Cleaner Engineering and Technology 6 (2022) 100419

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cleaner Engineering and Technology

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/cleaner-engineering-and-technology

Comparative life cycle analysis of disposable and reusable tableware: The

role of bioplastics
A. Genovesi a, C. Aversa a, M. Barletta a, *, G. Cappiello a, A. Gisario b
a
Dipartimento di Ingegneria, Università degli Studi Roma Tre, Via Vito Volterra 62, 00146, Roma, Italy
b
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica ed Aerospaziale, Sapienza Università di Roma, Via Eudossiana 18, 00184, Roma, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Annually, 115.000 tons of plastic tableware are used in Italy. The end of life of these objects is particularly
Tableware troubled because no efficient way of recycling or reusing exist. Studies performed by the European Union
Place Settings demonstrate that about 80% of sea waste is made of plastic, representing a danger to human health and
Disposable
ecosystem. The aim of this paper is to analyse substitutes to disposable plastic tableware using the Life Cycle
Reusable
LCA
Assessment methodology. The alternatives are objects made of bio compostable plastic, both disposable and
reusable. This article compares single-use and multi-use tableware made of a Polylactic acid (PLA) - Polybutylene
succinate (PBS) blend with traditional disposable tableware made of polypropylene and of polystyrene. In order
to perform an effective assessment, the objects are grouped in place settings, each made of a cup, a plate and
cutlery. The use of tray mat and napkin is also taken into account. It was assumed that the fossil-based items are
sent to landfill whereas the bio-based ones are sent to a compost plant. The functional unit chosen was “the
service of 1000 meals”. The impact categories taken into account are Global Warming 100a, Ozone Depletion,
Ozone Formation (Vegetation), Acidification, Aquatic Eutrophication, Human Toxicity water and Ecotoxicity
water chronic. The results show that the compostable table sets have lower impact than the sets made of fossil-
based plastic in all the categories except in Ozone Depletion and in Aquatic Eutrophication. In the categories of
Human Toxicity water and Ecotoxicity water chronic, fossil-based materials have higher impact than multi-use
one mainly due to the landfill scenario chosen as end of life. Disposable and reusable systems give a different
contribution to total impact in different life stages. For disposable systems, the production and the end of life are
the critical stages in terms of environmental burden, whereas for reusable systems washing is the most impactful
phase. Further improvements can be obtained in the production of bio-based materials by using renewable
energy to power the facilities whereas the washing phase can be improved by adopting certified ecopower. The
impact of the reusable system strongly depends on the assumptions made on the number of reuses and on the
washing modality.

1. Introduction Single-use provides high levels of safety and hygiene and helps to
maintain the freshness of packaged food, reducing food waste (ANGEM,
Although in recent times the Corona Virus pandemic has momen­ 2020). A valid substitute could be bioplastics but, as pointed out by
tarily altered daily needs with the introduction of Smart Working, col­ ANGEM (National Association of Canteens and Services), their intro­
lective catering is a fundamental element for many workers who find duction presents some obstacles. The production of bioplastics is
themselves forced to eat at least one meal a day away from home. The currently not comparable in quantity to that of fossil plastics, so it is not
use of non-biodegradable disposable items is highly widespread in this sufficient to fully meet the demand of the sector. In addition, the current
sector: it is estimated that in Italy the consumption of plastic tableware is price of bioplastics is higher than for non-compostable alternatives and
115,000 tons per year with a production value of approximately 960 its adoption would lead to an increase in the price of meals that public
million euros (Moronese, 2018). The problems linked to the abandon­ and private users are often unwilling to pay. The debate on the adoption
ment of single-use plastic in favor of reusable items are not few. of alternatives to the current system based on plastics of fossil origin is,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: massimiliano.barletta@uniroma3.it (M. Barletta).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2022.100419
Received 31 January 2021; Received in revised form 15 January 2022; Accepted 17 January 2022
Available online 20 January 2022
2666-7908/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A. Genovesi et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 6 (2022) 100419

Table 1
Reference flow of the studied systems.
PLA set PP set PS set Multi-use set

1000 Disposable plate made of PLA- 1000 Disposable plate made of 1000 Disposable plate made of 1 Multi-use plate made of PLA-
PBS Polypropylene Polystyrene PBS
1000 Disposable cup made of PLA- 1000 Disposable cup made of 1000 Disposable cup made of 1 Multi-use cup made of PLA-
PBS Polypropylene Polystyrene PBS
1000 Disposable cutlery made of PLA- 1000 Disposable cutlery made of 1000 Disposable cutlery made of 1 Multi-use cutlery made of
PBS Polystyrene Polystyrene PLA-PBS
1000 Tray mat and napkin 1000 Tray mat and napkin 1000 Tray mat and napkin 1000 Tray mat and napkin
1000 Washing

