based mainly on DSC-Method
(*g) Xc Degree of Crystallinity
(*h) C Heat of Combustion
(*i) d Density
(*j) MFR Melt Flow Ratio Unit:g/10min 190deg.C Load 2.16kg
(*k) Bending Elascity based on JIS K 720. Unit:Kgf/cm2 ( *9.8/100=MPa )
page 212
(*l) YS Yield Stress based on JIS K 7213. Unit:Kgf/cm2 ( *98/100=MPa )

(*m) TS Tensile Strength based on JIS K 7213. Unit:Kgf/cm2 ( *98/100=MPa )
(*n) EL Elongation based on JIS K 7213. Unit:
(*o) Hardeness. Unit:R/Sh
(*p) Izod Impactness based on JIS K 7110. Unit:J/m. Note n.b non brittle
(*q) based on JIS Z 0208. Unit:g･mm/m2/24 ( normalized to 1mm-unit case )

(*r) based on MOCON-Method. Unit:cc･mm/m2/24 /atm ( normalized to 1mm-unit case )
Appendix 2.4: Key properties and applications of bio-based polymers

Substitution on
Density
Polymer Main types (incl blends) Advantageous properties Disadvantageous properties Applications material /
(g/cm3)
application basis
BIO-
BASED
Soluble starch-PVOH loose fill;
PP, PS, EPS for
TPS; blends with PCL, Crystalline (less than cellulose); Moisture sensitive (improved by blending flushable backing film for
foamed peanuts; PUR
PVOH, PBS, PBS-A; polyester blends have reasonably with PCL); high water vapour sanitary products; agric. film
Starch for molded foams;
modified starch incl. starch 1.2 – 1.4 good mechanical properties; film is permeability; low oil, solvent resistance; and planters, single-use plastic
polymers LDPE, HDPE;
acetate; starch ester; starch- reasonably transparent; antistatic; vulnerable to degradation during bags; food packaging; slow
recycled PE for lower
cellulose acetate. moderate gas barrier. processing at high temperatures. release capsules; filler for tyres;
grades.
molded items.
Mechanical properties good;
amorphous grades transparent; Plastic cups and containers,
PLA with various ratios of good water, oil, solvent resistance; Poor optical properties for crystalline wrappers, carpeting; blends PE-HD & LD in food
D- and L-isomer; blends moisture resistance reasonable grades; must be dried for processing; low (e.g. with PET) for textiles/ packaging; PET , PA
page 213
PLA with PCL, PHAs, starch 1.25 (between starch polys and PET); Vicat temp;. low gas barrier (inferior to apparel; ‘active’ packaging for (fibres); PP; Hi-PS
polymers; blends with good odour barrier; high heat seal starch polymers); susceptible to hydrolysis agric sheet; textiles for auto (impact modified
fibres. strength; twist and deadfold; good at 60°C (followed by biodegradation). interiors, molded parts for PLA);.
UV resistance; polar thus easy to E&E.
print.
Crystalline; v good mechanical
properties incl.: hard, strong and PET, PA, PP for
tough; excel. chemical resistance, High grade (low denier) fibres fibres; PBT, PC for
Pure; blends with UV sensitive, practically not
PTT 1.35 excel. elastic recovery; lower for apparel, carpeting; molding. Substit. Also
PET/nylon biodegradable.
processing temps than PET; easily packaging films. possible for PLA,
dyed; faster crystallisation than cellophane.
PET
Similar to PET and particularly
PTT but more highly crystalline,
Molded electrical/ automotive
Compounded or alloyed opaque, high impact strength; UV sensitive, practically not
PBT 1.34 parts; flame retardant PC, PA, PET
form (e.g. with PC) crystallises rapidly; excel. electrical biodegradable.
compounds; possible fibres.
properties; high continuous use
temp.
Final Report
Final Report
Substitution on

Density
Polymer Main types (incl blends) Advantageous properties Disadvantageous properties Applications material /
(g/cm3)
application basis
Mulch film, packaging, bags,
Blended with starch or Similar to PET; excel. mechanical
flushable hygiene products;
PBS adipate (to form PBS-A) 1.26 properties and processability; Fibre formation difficult; drying required PET (in blends); PP
non-migrating plasticiser for
copolymer . hydro-biodegradable.
PVC.
Highly crystalline thus opaque; stiff,
Heat resistant; tough; ductile; good
P(3HB) 1.25 brittle. Degrades at normal melt processing Nucleant or modifier PS
O2 barrier.
temp.
P(3HB-co- Stiff, brittle (less than P(3HB), yellows PS

1.23-1.26 hardness
3HV) with age.
(3HB-co- HDPE to LLDPE;
3HHx) 1.07-1.25 Good mechanical properties and Crystallisation rate currently too slow for Film (cast), non-woven paper EVOH (for paper
processability film blowing and film coating; coating)
Cellulosics Cellulose hydrate Highly crystalline; fibrous, Moisture sensitive (improved by coating); Coated cellophane films;
(cellophane); usually insoluble; good mechanical requires more aggressive processing viscose, lyocell and other regen
coated with nitrocellulose properties; good gas barrier at low conditions than starch; not thermoplastic cellulose fibres
page 214
wax or poly(vinylidene rel. humidity; cellophane (thus not heat sealable); need >25%
chloride). Regen. biodegradable. plasticiser for thermoplastic processing;
cellulose; derivatives incl. cellulose acetate only biodeg. with DS
cellulose acetate (CA), <1.7.
usually with DS>2.
Appendix 2.5: Key properties and applications of petrochemical-based polymers

