By Karen Hanna
Tourists slaking their thirst at the Summer Olympics in Paris encountered an achievement that likely flew under the radar as the athletes dove, flipped and soared into the record books.
Cups distributed at the Cass Pocha — an outdoor food and drink stall located near the Eiffel Tower during the Games — were made from 100 percent biobased polylactic acid (PLA), sourced from sugarcane. The biomaterial isn’t the only one to garner a high-profile platform — at recent tradeshows, including NPE2024, machinery makers have touted their commitment to sustainability by using PLA and other plant-based materials in processing demonstrations.
“I probably started talking about sustainable plastics maybe about eight years ago ... and probably the past two years, huge interest in it from many companies,” said Joe Kendzulak, the executive technical adviser and GM of Nissei America.
In recent years, he’s fielded questions about the materials from companies involved in the manufacture of a wide array of parts, from flower pots to medical device packages and automotive components.
But, with all the hype, can biomaterials really come from behind to give traditional materials a run for their money?
State of play
Biomaterials — defined as materials that are derived from biomass or are biodegradable, or both — have been subject of intensifying research efforts over the years, plastics experts say, but account for only a sliver of the overall plastics market.
According to figures provided by the Plastics Industry Association (PLASTICS) made up less 1.5 percent of overall plastics production in 2022. However, by 2028, global production capacity is projected to almost quadruple to about 8.2 million tons, with North America expected to account for about 1.4 million tons.
But because demand for the materials far exceeds supply, prices for the materials are higher than traditional plastics, Esteban Sagel, principal of Chemical and Polymer Market Consultants, said in an email.
“Right now, production costs for ethane-based polyethylene are so low that it is not feasible for biobased polyethylene to compete with them,” he wrote. “So the circular question is: We want the product, but we can’t invest because it is not assured that the market will be willing to pay the premium required for these solutions. And the only way to reduce the cost of these solutions is via investing.”
It’s a Catch-22 that Ben Hartigan, marketing coordinator for the Absolute Group of Companies, sums up simply as a “cost-and-supply thing.”
“If you’re trying to make money, it’s tough to spend 10 times as much on material when you could just not,” he said.
Michael Sansoucy, VP of sales and turnkey systems at Arburg, was blunt in his assessment of the situation: “There’s interest, yes. But there’s nobody seriously doing anything about it.”
Overcoming the “cost-and-supply thing” might require a catalyst. And Sansoucy and Hartigan identified the same possible source: the government.
“If you’re going to develop this material, who would do it?” Sansoucy asked. “Is it an oil company? ... They’ve got a lot of infrastructure and the R&D capacity, but if they do that, they’re going to cut off their main source of revenue. And it’s certainly not going to be as profitable. So I do think it will take some kind of intervention on a regulatory level at some point.”
Hartigan offered a similar projection: “All you need is one state government to say, ‘Hey, we're doing this,‘ and then you're going to have to do it.”
Rising demand
As interest in biomaterials rises, the pressure to adopt them appears to be growing. Last year, the Biden administration established a goal to convert 90 percent of today’s traditional plastics to biobased feedstocks within 20 years. Since 2011, the green-economy push has spurred $29 billion in biomanufacturing investments.
Investments identified in a Biden administration fact sheet include $1.2 billion by the Department of Defense in domestic biomanufacturing. Meanwhile, the Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) of the Department of Energy (DOE) is supporting $151 million to scale promising technologies that convert biomass to biofuels and bioproducts, and the DOE’s Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Office and BETO have provided $80 million to support research into biomass and waste feedstocks.
“Consumer Packaged Good companies (CPGs), under pressure to reduce the environmental impact of single-use packaging,” are among the constituencies most interested in biomaterials, Sagel said.
They’re also a focus of companies involved in the manufacture of disposable and agricultural products, said Joo-hyeong Jeon, senior research engineer for LS Mtron.
Jeon said improvements in the properties of new materials, along with advancements by processors and OEMs, have led to increased interest in using the materials for electronics and automotive parts.
“Many manufacturers are transitioning to biodegradable, recyclable or less-toxic materials to comply with environmental regulations and fulfill their environmental responsibilities,” he said.
Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), wood-plastic composites (WPC) and biobased PE are drawing interest among Engel customers, according to Bianca Gubi, product manager for the circular economy for the company.
PLA is most popular biomaterial, said KraussMaffei process engineer Lauryn Burdette during a a webinar hosted by Plastics Machinery & Manufacturing.
Increasingly, customers have approached the company to perform trials of biopolymers and composites of materials such as wood and hemp, Burdette said.
“I think a lot of companies nowadays are really starting to focus on environmental sustainability, and this is partially decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels and also increasing our biodegradability and recyclability, and a lot of the noise from this is coming from public pressure, which, in turn, is resulting from political pressure. So we’re starting to see regulations for new materials, and also starting to see bans on certain materials,” she said during the "Taking the mystery out of processing bioplastics" webinar. “But in the end, we just want to make something better that's good for the environment.”
A question of sustainability
At an Olympics where athletes slept on beds made from cardboard, cups made from PLA were just one aspect of a strategy to go green. But depending on how they’re used, bioplastics might not be a clear-cut winner in all situations.
According to TotalEnergies Corbion, which makes the Luminy brand PLA represented at the event, the material has a 75 percent lower carbon footprint than traditional plastics. The company said it planned for some of the cups at the Olympics to be collected and organically recycled into biogas via anaerobic digestion at a commercial pilot plant in South Korea.