therefore, very complicated and transcends the strictly environmental (Blanca-Alcubilla et al., 2020). For food service (Fieschi and Pretato,
topic, involving economic, political and social matters. The issue is now 2017), put the attention on disposable systems, assessing the environ­
of capital importance due to the approval of the EU Directive 2019/904, mental burden of biodegradable items over traditional ones. In this
which aims to ban and disincentivize production and marketing of study, the focus concerned the neglected topic of the evaluation of
specific single-use plastic items. European Commission points out that disposable over reusable bioplastic items. The comparison is carried out
more than 80% of the waste found in the sea is made of plastic (The by considering different table place compositions, each including the
European Parliament and The Council, 5 june 2019). Due to its slow main items that are usually needed during a meal. Also, fossil-based
decomposition process, it accumulates in seas, oceans and beaches, systems are considered, in order to analyze the world of tableware on
representing a serious danger to marine fauna and, through the food a broad scale.
chain, also to man. The creation of a circular economy for plastic re­
quires an intervention aimed at promoting the adoption of reusable or 2. Methodology and data
recyclable items, or the introduction of more sustainable materials. In
the present study, the alternatives to fossil-based plastics taken into The study is made following the Life Cycle Assessment methodology,
account are items made of bioplastic, both reusable and disposable. using the SimaPro 9 (SimaPro, s.d.) software, developed by PRé Con­
Biodegradability under composting conditions is determined by sultants, to perform the calculation. As prescribed by the ISO 14040
applying the standard EN 13432 (EN13432, 2000), according to which series, the following phases are presented.
biodegradable items degrade by at least 90% in 6 months when sub­
jected to a carbon-rich environment. Due to the presence of food resi­ • Goal and scope definition
dues, no efficient form of recycling fossil-based items is currently widely • Life cycle Inventory
in use. Currently, incineration and landfill are the most popular alter­ • Life cycle assessment
natives to decrease the quantity of polypropylene waste (Mannheim and • Life cycle interpretation
Simenfalvi, 2020). Therefore, the compostable objects represent a great
chance to design a new, green, cleaner world. The fundamental role of
tableware in everyday life justifies the necessity of an evaluation from an 2.1. Goal and scope definition
environmental point of view. Using the LCA methodology, several
comparisons were made involving different alternatives. Vercalsteren The aim of this analysis is to perform a Life Cycle Assessment of the
et al. (2010) considered different raw materials for cups and the possi­ main types of kitchenware and cutlery used in food catering by
bility of adopting reusable fossil-based items. Garrido and Alvarez del comparing different place settings. Each place setting is made of a plate,
Castillo (2007) focused on fossil-based cups, calculating the minimum a cup, the cutlery, a tray mat and a napkin. In detail, the following
number of uses for a reusable system to be environmentally equivalent systems are compared in this analysis.
to a disposable one. The possibility of adopting reusable
non-compostable systems was also assessed for takeaway food (Galle­
go-Schmid et al., 2018) and for the aviation catering sector

Fig. 1. Unit processes involved in serving one meal.

2
A. Genovesi et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 6 (2022) 100419

Table 2 Table 3
Impact categories and unit of measure. Composition and mass of compostable items.
Impact category Unit Disposable PLA-PBS plate Mass: Multi-use PLA-PBS plate Mass:
12.9g 62.5g
Global Warming 100a kg CO2 eq
Ozone depletion kg CFC11 eq Talc 12% Talc 12%
Ozone formation (Vegetation) m2.ppm.h PLA (poly-lactic acid) 70.4% PLA (poly-lactic acid) 70.4%
Acidification m2 PBS (poly butylene 17.6% PBS (poly butylene 17.6%
Aquatic eutrophication EP(N) kg N succinate) succinate)
Human toxicity water m3 Disposable PLA-PBS cup Mass: Multi-use PLA-PBS cup Mass: 25g
Ecotoxicity water chronic m3 4.4g
PLA (poly-lactic acid) 25% PLA (poly-lactic acid) 25%
PBS (poly butylene 45% PBS (poly butylene 45%
- The PLA set, made of Polylactic acid (PLA) - Polybutylene succinate succinate) succinate)
Talc 30% Talc 30%
(PBS) crockery and cutlery, a paper tray mat and a paper napkin. All
Disposable PLA-PBS Mass: Multi-use PLA-PBS Mass:
the items are disposable. cutlery 7.6g cutlery 37.5g
- The PP set, made of Polystyrene (PS) cutlery, Polypropylene (PP) Talc 30% Talc 30%
crockery, a paper tray mat and a paper napkin. All the items are PLA (poly-lactic acid) 56% PLA (poly-lactic acid) 56%
disposable. PBS (poly butylene 14% PBS (poly butylene 14%
succinate) succinate)
- The PS set, made of Polystyrene (PS) crockery and cutlery, a paper
tray mat and a paper napkin. All the items are disposable.
- The Multi-use set, made of Polylactic acid (PLA) - Polybutylene suc­
cinate (PBS) crockery and cutlery, a paper tray mat and a paper Table 4
napkin. The crockery can be reused after being washed whereas the Composition and mass of some item of PP set.
tray mat and the napkin are disposable. Polypropylene Plate Mass: 15g

Polypropylene 64.3%
2.2. Functional unit PP Compound (70% calcium carbonate) 37.5%
Polypropylene Cup Mass: 6g
Polypropylene 100%
The functional unit used in this study is “the supply of 1000 meals”
Polystyrene Cutlery Mass: 7.6g
(Fieschi and Pretato, 2017), (Pro.mo/Unionplast, 2015). The reference Polystyrene 100%
flow, sufficient to fulfill the functional unit, is quantified in Table 1. The
assumption made is that the multi-use set is washed after every use.

