Issue 22, 2021

Recommendations for replacing PET on packaging, fiber, and film materials with biobased counterparts

Abstract

This review sheds light on urgent questions that arise from the need to replace a polymer resin,–poly(ethylene terephthalate), which represents 7.7% market-share in the global plastic demand (Plastics–the Facts 2019), by renewable alternatives. The main question that this review will address is: what are the most promising PET replacements made from biomass? Currently, under debate is naturally its biobased counterpart bio-PET (or even recycle rPET), as well as other aromatic key-players with comparable thermo-mechanical performance and enhanced barrier properties, such as poly(ethylene 2,5-furandicarboxylate) (PEF) and poly(trimethylene 2,5-furandicarboxylate) (PTF). They are most adequate for packaging, but not restricted to. Additional alternatives are the miscellaneous of lignin-based thermoplastic polymers, although the technology involved in this latter case is still premature. (Bio)degradable aliphatic polyesters, despite their typical inferior thermo-mechanical properties, can also play a role e.g., among PET fiber industry applications. Poly(lactic acid) (PLA) is the most developed renewable polyester, already a commercial reality. All biobased polymers reviewed face a major hindrance for their wider deployment their cost-competitiveness. A pertinent question arises then: Are these alternatives, or will they be, economically feasible? Social, political and legal frameworks together with supportive financial schemes are boosting rapid changes. In the future, most probably more than one polymer will come to the market and will be used in some of the panoply of PET applications. This evaluation overviews sustainability issues, including perspectives on their green synthesis. Moreover, this review does also not neglect the accumulation of plastics waste in the environment and the inherent challenges of polymers’ end-of-life. Approximately 8 M tons of polymers waste leaks into the environment each year, a fact not disconnected to PET's non-biodegradability and still insufficient collection and recycling rates.

Graphical abstract: Recommendations for replacing PET on packaging, fiber, and film materials with biobased counterparts

Article information

Article type
Tutorial Review
Submitted
11 iyn 2021
Accepted
28 sen 2021
First published
10 noy 2021
This article is Open Access
Creative Commons BY-NC license

Green Chem., 2021,23, 8795-8820

Recommendations for replacing PET on packaging, fiber, and film materials with biobased counterparts

A. F. Sousa, R. Patrício, Z. Terzopoulou, D. N. Bikiaris, T. Stern, J. Wenger, K. Loos, N. Lotti, V. Siracusa, A. Szymczyk, S. Paszkiewicz, K. S. Triantafyllidis, A. Zamboulis, M. S. Nikolic, P. Spasojevic, S. Thiyagarajan, D. S. van Es and N. Guigo, Green Chem., 2021, 23, 8795 DOI: 10.1039/D1GC02082J

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported Licence. You can use material from this article in other publications, without requesting further permission from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given and it is not used for commercial purposes.

To request permission to reproduce material from this article in a commercial publication, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page.

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party commercial publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page.

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content.

Social activity

Spotlight

Advertisements