In addition to saving fossil-based resources, “PLA bioplastic cups also require less energy to transport compared to their glass counterparts,” TotalEnergies said in a statement.
PLASTICS, which applauded the Biden administration’s announcement of investments into biomanufacturing, says biomaterials also offer the advantage of capturing carbon dioxide through plant growth.
Sustainability advocate Bob Lilienfeld, executive director of SPRING, which stands for Sustainable Packaging Research, Information and Networking Group, is a proponent of expanding recycling efforts.
But he said both biomaterials and traditional plastics leave their own environmental footprint.
“If the answer is we’re trying to reduce greenhouse gas generation, then PLA may or may not be a good solution, but it’s going to depend on that specific application. If you’re concerned about water use, then PLA may generate less CO2 during production than polyethylene does, but it uses significantly more water. So there’s a tradeoff,” he said. “There’s always tradeoffs.”
He warned against the possibility of muddying an already complicated recycling stream. While PLA cups might work in the closed environment of a concert venue or sporting event, they likely won’t be handled correctly if they escape into mass use, where the established recycling infrastructure has been designed with other materials in mind.
“If you put PLA through the standard stream that includes primarily PET and HDPE, then it’s not recyclable because it contaminates that stream,” Lilienfeld said. “There isn’t enough of it available to source-separate to recycle it. And since it’s a No. 7, consumers wouldn’t know what to do with it, anyway. So, now, we’re back to Square 1, which is, what is it we’re trying to accomplish?”
The possibility of compromising the PET stream was a concern for the plastics industry when PLA first hit the market, Arburg’s Sansoucy said.
So the industry has tried to advance biomaterials, while respecting what already works.
“Everything has to be looked at through the lens of, how can I recycle it, whether it’s bio- or petrol-based? And can I tell the difference between the two?” Sansoucy said.
While it supports the use of biobased plastics in certain packaging applications, the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) opposes the use of biopolymers in bottles — at least until biopolymers can be used in large volumes for such products.
“PET and HDPE bottles represent about 95 percent of all plastic bottles used in the United States,” it states on its website. “Bottles made of resins other than PET and HDPE, such as biopolymers, are often contaminants in these bales.”
The dilemma points up the need for educating consumers about how to handle their plastics, Nissei’s Kendzulak said.
He acknowledged there’s a lot of confusion around recycling, but asserted a mantra that echoes one of PLASTICS’ recent big pushes: “Recycling is real everywhere,” he said.
As more materials hit the market, messaging around some materials could prove particularly tricky.
“Biocompostable material requires an industrial composter,” Sansoucy said. “A lot of the industrial composting facilities aren’t sure what to make of it because they don’t know it’s compostable. So, they often assume it’s not. And then they rake it out and throw it away, anyway.”
According to the most recent figures available through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. recycling and composting rates was under 9 percent in 2018.
For Lilienfeld, determining which materials should be used comes down to which benefits and disadvantages should be prioritized. On one hand, there’s the resources that go into making the material, and on the other, there’s the effort required to reclaim it.
Everything carries a cost.
“In the same way that ... any plastic can claim that it’s recyclable, but that doesn’t mean that it’s going to actually get recycled. There is nothing on the planet that is not recyclable. Everything is. It’s just a question of what resources it takes and time it takes in order to make it happen, and whether or not that’s worth doing,” he said.
Hurdles to overcome
Biomaterials’ claim of a bigger share of the plastics market could come down to multiple factors, including price, government support and the enduring influence of sustainability initiatives.
Sansoucy is one plastics expert who’s expecting the materials to muscle into an even bigger niche.
“I believe there’s a great future out there in it,” he said. “I think the question will be, how do we integrate this into the rest of the materials stream?”
For consumer-goods companies looking to secure Earth-friendly bona fides, the sustainable image of biomaterials could prove decisive.
“The cost is slightly higher than, like, if you’re going to compare it to ABS or polystyrene. ... But we’re just trying to make more people aware. Because when you have more people aware, more people start using it, and then the prices will finally start coming down,” Kendzulak said.
As an executive of Nissei, he occupies a unique vantage point — unlike other OEMs, his company actually manufactures its own PLA.
Champagne glasses made from the material were a very big hit at one recent tradeshow, he said.
People who saw them had one takeaway.
“Almost everybody that contacted me, they were already a green company, trying to get greener. ... That’s everybody’s focus, was to do something better for the environment, for everybody,” Kendzulak said.
Contact:
Absolute Group of Companies, Parma, Ohio, 216-452-1000, www.absolutehaitian.com
Arburg Inc., Rocky Hill, Conn., 860-667-6500, www.arburg.com
Association of Plastic Recyclers, Washington, D.C., www.plasticsrecycling.org
Boy Machines Inc., Exton, Pa., 610-363-9121, www.boymachines.com
Chemical and Polymer Market Consultants, https://chempmc.com
Engel Machinery Inc., York, Pa., 717-764-6818, www.engelglobal.com
European Bioplastics e.V., Berlin, 49-30-28482-350, www.european-bioplastics.org
KraussMaffei Corp., Florence, Ky., 859-283-0200, www.kraussmaffei.com
LS Mtron Injection Molding Machine USA, Duluth, Ga., 470-724-2263, www.lsinjection.com/us
Nissei America Inc., San Antonio, 714-693-3000, www.nisseiamerica.com
Plastics Industry Association, Washington, D.C., 202-974-5200, www.plasticsindustry.org
Sustainable Packaging Research, Information and Networking Group, 586-747-1620, www.springpack.net