Table 5
2.3. System boundaries and assumptions
Composition and mass of some item of PS set.
Polystyrene Plate Mass: 15g
The analysis is made on “cradle to grave” systems. The production of
raw materials is included in the system, but the following converting Polystyrene – High Impact 56.7%
processes to get the disposable and the reusable items are excluded, as Polystyrene (PS) 7.6%
PS Compound (70% calcium carbonate) 35.7%
they do not change significantly the results. In the multi-use system, a
Polystyrene Cup Mass: 6g
washing process is also included. After being used, the compostable Polystyrene 100%
items are sent to a composting plant whereas the tray mat, the napkin Polystyrene Cutlery Mass: 7.6g
and all the fossil-based items are sent to landfill. In fact, among the Polystyrene 100%
approaches for decreasing the amount of polypropylene waste, incin­
eration and landfill are the most popular alternatives (Mannheim and
The modelling of compostable items combines composition data
Simenfalvi, 2020).
obtained from the company Bioware S.R.L (Bioware S.R.L, s.d.) with
A schematic representation of the systems as described is provided in
mass value obtained from literature research (Fieschi and Pretato,
Fig. 1. The unit processes shown are referred to one meal served, so a
2017). In Table 3 composition and mass are provided for each object.
thousand of them must be considered to fulfill the functional unit.
SimaPro’s database was not used for the material listed in Table 3. As
Usually, no recycling is possible because of the food residues on the
talc was not present in any of the provided library, Feldspar was used
objects, so this scenario was not taken into account. Furthermore, no
instead, since they have a comparable impact (Hill and Norton, 2018).
transport was included because no detailed information was available.
To model Poly-lactic acid (PLA), the ecoprofile provided by Nature­
The considered systems are a simplification of the real ones thus the
Works was used, referred to 2006 production (Vink et al., 2007). The
results should be interpreted in this perspective.
modelling of PBS is based on the production process of hybrid poly
butylene succinate (Moussa, 2014). The PBS synthesis is achieved from
2.4. Impact categories
1,4-butanedion and succinic acid (Cok et al., 2014). The end of life of the
compostable items is modelled as Biowaste {CH}| treatment of, com­
The impact categories analysed in this paper are chosen among the
posting, using the Ecoinvent library (Wernet et al., 2016).
PEF (European Commission (EC), July 17, 2012) suggested ones. The
The tray mat and the napkin are modelled using the Ecoinvent track
EDIP2003 method was chosen for the evaluation, since this method is
Tissue paper {GLO}| market for. Their total mass is assumed to be 7.8g
one of the most faithful to the IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
(Fieschi and Pretato, 2017).
Change) and WMO (World Meteorological Organization) principles
Composition and mass of Polypropylene and Polystyrene items are
(Masoni & Scimìa, s.d.). In Table 2 all the chosen categories and their
derived from literature (Pro.mo/Unionplast, 2015) and are provided in
unit of measure are provided.
Table 4 and in Table 5.
The different weight shown in Table 3and in Table 4 is due to the
2.5. Inventory different thickness of the PLA objects compared to the PP ones, in
particular the PLA dishes appear thinner than the PP ones. (Bioware S.R.
The data used in life cycle inventory are gathered from different and L, s.d.)
various sources.

3
A. Genovesi et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 6 (2022) 100419

Table 6 The materials listed in Tables 4 and 5 were modelled using Ecoinvent
Ecoinvent traces used for the fossil-based tableware modelling. library. For reasons of confidentiality, the information on the formula of
Material Ecoinvent reference the compounds is to be considered as indicative. For this study, the
compounds were modelled by adding calcium carbonate to the main
Polystyrene Polystyrene, general purpose {GLO}| market for
Polystyrene – high impact Polystyrene, high impact {GLO}| market for plastic material, according to the given percentage. In detail, the traces
Calcium carbonate Calcium carbonate, precipitated {RER}| market for of the Ecoinvent database used are provided in Table 6.
Polypropylene Polypropylene, granulate {GLO}| market for The landfill scenario is modelled as Municipal solid waste (waste sce­
nario) {CH}| Treatment of municipal solid waste, landfill, using the
Ecoinvent library.
Table 7 The washing process of the multi-use items is modelled by quanti­
Washing consumption per place setting - dishwasher. fying the amount of water, detergent and electricity needed (Pas­
Resource Amount per place setting paldzhiev et al., 2018). Data are provided per item. It is assumed that a
place setting is made of three items, so the values used for this analysis
Electricity 0,018 kWh
Water 0,21 l
are represented in Table 7. The consumptions are referred to a dish­
Detergent 0,0006 kg washer with a 2014 technology level.
Electricity was modelled using the Italian energy production mix,
provided by the Ecoinvent database. The detergent composition is a
Table 8
representative reference of detergents commonly used in European
Composition of the detergent. market (Rüdenauer et al., 2011). All the ingredients, provided in
Table 8, are modelled using Ecoinvent library.
Ingredient Quantity

Potassium tripolyphosphate solution, 50% (mass fraction) 20% 3. Results and discussion
Potassium hydroxide, 50% (mass fraction) 36%
Sodium silicate (water glass) 23%
Oxidizing agent 0–4% 3.1. Impact assessment results
Deionised water 17–21%
The environmental impact of “supplying 1000 meals” is represented
in Fig. 2. For greater usability, the results are shown in terms of per­
centages. For each category, the most impactful system is given the

Fig. 2. Impact assessment of the baseline analysis- Global Warming Potential, Ozone Depletion, Ozone Formation, Acidification, Aquatic Eutrophication, Human
Toxicity water, Ecotoxicity water chronic.