Specific gravity
Polymer Properties Applications
(g/cm3)
PETCHEM
Range of rigid, flexible and injection moulding formulations for building,
Low cost, versatile. Low crystallinity: good mechanical properties, particularly stiffness at
agriculture, E&E (plumbing pipes, garden hose, shoe soles). Toxicity of
PVC 1.30-1.35 low wall thickness, high melt viscosity at relatively low molecular mass, ability to maintain
vinyl chloride monomer during processing and as residual in PVC has led to
good mechanical properties even when highly plasticized.
its phasng-out in many applications.
Low cost commercial plastic. Mechanical properties poor above 50C. Poor aroma, flavour
PE-LD 0.92 Packaging, houseware (garbage bag, rubbish bin, buckets).
barrier. Subject to environmental stress cracking.
Structural applications, packaging of aggressive liquids such as bleach,
PE-HD 0.96 Greater rigidity and better creep properties than PE-LD.
detergent, and hydrocarbons. Also shopping bag, milk bottle.
PP 0.91 Chemical resistance same as PE but can be used to temperatures up to 120C Building, E&E, packaging (molded automotive parts, potato crisp bags)
Hard, transparent materials with a high gloss. Below 100 °C PS molding materials solidify
to give a glasslike material with adequate mechanical strength, good dielectric properties, Building & insulation, packaging (industrial and food),. Technical items
page 215
cc-PS 1.05 and resistance toward a large number of chemicals for many areas of application. Above its include radio and television housings, video cassettes, electrical articles,
softening point clear PS occurs as a melt which can be readily processed by techniques such computer accessories, and sanitary ware.
as injection molding or extrusion.
Limited range: moldings for optical applications such as covers for car lights
PMMA 1.17-1.20 Clarity, transparency, weatherability
and illuminated signs.
Diverse applications in appliances, business equipment, consumer products,
Abrasion resistance, fibrous, crystalline. Poor flavour barrier. Resistant to many organic
PA6 (nylon6) 1.14 electrical/electronic devices, furniture, hardware, machinery, packaging, and
solvents but attacked by phenols, strong oxidising agents and mineral acids.
transportation.
PET 1.37 Good mpact, heat resistance. Poor water barrier. Fibres, packaging (softdrink bottle, textiles)
PBT 1.3 Highly crystalline E&E
(Relatively) high-temperature plastic – can be used up to 150C. Good toughness,

PC 1.20
transparency.
POM 1.42 Good abrasion resistance. Excellent resistance to most organic solvents. Moving parts
PUR foam 1.1-1.5 Flexibile; high elongation; high strength. Packaging, prototyping; mattresses.
Final Report
HI-PS 1.04-1.07 v. tough Yoghurt cup, plastic cutlery, coat hanger, VCR box.
ABS-GP 1.05-1.07 Good resistance to non-oxidising and weak acids. Verytough
Appendix 3: Summary overview of LCA data for bio-based and petrochemical polymers
Final Report

Part 1: Summary of key indicators for primary plastics (pellets) from the LCA studies reviewed (state-of-the-art technologies only)
page 216
Summary of LCA key indicators for end products (some of the products listed are commercialised, others not; see text)
Part 2:
Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI / page 217 Final Report
Appendix 4: Polymers – Proposed policies & measures and

estimates of their potential for GHG emission
reduction (ECCP, 2001)
CO2
Specific Possible Results savings
Proposed Measures Comments
Objectives potential
(kt)
Making bio- • Avoid any delay in • Increase attention • Clear objectives for
degradability and the implementation for appropriate the member states
non toxicity of the directive to treatment of • Standards on high
relevant to the reduce the organic waste quality compost to
consumers concentration of • Improve and be made available.
biodegradable waste strengthen • Market prediction
in landfills. infrastructures for for polymers is
• Subsidise the use of high quality directly depending
high quality compost compost and on waste
• Improve promote CO2 infrastructure – we
infrastructure for savings expect an EU –
separate collection • Products like market share of 1-
and treatment of compostable 3Mt for compostable
biodegradable packaging can be polymers
materials (especially recovered by • Compostability of
polymers) composting (basic products has to be
• Adapt composting pre-requisite) proven by standards
Directive (biological • Compostable (DIN V54900,
treatment of polymer products, EN13432, UNI …),
biowaste; draft e.g. packaging certification and
status) should get access to labelling necessary
• Adapt packaging a cost effective
Directive: include recovery/waste >1000 kt (most of
compostable system polymer products
packaging concerned)
up to 10000kt
primary CO2
savings
Improve scope for • Promote basic • More R&D • Support advanced
application as well research on RRM stimulated product lines,
as technical and • Support • Easier decision for packaging,
economic demonstrative major investments agricultural
performance projects besides products, biowaste
applied research bags, carrier bags,
catering…

CO2
Specific Possible Results savings
Proposed Measures Comments
Objectives potential
(kt)
Facilitate market • VAT reduced (i.e. • 10%market share >3500 • Market is very big in
introduction of 4% off VAT rates) in EU (>1Mt size, starting with
RRM products case of materials biodegradable shopping bags and
based on renewable polymers ) food packaging
resources in specific • Improve compost (fruits, eco-products)
applications quality and avoid and mulch films
(compostable visual pollution. • Avoid significant
packaging, catering; (0.1Mlt social and
mulch films and biodegradable environmental costs
other agricultural polymers) related to specific
products, biotyres applications of
using biofillers, limited volume
fibres) • CO2 savings based
• Promotion of on secondary effects
biodegradable could be much
materials with higher
proven
environmental
benefits:
• Example: (bags for
the separate
collection of organic
waste, cotton buds
and other hygienic
products etc.)
Stimulate demand • Public procurement • Facilitate an >500 • Especially: biowaste
and consumer favouring products economy of scale bags, catering
awareness (also on partly or fully based for producers • Need for data of
environmental on renewable raw • More interest for LCA for comparative
benefits) for materials users/ consumers analysis on specific
products based on • Information • More reliable data sectors
RRM campaigns: explain on the
advantages and environmental
recovery aspects to impact of RRM
consumers/industries versus non-
• Promotion of renewable materials
methodologies on
assessment of env.
impact of RRM
TOTAL > 4000 Primary savings