4
A. Genovesi et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 6 (2022) 100419

value of 100 and all the other systems are represented proportionally. A impact. This is due not only to the influence of feedstock’s cultivation
contribution analysis is also provided to better understand the role of the but also to the strong contribution given by the composting process. In
elements of each system. The label “Tray mat and napkin” represents the fact, gaseous emissions from composting and anaerobic digestion in­
whole life cycle of the tray mat and the napkin, which is separated from crease the impact in terms of Acidification. It could be reduced by
the crockery. The label “Crockery” represents the impact of raw material designing an efficient gaseous emissions treatment in the composting
production. It is introduced to visualize the contribution of bio-based facilities (Al-Rumaihi et al., 2020). On the other hand, in Human
plastic versus fossil-based plastic. Toxicity water and Ecotoxicity water chronic the composting process
The bio-based systems, disposable or reusable, have lower impact in has a small impact, compared to the landfill scenario. This causes
most categories. In Human toxicity and Ecotoxicity, fossil-based systems fossil-based systems to reach very high values in these categories.
have higher impact due to the end of life of crockery. In fact, the landfill The impacts achieved for the disposable sets in this study are how­
scenario gives a very strong contribution to toxicity of the fossil-based ever significantly different from the impacts calculated in several
systems whereas the impact of compost can be considered negligible. comparative studies concerning plates manufactured in different raw
In the reusable system, production and end of life of crockery have materials. In (Bevilacqua et al., s.d.), a compostable plate, made of
unimportant impact compared to the correspondent phases of dispos­ Mater-bi, was compared to a Polypropylene plate. The impact of the
able systems. Besides the tray mat and napkin, for this set the washing compostable plate was found to be higher in most categories, in contrast
process gives the greatest contribution in all the considered categories. with the results obtained in this study. A similar result was obtained in
With regard to disposable systems, the impact value of most cate­ the comparison of items made entirely of PLA with fossil-based ones
gories found in the present study is aligned with the results obtained in (Pro.mo/Unionplast, 2015). Also in the comparison of clamshell made of
the comparison of various disposable place settings used in quick service PLA with fossil-based alternatives (Madival et al., 2009), the trend
restaurants, contract catering and events reported in Fieschi and Pretato observed differs from the one obtained in the present study. The
(2017). Furthermore, the trend herein observed can be found also for composition of the compostable objects and the processing technology
plastic bottles (Gironi and Piemonte, 2010). In this case, the environ­ of the raw materials influence the results. Using a different production
mental burden of a PLA bottle is compared to a fossil-based bottle made system for PLA can lead to diverse outcomes, as assessed for cups
of PET. The advantages of adopting compostable items over (Vercalsteren et al., 2010). The optimization of production process can
non-biodegradable ones was also demonstrated for cutlery (Razza et al., lead to a reduction of the environmental impact from bioproducts
2009). The impact of the Tray mat and napkin, shown in Fig. 2, is always (Uihlein et al., 2008).
greater than the end of life of crockery in all impact categories except in A different comparison of PLA clamshell with PS, PP and PET al­
Human Toxicity water and in Ecotoxicity water chronic. ternatives (Detzel and Krueger, 2006) confirms the trend obtained in the
In Global warming potential and Ozone formation, fossil-based sys­ present paper for most categories. The different PLA technology
tems keep on having higher impact due to production of the raw ma­ considered is one of the reasons of the spotted differences. In the present
terials necessary for the fabrication of the crockery. Limited to the study, the PLA6 was used, which represents the production technology
category of Global warming potential, the higher impact of the fossil- of NatureWorks (NatureWorks, s.d.) for year 2006. In the IFEU study,
based systems over compostable ones was also reported in the litera­ the PLA5 is considered, representative of the 2005 NatureWorks
ture for several items, especially for landfilling. The use of PLA to pro­ (NatureWorks, s.d.) technology. The performances of the two present
duce deli containers, envelope window film, foam meat trays and water various differences (Vink et al., 2007) (Detzel and Krueger, 2006).
bottles leads to lower emission in terms of CO2 equivalents compared to The multi-use set shows the lowest impact in several categories, in
fossil-based alternatives (Franklin Associates, 2006). The same result particular Global Warming Potential, Ozone Depletion, Ozone Forma­
can be obtained by comparing carton-based cups coated in polyethene tion, Acidification, Aquatic Eutrophication. The benefits derived from
or polylactide to PET cups (Häkkinen and Vares, 2010). Studies on the reusable system strongly depend on the considered conditions of use
packaging films have demonstrated that also landfilling is an effective as confirmed by the contrasting results of several previous studies. In the
end of life for PLA items (Choi et al., 2018). In fact, the PLA film in comparison between recyclable cardboard boxes and reusable plastic
landfill had a better performance compared to fossil-based film and PLA crates (Koskela et al., 2014), the reusable system has the greatest envi­
blend film. If it is assumed that the carbon embodied in PLA is fully ronmental burden. This is mainly due to the role played by trans­
sequestered in landfill, PLA and PP are equivalent in terms of green­ portation, which was not considered in this analysis. Reusable items
house gas emissions, as demonstrated for food packaging (Bohlmann, have higher weight, so transportation gives greater contribution. On the
2004). Considering different end-of-life scenarios can lead to different other hand, if plastic single use crates are considered, the advantages of
performances. In fact, landfill system is the worst waste management the reusable system are evident after only two uses (Tua et al., 2019).
option and significant improvements con be introduced by undertaking Comparisons between disposable cardboard boxes and reusable plastic
energy recycling (Cherubini et al., 2009). However, it was shown that boxes (Bala and Fullana, 2017) (Abejón, 2020) stated the convenience in
the emissions in terms of CO2 of landfill scenario are almost comparable adopting multi-use systems over single-use ones. The importance of the
to the ones of a scenario where items are 40% recycled, 30% incinerated mass of reusable items was also highlighted for drinking bottles (Nessi
and 30% landfilled (Madival et al., 2009). et al., 2012) and for the aviation catering sector (Blanca-Alcubilla et al.,
In terms of Ozone Depletion and Aquatic Eutrophication, the 2020).
disposable bio-based system has the highest impacts, this being ascrib­ The study on the adoption of reusable plastic container in a food
able to the necessary steps to grow the sugar cane or the other raw catering supply chain (Accorsi, 2014) confirms the reduction of the
materials necessary to the fabrication of the bioplastics. In particular, environmental burden due to the adoption of reusable plastic crates in
during feedstock’s cultivation, the use of fertilizer leads to higher terms of CO2 emissions. The mentioned paper points out the influence of
eutrophication potential (Changwichan et al., 2018). Feedstock’s culti­ several parameters on the result of reusable systems. Uncertainty in data
vation and lactic acid production stage have an influence on Acidifica­ and parametric values can be found also in disposable systems (van der
tion too. This is mainly due to the production of the chemicals used, to Harst et al., 2014). Therefore, a complete representation of all the real
transportation of raw materials and to energy generation for the process cases is challenging. For this reason, two sensitivity analysis are herein
(Morão and Bie, 2019). The high impact of biopolymer production in performed, in sections 3.2 and 3.3, in order to assess the susceptibility of
these three categories is also confirmed by (Tabone et al., 2010). The the results to the number of uses and to the washing modality of the
impact of this life stage may be reduced by using renewable electricity to reusable system.
power the facilities (Vink et al., 2007).
In the category of Acidification, PLA set and PP set have comparable

5
A. Genovesi et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 6 (2022) 100419

Table 9
Reference flow for the Sensitivity analysis on the number of uses.
PLA set PP set PS set Multi-use set

1000 Disposable plate made of PLA- 1000 Disposable plate made of 1000 Disposable plate made of 100 Multi-use plate made of PLA-
PBS Polypropylene Polystyrene PBS
1000 Disposable cup made of PLA- 1000 Disposable cup made of 1000 Disposable cup made of 100 Multi-use cup made of PLA-
PBS Polypropylene Polystyrene PBS
1000 Disposable cutlery made of PLA- 1000 Disposable cutlery made of 1000 Disposable cutlery made of 100 Multi-use cutlery made of
PBS Polystyrene Polystyrene PLA-PBS
1000 Tray mat and napkin 1000 Tray mat and napkin 1000 Tray mat and napkin 1000 Tray mat and napkin
1000 Washing

Fig. 3. Sensitivity analysis on the number of uses - Global Warming Potential, Ozone Depletion, Ozone Formation, Acidification, Aquatic eutrophication, Human
Toxicity wate, Ecotoxicity water chronic.

3.2. Number of uses In the present study, the sensitivity analysis is, therefore, carried out
assuming that the reusable crockery is used 10 times as reported in
It was assumed that only one reusable set was enough to fulfil the (Blanca-Alcubilla et al., 2020), before being sent to a compost plant. This
chosen functional unit. In reality, the items undergo wear and tear, they value is far below the asymptotic behaviour observed. The new refer­
may break or chip during use or washing, so it is likely that they need to ence flow of the analysed system is shown in Table 9. All the other pa­
be replaced before being used 1000 times. A sensitivity analysis is made rameters are unchanged.
to assess the effect of the different number of uses on the total impact. By The environmental impact of this sensitivity analysis is shown in
increasing the number of washings, the impact of raw material pro­ Fig. 3. For greater usability, the results are presented in terms of per­
duction decreases because it is divided between all the uses. It was centage values. For each category, the most impactful system is given
shown for plastic clamshell that this reduction is relevant by increasing the value of 100 and all the other systems are represented proportion­
the number of uses from 1 to 10, less relevant from 10 to 20 and limited ally. The impact of the reusable system is now increased and the dif­
between from 20 to 50 (Levi et al., 2011). This means that no significant ference with the PLA disposable set becomes very small, if any. This
improvement can be achieved by increasing the number of uses over 50. variation is particularly strong in the non-toxic categories, where the
A similar trend was also observed in the case of steel cutlery (Blan­ production of raw materials gives a great contribution to the total. In
ca-Alcubilla et al., 2020), where the asymptotic behaviour appears from fact, in this analysis the raw material production and the end of life is no
100 uses onwards. longer negligible for reusable systems. Despite the great variations