Appendix 5: U.S. policy on bio-based products
In the United States, bio-based products have been promoted by means of a pro-active
technology policy for several years. Even though the U.S. policy in general jointly
addresses bio-based materials and bioenergy, the steps taken are nevertheless very
instructive and may help European policy makers when developing further suitable
boundary conditions for bio-based products. This appendix is identical with the chapter
“Policy framework: U.S. technology policy on biobased products” of an M.Sc. thesis
prepared by Mr. Ludo R. Andringa at Utrecht University and The University of
Oklahoma. The chapter is being reprinted here with kind permission of the author. The
full reference of the M.Sc. thesis is: L. R. Andringa: Analysis of technology policy
and systems of innovation approach: the case of biopolymers in the United States.
Utrecht University and The University of Oklahoma, February 2004 (available
from the Department of Science and Innovation Management at Utrecht University).
A5.1 Biomass R&D Act
In August 1999 President Clinton’s Executive Order (EO) 13134 was released. It was
titled ‘Developing and Promoting Biobased Products and Bioenergy’ and called for
coordination of Federal activities and efforts to accelerate the development of 21st
century biobased industries. That President Clinton was serious is reflected by his
declaration, in an accompanying Executive Memorandum, of a goal for the United
States to triple the national use of biobased products and bioenergy by 2010. The EO
directly resulted in an evaluation by the departments of Energy and Agriculture (DOE
and USDA) of all current Federal activities related to biobased products and bioenergy.
This evaluation formed the basis for a renewed, integrated and coordinated Federal
approach to biobased products and bioenergy. Within a few months DOE and USDA
reported on the evaluation and new approach in the Report to the President on Executive
Order 13134 (released February 2000). In May 2000 the U.S. Congress (i.e., the Senate
and the House of Representatives) passed the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000
(H.R. 2559), which included the Biomass R&D Act of 2000. When President Clinton
signed H.R. 2559 on June 20, 2000 it became a Public Law (P.L. 106-224) and EO
13134 was effectively replaced. Although before there had previously been some efforts
to support biobased products, it was not until the passing and signing of the Biomass
R&D Act (further referred to as Act) that the U.S. Congress officially and seriously
recognized ‘biobased industrial products’ and included it in legislation, finding that
converting biomass into biobased industrial products offers “outstanding potential for
benefit to the national interest.” [Biomass R&D Board 2001] [U.S. DOE and USDA
2000] [Walden 2001]
Section 1 of the EO 13134 illustrates the motivation (i.e. aspects of national interest)
behind the Act. Four main reasons can be identified:
1. Create new economic opportunities for rural development (employment
opportunities and new businesses).
2. Potential to protect and enhance our environment (improved air quality,
improved water quality, flood control, decreased erosion, contribution to
minimizing net production of greenhouse gases).
3. Strengthen U.S. energy and economic security (reduced U.S. dependence on oil
imports, new markets and value-added business opportunities).

4. Provide improved products to consumers (new products).

[Biomass R&D Board 2001] [U.S. DOE and USDA 2000]
A5.2 Biomass R&D Initiative
The signing of the Act directly resulted in the establishment of a Biomass R&D
Initiative (further referred to as Initiative) that represents the renewed, integrated and
coordinated Federal approach to biobased products and bioenergy as designed by DOE
and USDA. The Initiative is designed to be “the multi-agency effort to coordinate and
accelerate all Federal biobased products and bioenergy research and development”. The
National Biomass Coordination Office (further referred to as Coordination Office)
actually manages the Initiative. The Biomass R&D Board (further referred to as Board)
and the Biomass R&D Technical Advisory Committee (further referred to as
Committee) both coordinate the Initiative by providing guidance. The signing of the Act
also authorized annual funding to USDA from 2000 through the end of 2005. [National
Biomass Coordination Office 2003a] [Walden 2001]
The purpose of the Coordination Office, as indicated in Section 6 of EO 13134, is to

ensure effective day-to-day coordination of activities under the Initiative, including
those of the Board and the Committee. The Coordination Office serves as the executive
secretariat of the Board and supports the work of the Board (e.g. by preparing reports).
The Coordination Office also responds to the recommendations of the Committee. The
Coordination Office does all this work to ensure effective implementation of the Act.
[National Biomass Coordination Office 2003a] [Office of the Press Secretary 1999]
[Walden 2001]
In July 2001 the Coordination Office published a draft vision and a draft roadmap on
biobased products and bioenergy. The vision discusses the targets set by industry
leaders. The goal of the roadmap is to develop an overarching and executive-level plan
for an integrated bioenergy and biobased products industry and outline a strategy for
achieving the targets set in the vision. With the roadmap the Coordination Office
attempts to complement the more targeted roadmaps that already have been or will be
published. The roadmap distinguishes and discusses issues for four interrelated areas:
plant science, feedstock production, processing and conversion, and product uses and
distribution. [National Biomass Coordination Office 2001g] [National Biomass
Coordination Office 2001h]
The mission of the Board is to coordinate Federal efforts (e.g. programs), including
planning, funding, and R&D, for the purpose of promoting the use of biobased
industrial products. As indicated in Section 2 of EO 13134 the Board is co-chaired by
the USDA Undersecretary for Research, Education and Economics and the DOE
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. [Biomass R&D
Board 2001] [National Biomass Coordination Office 2003a] [National Biomass
Coordination Office 2003d]
The Board is directed by the EO 13134 to develop a biomass research program focused
on “research, development, and private sector incentives to stimulate the creation and
early adoption of technologies needed to make biobased products and bioenergy cost-
competitive in national and international markets.” In January 2001 this resulted in the
release a strategic plan entitled ‘Fostering the Bioeconomic Revolution in Biobased
Products and Bioenergy’. This interagency strategic plan was released as instructed by