6
A. Genovesi et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 6 (2022) 100419

Table 10 It is assumed that the items are cleaned by handwashing, which is

Washing consumption per place setting - hand washing. modelled by quantifying the amount of water, detergent and electricity
Resource Amount per place setting needed (e.g., for heating water) (Paspaldzhiev et al., 2018). As previ­
ously done, it is considered a three-item place setting and the values
Electricity 0,090 kWh
Water 3,543 l used are presented in Table 10. All the other parameters are unchanged.
Detergent 0,0015 kg The environmental impact of this sensitivity analysis is shown in
Fig. 4. For greater usability, the results are, once again, presented in
terms of percentages. For each impact category, the most impactful
observed, the compostable sets, reusable or disposable, have still lower system is given the value of 100 and all the other systems are repre­
impact in most of the considered categories. sented proportionally.
The influence of the number of uses on the results is also confirmed The considered way of cleaning changes the ranking of the systems
by the LCA of cups used in small and large events reported in (Vercal­ per category. In case of handwashing of the reusable systems, the im­
steren et al., 2010). In fact, changing the number of uses had a clear pacts increase greatly for the Ozone Depletion, Acidification, Aquatic
effect on the ranking of the analysed cup types per impact category. Eutrophication and Ecotoxicity category. With regard to the impact of
In all the considered categories, the difference in impact between the the washing process, electricity gives the greatest contribution, as also
multi-use set and the PLA set is lower than 20%, in some it can be assessed for the washing process of ceramic mugs (Martin et al., 2018).
considered negligible. It can be assumed that the number of uses that The use of an increased amount of water and detergent does not affect
makes the two systems equivalent is very close to 10. The same value the results consistently.
was found for polypropylene cups (Garrido & Alvarez del Castillo, Washing modality strongly influences the outcome of the reusable
2007). This breakeven number of uses is lower than the one found systems. As also demonstrated for coffee drinking systems (Ligthart and
specifically for PLA cups (Cottafava, 2020), where also transportation to Ansems, 2007), cleaning stage is decisive for the total environmental
offsite washing is considered. burden. The user has plenty of freedom in the cleaning process, so the
ultimate result is strongly user related. The way energy is produced is
3.3. Washing modality important too. In this study, the Italian Energy mix provided by Ecoin­
vent (Wernet et al., 2016) is used, but the adoption of certified ecopower
In baseline analysis, it was supposed that the washing process was can reduce the impact of the washing process (Pladerer et al., 2008).
made by a dishwasher with 2014 technology level. Since the washing Fig. 5 summarizes the achieved results. The radar plots allow a quick
process has a great influence on the multi-use set performance, a comparison among the different scenario investigated. The more the
sensitivity analysis is performed by changing the washing mode. lines move away from the centre of the radar plot, the more the

Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis on washing modality - Global Warming Potential, Ozone Depletion, Ozone Formation, Acidification, Aquatic eutrophication, Human
Toxicity wate, Ecotoxicity water chronic.

7
A. Genovesi et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 6 (2022) 100419

Fig. 5. Radar plot. Base and sensitivity analyses.

individual impact categories are relevant, resulting in a significant high. Decreasing the number of uses to 10 makes the choice between the
environmental footprint. From the developed analysis, it is possible to reusable set and the disposable PLA set practically indifferent. The
notice that using fossil-based raw materials for the manufacturing of the washing scenario considered in the second sensitivity analysis (i.e.,
disposable tableware generate radar plots that are stretched towards the handwashing) makes the multi-use set the least convenient among the
left hand side, where the impact categories are mostly related to the compostable ones. It is not possible to determine unequivocally the
consumption and converting of the non-renewable raw materials. On the parameters the reusable set depends on, as they are all strongly user
other hand, using bio-based plastics for the manufacturing of the related. Also considering the sensitivity analysis, the results show that
disposable tableware generate radar plots that stretch towards the the compostable systems, both reusable and disposable, are the best
opposite side. They stretch towards the impact categories related to the solutions. Due to the uncertainty of the use conditions of the reusable
consumptions of renewable resources and, in specific, related to the systems, no absolute ranking can be identified between the two. The
environmental impacts that are, indeed, necessary to grow the raw total impact of the fossil-based systems is strongly related to the landfill
materials required for the manufacturing of the bioplastic (i.e., for sugar stage in the categories of Human Toxicity water and Ecotoxicity water
cane). chronic. Further improvements could be achieved in these categories by
The overall comparison between the baseline scenario and the other considering different end-of-life scenarios for these systems, such as
scenarios under investigation (Fig. 5, bottom-right) shows how multi- energy recovery and recycling.
use systems and sets based on bioplastic can boast similar trends of Lastly, reusable and PLA-based sets feature similar impacts for most
the radar plots. Biobased sets are able to produce effects on the envi­ categories. Bio-based place settings can produce effects on the envi­
ronment that are somewhat similar to those caused by reusable items, ronment that are comparable to those caused by reusable items, being
but of smaller overall amount. them in most cases also of smaller overall amount.