the U.S. Congress in P.L. 106-224. The strategic plan is in fact a high-level summary of
the emerging national strategy and can be seen as the first integrated approach to
biobased products and bioenergy policies and procedures. It includes not only
technology goals, but market and public policy goals as well. The inclusion of the last
two expands beyond what was required by the legislation. These goals include the
quantitative targets to reduce costs of technologies for integrated supply, conversion,
manufacturing, and application systems for biobased products and bioenergy two- to
ten-fold by 2010 and to increase Federal government purchases (or production) of
bioenergy to 5% and relevant biobased products purchases to 10% by 2010. [Biomass
R&D Board 2001] [Duncan 2001]
Under Section 3 of EO 13134 the Committee is directed to provide guidance on the

technical focus of the Initiative to the Board and Coordination Office. The Committee
consists of a group of 31 individuals from industry, academia, non-profits, agricultural
and forestry sectors, who are experts in their respective fields. Amongst these experts
are representatives from DuPont, Cargill and Cargill Dow. [National Biomass
Coordination Office 2003a] [National Biomass Coordination Office 2003d] [Office of
the Press Secretary 1999]
In January 2002 the Committee submitted recommendations on funding for Fiscal Year
(FY) 2002, which the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE) is supposed to incorporate into its biomass R&D program. After identifying
crucial challenges different recommendations have been formulated for biofuels,
biopower and biobased products, as well as cross-cutting recommendations. The
Committee focused in its recommendations beyond R&D and further identified non-
R&D priorities such as education and outreach activities. [Biomass R&D Technical
Advisory Committee 2001] [National Biomass Coordination Office 2002a]
In October 2002 the Committee released a vision and roadmap for ‘Bioenergy and
Biobased Products in the United States’ at the request of USDA and DOE. Both
documents are intended for assisting in biomass-related research planning and program
evaluation, which is one of the official functions of the Committee. The goal of the
roadmap is to map the required R&D and identify public policy measures “for
promoting and developing environmentally desirable biobased fuels, power and
products”. The roadmap distinguishes three categories in which research is required:
feedstock production, processing and conversion, product uses and distribution. By
August 2003 the Committee had completed a review of FY 2003 research portfolios of
USDA and DOE. This review was based on the Committee’s roadmap. [Biomass R&D
Technical Advisory Committee 2002a] [National Biomass Coordination Office 2002e]
[National Biomass Coordination Office 2003b] [National Biomass Coordination Office
2003f]
A5.3 Title IX of the Farm Security and Rural Development Act of 2002
Title IX of the Farm Security and Rural Development Act of 2002 (H.R. 2646/P.L. 107-
171 or better know as the 2002 Farm Bill) reauthorized the Biomass R&D Act (extends
it until 2007) in May 2002. In addition it provides USDA with $75 million of
mandatory (non-discretionary) funding for the Biomass R&D Initiative and authorizes
an additional $49 million annually in R&D funds for FY 2003 until FY 2007 subject to
appropriation. Before this Farm Bill efforts relating to the Initiative had been funded

through existing USDA and DOE authority. [Ames 2002] [National Biomass
Coordination Office 2001a]
Section 9002 of Title IX of the 2002 Farm Bill gave a new direction to Federal
procurement. It extended the Executive Order 13101, which already required Federal
procurement of recycled and environmentally preferred products, and made the
suggested voluntary purchasing of biobased products mandatory. The U.S. government
is the world’s largest purchaser of goods (spending more than $275 billion annually,
which represents about 20% of the Gross Domestic Product) and by having Federal
agencies develop preferential purchasing programs (by 2005) Section 9002 of Title IX
of the 2002 Farm Bill attempts to use some of this purchasing power to promote
biobased products. Under Section 9002 USDA is directed to develop an approved list of
biobased products for Federal procurement which it is expected to complete in 2004.
This will be done in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
General Services Administration and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) of the Department of Commerce (DOC). The American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) will work with USDA to develop a minimum biobased
content standard for biobased products on the list. Existing NIST standards will be used
for testing environmental performance of biobased products. NIST has already
developed a life cycle assessment software tool called BEES ("Building for
Environmental and Economic Sustainability") that allows comparison of environmental
and economic costs of competing building materials. Iowa State University has been
asked to develop the actual biobased product testing in cooperation with USDA's Office
of Energy Policy and New Uses. USDA has also been directed to establish a voluntary
labeling program, similar to the Energy Star program (www.energystar.gov). Almost all
these developments are still underway. USDA's Office of General Council is at this time
reviewing a draft regulation that will include some of the first results of these
developments (e.g. list structure). USDA received $1 million in funding in FY 2002
and in FY 2003 from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to support this effort
and is likely to continue receiving this each year until FY 2007. [Ames 2002] [Darr
2003] [EPA 2001] [EPA 2003] [Mesaros 2003] [National Biomass Coordination Office
2003e]
A5.4 Initiative member departments and agencies
Seven departments and agencies have actively been involved in the Initiative: DOE,
USDA, EPA, National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Interior (DOI), Office
of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and Office of the Federal Environmental
Executive (OFEE). In addition to these seven departments and agencies the Initiative
designates to participating non-member agencies a less active role. These include DOC,
Office of Management and Budget and Tennessee Valley Authority. [National Biomass
Coordination Office 2003a]
USDA was the first U.S. department to focus on biobased products through the
formation of national research laboratories (1930s). In the 1990s USDA’s efforts
relating to biobased products advanced to a new level with an appropriation of at least
$50 million annually for research on new non-food uses for traditional food
commodities (e.g. wheat, corn, soybeans). The year the Initiative was formed USDA
received approximately $72 million (FY 2000) for the development, demonstration,
commercialization, analysis, outreach, and education activities for biobased products

and bioenergy. For FY 2003 USDA requested around $259 million for biomass related
activities. [National Biomass Coordination Office 2001a] [National Biomass
Coordination Office 2003d] [U.S. DOE and USDA 2000]
DOE directed its focus on bioenergy technologies as a result of the energy crisis
(1970s). Since then DOE’s biomass related activities have been effectively spearheaded
by EERE. DOE received around $125 million at the start of the Initiative (FY 2000) for
the development, demonstration, commercialization, analysis, outreach, and education
activities for biobased products and bioenergy. In July 2002 DOE reorganized its EERE
programs and integrated its biomass program to better meet with Act and
recommendations of the Committee. The new biomass program will focus on
developing R&D in the areas of gasification, cellulosic ethanol, and biobased products.
Its mission is to improve biorefinery technologies to make biorefineries that are
economical and sustainable. The R&D conducted in the biobased products area also
addresses biobased plastics. Competitive solicitations will play a major role in
accomplishing this mission. The FY 2003 budget for the Biomass Program totals to
approximately $114 million. [National Biomass Coordination Office 2001a] [National
Biomass Coordination Office 2002d] [National Biomass Coordination Office 2003d]
[U.S. DOE and USDA 2000]
NSF funds research and education in science and engineering as an independent agency.
NSF funds several biomass program areas such as metabolic engineering,
biotechnology, plant biology, and genomics. Its FY 2003 budget for biomass related
activities represents around $50 million. [Hamilton 2003] [National Biomass
Coordination Office 2001c] [National Biomass Coordination Office 2003d]
The DOI and the three other Initiative member agencies do not conduct biomass R&D,
but work to advance biomass R&D through policies, programs, and regulations. DOI
supports forest and woodland management programs to offer biomass feedstock
opportunities for the biobased industries. The EPA mainly provides guidance, tools, and
information to assist agencies with implementing their Environmentally Preferable
Purchasing Program by 2005. Additional roles include its environmental regulation and
valuing biobased products in terms of environmental cost and benefits. OSTP advises
the President and members within the Executive Office on the impacts of (biomass)
science and technology on domestic affairs. The activities of White House's OFEE
focus on the Federal community where it advocates, coordinates, and assists
environmental efforts in areas such as waste prevention, recycling, procurement, and the
acquisition of recycled and environmentally preferable products and services. The
OFEE’s connection to biomass is based on its responsibilities regarding green
purchasing of biobased products. [Culp 2003] [EPA 2001] [National Biomass
Coordination Office 2001b] [National Biomass Coordination Office 2001d] [National
Biomass Coordination Office 2003d] [Pultier 2003] [Whitney 2003] [Winters 2003]
A5.5 Research portfolios and budgets of DOE and USDA
In February 2003 the Committee and Board met for the first time to discuss the progress
and direction of the biomass related R&D programs and policy of the Federal
government. Each of the seven member departments and agencies had prepared a
summary of its biomass related activities. DOE and USDA have the most agencies

involved in the forming and executing of technology policy related to biobased products
and they also receive the largest budgets for these efforts. Based on this meeting of the
Committee and Board and the Committee’s research portfolio review for FY 2003 an
overview will be provided on the direction and coverage of the main R&D areas by
DOE and USDA. Figures A5-1 and A5-2 illustrate the budget allocations for DOE and
USDA. Note that all FY 2004 budgets represent estimates. [National Biomass
Coordination Office 2003d]
A5.5.1 Feedstock production
The Office of the Biomass Program (OBP) funds the R&D on feedstock production,
while the Office of Science funds the basic science aspects. OBP strives to accomplish
improvements in the cost and quality of raw materials. The R&D activities in this area
cover biotechnology and plant physiology and feedstock handling (infrastructure).
USDA’s funding in this area is mainly divided over the Agricultural Research Service
(ARS), Forest Service (FS), and the Cooperative State Research Education and
Extension Service (CSREES). Both DOE and USDA allocate around 3-5% of their
budgets (FY 2003 and FY 2004) to this R&D area. [National Biomass Coordination
Office 2003d] [National Biomass Coordination Office 2003f] [Office of the Biomass
Program 2003] [USDA 2003]
Figure A5-1: Overview of DOE research portfolios and budgets
250
200
Public policy measures
Product uses and

Million $
150
distribution
Processing and
conversion
100 Feedstock production
50
0
2003 2004 (estimated)
Fiscal Year
[National Biomass Coordination Office 2003d] [National Biomass

Coordination Office 2003f] [Office of the Biomass Program 2003]