4. Conclusions Declaration of competing interestCOI

This study compared the environmental burden of different place The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
settings used in mass catering. The focus was on the role of bioplastics interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
and on the convenience of adopting reusable items to serve multiple the work reported in this paper.
meals. This paper wanted to assess the impact of multi-use bioplastic
items and to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages compared to the References
disposable ones from an environmental point of view.
For the reusable system, the outcome strongly depends on the Abejón, R.Y.O., 2020. When plastic packaging should be preferred: life cycle analysis of
packages for fruit and vegetable distribution in the Spanish peninsular market.
number of uses and on the washing modality it undergoes. In the Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 155, 104666.
baseline scenario, the reusable system appears to be the most favourable Accorsi, R.Y.O., 2014. Economic and environmental assessment of reusable plastic
one, as its washing modality is efficient and the number of uses very containers: a food catering supply chain case study. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 152, 88–101.

8
A. Genovesi et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 6 (2022) 100419

Al-Rumaihi, A., McKay, G., Mackey, H.R., Al-Ansari, T., 2020. Environmental impact Häkkinen, T., Vares, S., 2010. Environmental impacts of disposable cups with special
assessment of food waste management using two composting techniques. MDPI focus on the effect of material choices and end of life. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 1458–1463.
Sustain. 12 (4), 1595. Hill, C., Norton, A., 2018. LCA Database of Environmental Impacts to Inform Material
ANGEM, 2020. Audizioni e documenti acquisiti: Esame del disegno di legge n. 1721. s.l.: Selection Process, s.l.: s.n.
s.n. International Organization for Standardization, 2006. ISO 14044. Environmental
International Organization for Standardization, 2006. ISO 14040. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and Guidelines, s.l.: s.n.
Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework., s.l.: s.n. Koskela, S., Dahlbo, H., Judl, J., Korhonen, M.-R., 2014. Reusable plastic crate or
Pladerer, C., Dinkel, F., Dehoust, G., Schuler, D., 2008. Comparative Life Cycle recyclable cardboard box? A comparison of two delivery systems. J. Clean. Prod. 60,
Assessment of Various Cup Systems for the Selling of Drinks at Events. EMPA 83–90.
Materials Science & Technology s.l.: Expertise provided by: Österreichisches Levi, M., Cortesi, S., Vezzoli, C., Salvia, G., 2011. A comparative life cycle assessment of
Ökologie-Institut Carbotech AG and Öko-Institut e.V. Deutschland. disposable and reusable packaging for the distribution of Italian fruit and vegetables.
PRé, 2016. Introduction to LCA with SimaPro, s.l.: s.n. Packag. Technol. Sci. 24, 387–400.
Bala, A., Fullana, P., 2017. Comparative Analysis of Distribution of Fruit and Vegetables Ligthart, T., Ansems, A., 2007. Single Use Cups or Reusable (Coffee) Drinking Systems:
in Spain by Means of life cycle assessment, s.l. In: Executive Summary of aWork an Environmental Comparison, s.l.: TNO.
Commissioned by ARECO. Madival, S., Auras, R., Singh, S.P., Narayan, R., 2009. Assessment of the environmental
Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E., Weidema, B., 2016. profile of PLA, PET and PS clamshell containers using LCA methodology. J. Clean.
The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int. J. Life Prod. 17, 1183–1194.
Cycle Assess. 21 (9), 1218–1230 [online]. Mannheim, V., Simenfalvi, Z., 2020. Total life cycle of polypropylene products: reducing
Bevilacqua, M., Ciarapica, F., Postacchini, L. & Castagna, T., s.f. LCA methodology environmental impacts in the manufacturing phase. MDPI Polym.
applied to the realization of a domestic plate: confrontation among the use of three Martin, S., Bunsen, J., Ciroth, A., 2018. Case study - ceramic cup vs. In: Paper cup, s.l.:
different raw materials. XVIII Summer School "Francesco Turco" - Industrial openLCA (1.7.2).
Mechanical Plants. Masoni, P. & Scimìa, S., s.f. Life cycle assessment: sviluppo di indicatori specifici per la
Bioware S.R.L [En línea] Available at: https://almablend.it/en/contact https://almable fase di valutazione d’impatto, s.l.: s.n.
nd.it/en/contact. Morão, A., Bie, F.d., 2019. Life cycle impact assessment of polylactic acid (PLA) produced
Blanca-Alcubilla, y otros, G., 2020. Is the reusable tableware the best option? Analysis of from sugarcane in Thailand. J. Polym. Environ. 27, 2523–2539.
the aviation catering sector with a life cycle approach. Sci. Total Environ. 708, Moronese, 2018. Disposizioni per il divieto di utilizzo di stoviglie e contenitori di plastica