A5.5.2 Processing and conversion
Within this R&D area OBP’s research focuses on bioconversion and thermo-chemical
conversion (both receive similar amounts of funding). Thermo-chemical conversion
mainly addresses the synthesis gas technologies. The bioconversion technologies are
used for the production of fuels and chemicals from sugars. OBP’s mission to improve
biorefinery technologies is incorporated under bioconversion. Biorefinery integration
receives almost 35% ($27.3 million) of DOE’s total budget for FY 2004. USDA mainly
funds the bioconversion area under ARS, FS, the Rural Development Program and
USDA's Rural Business-Cooperative Service Grant Program (less than 1% of USDA’s
funding in this area has been focused on thermo-chemical conversion). R&D activities
in this area include the projects funded by both USDA and DOE under the 2002
Integrated Biomass Solicitation and the 2003 Biomass Research and Development
Initiative Solicitation. [National Biomass Coordination Office 2003d] [National
Biomass Coordination Office 2003f] [Office of the Biomass Program 2003] [USDA
2003]
Figure A5-2: Biomass R&D Initiative Figure bu
250
200 Cross-cutting*
Public policy measures

Million $
150
Product uses and
distribution
Processing and
100 conversion
Feedstock production
50
0
2003 2004 (estimated)
Fiscal Year
* Most of the funding in this area is allocated to CCC. The mission of the government-
owned and operated CCC is to stabilize, support, and protect farm income and prices.
USDA already had allocated around $100 million (FY 2000) to the CCC, but with the
2002 Farm Bill extending the program eligible producers of commercial fuel grade
biofuels are reimbursed with FY 03 funding around $150 million (FY 04: $100 million).
[National Biomass Coordination Office 2001a] [National Biomass Coordination Office
2001e] [U.S. DOE and USDA 2000]
[National Biomass Coordination Office 2003d] [National Biomass

Coordination Office 2003f] [USDA 2003]

A5.5.3 Product uses and distribution
Within this area OBP aims to overcome technical barriers that obstruct broader use of
biobased products (including fuels and polymers). USDA’s research in this area is
conducted by ARS and FS for the development of high-value products, which mainly
includes woody biomass and biodiesel from soybean oil. Both DOE and USDA allocate
around 1-3% of their budgets (FY 2003 and FY 2004) to this R&D area. [National
Biomass Coordination Office 2003d] [National Biomass Coordination Office 2003f]
[Office of the Biomass Program 2003] [USDA 2003]
A5.5.4 Public policy measures to support biomass development
Public policy development does not receive R&D funding from USDA or DOE.
However, both departments do fund efforts that contribute to the Committee’s roadmap
policy strategies. Efforts include analysis, support, education and incentives. OBP’s
funding in this area includes market and technical analysis of biomass technologies,
state grants, Federal procurement of biobased products, education initiatives, and
accelerating the Federal procurement of biobased products with USDA. Within this area
DOE’s Education Initiative received $3.9 million for FY 2003. For FY 2004 OBP will
taken an estimated $4.0 million from all other R&D areas for analysis and corporate
initiatives. USDA’s Office of the Chief Economist also directed funding ($2.6 million
for FY 2003 and FY 2004) to accelerating the Federal procurement of biobased
products, as well as funding economic and market analysis and a biodiesel fuel
education program. [National Biomass Coordination Office 2003d] [National Biomass
Coordination Office 2003f] [Office of the Biomass Program 2003] [USDA 2003]
A5.6 Main focus of U.S. technology policy on biobased products
With the signing of the Act in 2000 the U.S. Federal government has refocused its
technology policy. This is best illustrated by the six major policy documents that have
been released since then by the Initiative. The technology policy described in these
documents seems to be well coordinated and these documents show signs of effective
integration of all Federal biomass related efforts. Another promising development is the
signing and implementation of the 2002 Farm Bill. Not only did it reauthorize the
Biomass R&D Act, but it also gives new direction to Federal procurement by making
purchasing of biobased products mandatory. Although DOE and USDA budgets
dedicated to biomass related activities have significantly increased since the forming of
the Initiative, a sharp decline (-29% for DOE and -20% for USDA) can be noted from
FY 2003 to FY 2004.
In terms of budget allocations, DOE and USDA can be considered as the major member
departments within the Initiative. Their biomass related budgets are almost fully used
for funding R&D. Approximately 39% of DOE’s FY 2003 budget has been dedicated to
Federal R&D performed by or in cooperation with national laboratories. The National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and National Energy Technology Laboratory
receive most of this R&D funding (one-half and one-quarter respectively). USDA
dedicated roughly 59% of its FY 2003 budget to in-house and intramural biomass
related activities. From a historical perspective both departments have performed more
than 90% of the biomass-related Federal R&D. [Biomass R&D Board 2001] [Bohlmann

2003] [National Biomass Coordination Office 2003d] [National Biomass Coordination

Office 2003f] [Office of the Biomass Program 2003] [Paster 2003] [USDA 2003]
Since the forming of the Initiative, biomass related activities have been mainly focused
on four R&D areas: feedstock production, processing and conversion, product uses and
distribution, and public policy measures. Within the R&D areas the main focus is on
processing and conversion (and its bioconversion sub-area in particular). When leaving
the CCC then both DOE and USDA have currently (FY 2003 and FY 2004) dedicated
more than half of their budgets to this R&D area. [National Biomass Coordination
Office 2003d] [National Biomass Coordination Office 2003f] [Office of the Biomass
Program 2003] [USDA 2003]
A5.7 References for Appendix 5
Ames, J.. 2002. New and Proposed Federal Incentives for Bioenergy Production (Paper
prepared for the Bioenergy 2002 Conference on September 23, 2002). Washington,
D.C., Environmental and Energy Study Institute.
Biomass R&D Board. 2001. Fostering the Bioeconomic Revolution in Biobased
Products and Bioenergy: an environmental approach (An Interagency Strategic Plan
Prepared In Response to “The Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000” and
the Executive Order 13134:“Developing and Promoting Biobased Products and
Bioenergy”). Golden, NREL.
Biomass R&D Board. 2001. Fostering the Bioeconomic Revolution in Biobased
Products and Bioenergy: an environmental approach (An Interagency Strategic Plan
Prepared In Response to “The Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000” and
the Executive Order 13134:“Developing and Promoting Biobased Products and
Bioenergy”). Golden, NREL.
Biomass R&D Technical Advisory Committee. 2001. Biomass Research and
Development Technical Advisory Committee Recommendations.
<http://www.bioproducts-
bioenergy.gov/pdfs/AdvisoryCommitteeRDRecommendations.pdf>. Accessed on
December 23, 2003 at 10 pm, Utrecht.
Biomass R&D Technical Advisory Committee. 2002a. Roadmap for Biomass
Technologies in the United States. December 2002.
Bolhmann, G.M.. 2003. Personal communication on June 11, 2003 (SRI Consulting).
Utrecht.
Culp, P.. 2003. DOI: Biomass-related R&D and Non-R&D Activities (Presentation to
Biomass R&D Technical Advisory Committee on February 24, 2003).
<http://www.bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/pdfs/DOI.pdf>. Accessed on December 23,
2003 at 10 pm, Utrecht.
Darr, J.. 2003. Personal communication on May 2, 2003 (Environmentally Preferable
Purchasing - EPA). Norman.

Duncan, M.. 2001. Developing U. S. Biomass Resources: Public Sector Support and
Private Sector Opportunities (Paper for the IAMA World Food and Agribusiness
Symposium). OEPNU-USDA.
EPA, Environmentally Preferable Purchasing. 2001. WasteWise Update July 2001.
Washington, D.C., EPA. <http://www.epa.gov/wastewise/pubs/wwupda15.pdf>.
EPA, Environmentally Preferable Purchasing. 2003. Buying Biobased - Implications of
the 2002 Farm Bill. EPP Update, January 2003.
Hamilton, B.. 2003. NSF: Biomass-related Research Activities (Presentation to Biomass
R&D Technical Advisory Committee on February 24, 2003).
<http://www.bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/pdfs/NSF.pdf>. Accessed on December 23,
L. R. Andringa: Analysis of technology policy and systems of innovation approach: the
case of biopolymers in the United States. Utrecht University and The University of
Oklahoma, February 2004
Mesaros, L.. 2003. Personal communication on June 2, 2003 (Buy Bio). Utrecht.
National Biomass Coordination Office. 2001a. January 2001 Biobased Fuels, Power and
Products Newsletter. <http://www.bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/news/newsletter
Archive/Jan2001.asp>. Accessed on December 23, 2003 at 10 pm, Utrecht.
National Biomass Coordination Office. 2001a. January 2001 Biobased Fuels, Power and
Archive/Jan2001.asp>. Accessed on December 23, 2003 at 10 pm, Utrecht.
National Biomass Coordination Office. 2001b. February 2001 Biobased Fuels, Power
and Products Newsletter. <http://www.bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/news/newsletter
Archive/Feb2001.asp>. Accessed on December 23, 2003 at 10 pm, Utrecht.
National Biomass Coordination Office. 2001c. April 2001 Biobased Fuels, Power and
Archive/Apr2001.asp>. Accessed on December 23, 2003 at 10 pm, Utrecht.
National Biomass Coordination Office. 2001d. May 2001 Biobased Fuels, Power and
Archive/May2001.asp>. Accessed on December 23, 2003 at 10 pm, Utrecht.
National Biomass Coordination Office. 2001g. Biobased Products and Bioenergy
Roadmap: Framework for a vital new U.S. Industry (Draft 7/18/01). July 2001.
National Biomass Coordination Office. 2001h. The Biobased Products and Bioenergy
Vision: Achieving integrated development and use of our nation's biologically
derived renewable resources (Draft 7/18/01). July 2001.
National Biomass Coordination Office. 2002a. March 2002 Biobased Fuels, Power and
Products Newsletter. <http://www.bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/news/Newsletter
Archive/March2002.asp>. Accessed on December 23, 2003 at 10 pm, Utrecht.
National Biomass Coordination Office. 2002d. September 2002 Biobased Fuels, Power
and Products Newsletter. <http://www.bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/news/Newsletter
Archive/Sept2002.asp>. Accessed on December 23, 2003 at 10 pm, Utrecht.