135121–135128. destinati alla ristorazione collettiva. s.l.:Disegno di Legge n. 487. Senato della
Bohlmann, G.M., 2004. Biodegradable Packaging Life-Cycle Assessment. Wiley Repubblica.
InterScience. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.10053. Moussa, H., 2014. Life Cycle Assessment Oh a Hybrid Poly Butylene Succinate
Changwichan, K., Silalertruksa, T., Gheewala, S.H., 2018. Eco-Efficiency assessment of Composite. s.l.:s.n.
bioplastics production systems and end-of-life options. MDPI - Sustain. NatureWorks, s.f. [En línea] Available at: https://www.natureworksllc.com/.
Cherubini, F., Bargigli, S., Ulgiati, S., 2009. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste Nessi, S., Rigamonti, L., Grosso, M., 2012. LCA of waste prevention activities: a case
management strategies: landfilling, sorting plant and incineration. Energy 34, study for drinking water in Italy. J. Environ. Manag. 108, 73–83.
2116–2123. Paspaldzhiev, I., Stenning, J., Seizov, P., 2018. Life Cycle Inventories of Single Use Plastic
Choi, B., Yoo, S., Park, S.-i., 2018. Carbon footprint of packaging films made from LDPE, Products and Their Alternatives, s.l.: s.n.
PLA, and PLA/PBAT blends in South Korea. MDPI Sustain. Razza, F., Fieschi, M., Innocenti, F.D., Bastioli, C., 2009. Compostable cutlery and waste
Cok, B., Tsiropoulos, I., Roes, A.L., Patel, M.K., 2014. Succinic acid production derived management: an LCA approach. Waste Manag. 29, 1424–1433.
from carbohydrates: an energy and greenhouse gas assessment of a platform SimaPro, s.f. [En línea] Available at: simapro.com.
chemical toward a bio-based economy. Biofuels Bioprod. Bioref. 8, 16–29. Rüdenauer, I., Blepp, M., Brommer, E., Gensc, C.O., Graulich, K., Mudgal, S.,
Cottafava, D.Y.O., 2020. Assessment of the environmental break-even point for deposit Cervantes, R., Faninger, T., Lyons, L., Seifried, D., 2011. Preparatory Studies for Eco-
return systems through an LCA analysis of single-use and reusable cups. Sustain. Design Requirements of Energy-Using Products , s.l.: s.n. Oko Institut Ev.
Prod. Consum. 27 (2021), 228–241. Tabone, M.D., Cregg, J.J., Beckman, E.J., Landis, A.E., 2010. Sustainability metrics: life
Detzel, A., Krueger, M., 2006. Life Cycle Assessment of Polylactide (PLA) : A Comparison of cycle assessment and green design in polymers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44,
Food Packaging Made from NatureWorks PLA and Alternative Materials, s.l. IFEU 8264–8269.
Heidelberg Commissioned by NatureWorks. The European Parliament and The Council, 5 june 2019. DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/904 on
EN13432, C., 2000. Packaging. Requirements for Packaging Recoverable through the Reduction of the Impact of Certain Plastic Products on the Environment. s.l., s.n.
Composting and Biodegradation. Test Scheme and Evaluation Criteria for the Final Tua, C., Biganzoli, L., Grosso, M., Rigamonti, L., 2019. Life cycle assessment of reusable
Acceptance of Packaging. s.l.:s.n. plastic crates (RPCs). MDPI Resour.
European Commission (EC), July 17, 2012. Product Environmental Footprint Guide. Uihlein, A., Ehrenberger, S., Schebek, L., 2008. Utilisation options of renewable
Ispra(Italy): s.n. resources: a life cycle assessment of selected products. J. Clean. Prod. 16,
Fieschi, M., Pretato, U., 2017. Role of compostable tableware in food service and waste 1306–1320.
management. A life cycle assessment study. Waste Manag. 73, 14–25. Pro.mo/Unionplast, 2015. Comparative life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Study of Tableware
Franklin Associates, 2006. Life Cycle Inventory of Five Products Produced from Polylactide for Alimentary Use, s.l.: s.n.
(PLA) and Petroleum Based Resins, s.l. Franklin Associates, a division of ERG Prairie van der Harst, E., Potting, J., Kroeze, C., 2014. Multiple data sets and modelling choices
Village, KS. in a comparative LCA of disposable beverage cups. Sci. Total Environ. 129–143,
Gallego-Schmid, A., Mendoza, J.M.F., Azapagic, A., 2018. Environmental impacts of 494–495.
takeaway food containers. J. Clean. Prod. 211, 417–427, 2019. Vercalsteren, A., Spirinckx, C., Geerken, T., 2010. Life cycle assessment and eco-
Garrido, N., Alvarez del Castillo, M.D., 2007. Environmental evaluation of single-use and efficiency analysis of drinking cups used at public events. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15,
reusable cups. Int. J. LCA 12 (4), 252–256. 221–230.
Gironi, F., Piemonte, V., 2010. Life Cycle Assessment of Polylactic Acid and Polyethylene Vink, E.T., Glassner, D.A., Kolstad, J., Wooley, R.J., O’Connor, R., 2007. The Eco-profiles
Terephthalate Bottles for Drinking Water. Wiley Online Library. for Current and near-Future NatureWorks Polylactide (PLA) Production, s.l.: s.n.
Industrial Biotechnology.