National Biomass Coordination Office. 2002e. November 2002 Biobased Fuels, Power
Archive/Nov2002.asp>. Accessed on December 23, 2003 at 10 pm, Utrecht.
National Biomass Coordination Office. 2003a. Biomass Research and Development
Initiative. < http://www.bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/>. Accessed on December 23,
National Biomass Coordination Office. 2003a. Biomass Research and Development
Initiative. < http://www.bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/>. Accessed on December 23,
National Biomass Coordination Office. 2003b. February 2003 Biobased Fuels, Power
Archive/Feb2003.asp>. Accessed on December 23, 2003 at 10 pm, Utrecht.
National Biomass Coordination Office. 2003d. April 2003 Biobased Fuels, Power and
Archive/April2003.asp>. Accessed on December 23, 2003 at 10 pm, Utrecht.
Archive/April2003.asp>. Accessed on December 23, 2003 at 10 pm, Utrecht.
Archive/
April2003.asp>. Accessed on December 23, 2003 at 10 pm, Utrecht.
Products Newsletter. <http://www.bioproducts-
bioenergy.gov/news/NewsletterArchive/April2003.asp>. Accessed on December 23,
National Biomass Coordination Office. 2003e. July 2003 Biobased Fuels, Power and
Archive/July2003.asp>. Accessed on December 23, 2003 at 10 pm, Utrecht.
National Biomass Coordination Office. 2003f. August 2003 Biobased Fuels, Power and
Archive/Aug2003.asp>. Accessed on December 23, 2003 at 10 pm, Utrecht.
National Biomass Coordination Office. 2003f. August 2003 Biobased Fuels, Power and
Products Newsletter. <http://www.bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/news/NewsletterArchive/
Aug2003.asp>. Accessed on December 23, 2003 at 10 pm, Utrecht.
Office of the Biomass Program. 2003. OBP: Research and Development Activities by
Roadmap Category (Presentation to Biomass R&D Technical Advisory Committee
on February 24, 2003). <http://www.bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/pdfs/DOE.pdf>.
Accessed on December 23, 2003 at 10 pm, Utrecht.

Office of the Press Secretary. 1999. Executive Order 13134: Developing and Promoting
Biobased Products and Bioenergy. <http://www.bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/
about/eo13134.asp>. Accessed on December 23, 2003 at 10 pm, Utrecht.
Paster, M.. 2003. Personal communication on June 5, 2003 (Office of the Biomass
Program). Utrecht.
Peltier, J.M.. 2003. EPA: Biomass-related R&D and Non-R&D Activities (Presentation
to Biomass R&D Technical Advisory Committee on February 24, 2003).
<http://www.bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/pdfs/EPA.pdf>. Accessed on December 23,
U.S. DOE and USDA. 2000. Report to the President: In Response to Executive Order
13134:“Developing and Promoting Biobased Products and Bioenergy”. February 14,
2000.
U.S. DOE and USDA. 2000. Report to the President: In Response to Executive Order
13134:“Developing and Promoting Biobased Products and Bioenergy”. February 14,
2000.
USDA. 2003. USDA: Research and Development Activities by Roadmap Category
(Presentation to Biomass R&D Technical Advisory Committee on February 24,
2003). <http://www.bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/pdfs/USDA.pdf>. Accessed on
December 23, 2003 at 10 pm, Utrecht.
Walden, J.. 2001. Moving towards biomass: current support for biomass usage in the
United States. Washington Internship for Students of Engineering & AIChE.
Whitney, G.. 2003. OSTP: Biomass Issues at OSTP (Presentation to Biomass R&D
Technical Advisory Committee on February 24, 2003). <http://www.bioproducts-
bioenergy.gov/pdfs/OSTP.pdf>. Accessed on December 23, 2003 at 10 pm, Utrecht.
Winters, J., 2003. OFEE: Biomass-related R&D and Non-R&D Activities (Presentation
to Biomass R&D Technical Advisory Committee on February 24, 2003).
<http://www.bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/pdfs/OFEE.pdf>. Accessed on December
23, 2003 at 10 pm, Utrecht.

Biobased Polymers in Europe PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biobased Polymers in Europe PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biobased Polymers in Europe PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of the report?

What is the purpose of the report?

What are some limitations of the assessments in the report?

What are some limitations of the assessments in the report?

ISI

Techno-economic Feasibility of Large-scale

Prepared for the European Commission’s Institute for Prospective

Manuela Crank, BE Chem Utrecht University (UU)

Dr. Frank Marscheider-

Utrecht/Karlsruhe, October 2004

Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI Final Report

Final Report Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI

An overview of the types of bio-based polymers, their producers (including their

In order to obtain a better understanding of the importance of this emerging sector

Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI Final Report

petrochemical polymers (there is a gap of a factor of about 20 to 40). It is also out of

The assessment of the environmental impacts at the EU level is based on assumptions

To develop a deeper understanding of the possible effects of policies and measures

Final Report Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI

Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI Final Report

Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI page I Final Report

2.3.3.4 Applications today and tomorrow 55

Final Report page II Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI

3.2.3 PHA 121

Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI page III Final Report

Final Report page IV Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI

Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI page V Final Report

Table 2-31: Cradle-to-factory gate energy requirements for cellulosic and

Final Report page VI Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI

Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI page VII Final Report

Figure 3-1: Mindmap of influencing factors ....................................................... 104

Final Report page VIII Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI

Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI page IX Final Report

1.1 Materials, plastics and policy

Figure 1-1: Production of bulk materials in Western Europe, mid/end 1990s

Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI page 1 Final Report

Final Report page 2 Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI

important cornerstone was the EU Report “Environmental Technology for Sustainable

1.2 Looking back

Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI page 3 Final Report

In Europe, biodegradable polymers were originally developed and introduced to the

Final Report page 4 Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI

1.3 Looking ahead

Commercialisation is underway in several other cases. Among the important industrial

Regarding the supply of bio-based resources, the possibility of providing domestic

To summarise, bio-based polymers might offer a way forward in satisfying future

Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI page 5 Final Report

1.4 Objectives and scope

Final Report page 6 Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI

Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI page 7 Final Report

1.5 Structure of the report

Final Report page 8 Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI

2. Existing and emerging technologies for bio-based

Utrecht University/Fraunhofer ISI page 9 Final Report

1. Starch polymers Polysaccharides Modified natural polymer

2. Polylactic acid (PLA) Polyester Bio-based monomer (lactic acid) by

3. Other polyesters from bio-based Polyester

Bio-based 1,3-propanediol by fermen-

b) Polybutyleneterephthalate (PBT) Bio-based 1,4-butanediol by fermen-