State of art review on Life Cycle Assessment of polymers

ABSTRACT

Sustainable polymers are environmentally benign and better alternative for fossil-based petrochemical polymers. Sustainable polymers consume lesser energy, minimal environmental impact and are economically balanced. This article presents cumulative review of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of fossil and biopolymers. LCA is performed for different polymers with different scenarios and categories: Cradle to Gate and Cradle to Grave. Environmental impact of different polymers is analysed and compared for different scenarios with different strategies (Cradle to Gate and Cradle to Grave). Product and process-based polymers are considered for review and Articles from various journals and publisher are considered for review. Based on the review, it was found that Global Warming (GW), Acidification Potential (AP) and Eutrophication Potential (EP) were focused impacts in many studies based on environmental viewpoint. SimaPro software and Ecoinvent database were widely used in studies to find environmental impact. Most of the articles were focused on Cradle to Gate boundary system, and among End of Life (EoL) scenarios, recycling, landfill, incineration and composting and energy recovery were mostly addressed.

Abbreviations

PLA: Poly Lactic Acid; TPS: Thermo Plastic Starch; PHA: Polyhydroxyalkanoates; PBS: Polybutylene succinate; ABS: Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene; HIPS: High Impact Polystyrene; HDPE: High Density Polyethylene; LDPE: Low Density Polyethylene; PE: Polyethylene; EG: Ethylene Glycol; PP: Poly Propylene; PS: Polystyrene; PET: Polyethylene Terephthalate; PL: Polyester; GPPS: General Purpose Polystyrene; Ozone Depletion: OD; CO₂ emission; COE; Greenhouse Gas: GHG; Climate Change: CC; Global Warming: GW; Acidification Potential: AP; Eutrophication Potential: EP; Carcinogenics: CAR; Non Carcinogenics: NCAR; Respiratory Effects / Respiratory Organics: RE / RO; Ecotoxicity: ET; Fossil Fuel Depletion: FFD; Metal Depletion: MD; Smog Formation: SF; Abiotic Depletion: AD; Natural Resources Depletion: NRP; Particulate Matter Formation: PMF; Radiation: R; Minerals Depletion: MSD; Urban Land use: ULU; Agricultural Land use / land occupation Potential/Urban Land Occupation/ Natural Land Transformation: ALU/ LOP/ULO/NLT; Water Depletion: WD; Fresh water Eutrophication: FWE; Fresh water/ Water Use: FW/WU; Human Health: HH; HH Cancer: HHC; HH Noncancer: HHNC; Carbon Footprint: CFP; Human Toxicity: HT; Energy: Marine Aquatic Ecotoxicity / Marine Ecotoxicity: MAET/ MET; Photo Chemical Oxidation: PCO; Terrestrial Ecotoxicity: TET; Terrestrial Acidification: TA: Terrestrial Eutrophication: TE; Non Renewable Energy Use: NREU; Ionizing Radiation: IR

KEYWORDS:

• Sustainability
• Life Cycle Assessment
• end of life management
• design for environment
• biopolymers
• sustainable polymers
• environmental impacts

1. Introduction

Polymers are having numerous applications in several sectors (Vinodh, Jayakrishna, and Joy 2012). Application of plastics in regular life is inevitable (Rajendran et al. 2012). Petroleum-based plastics and its application increased globally. Disposal scenario of plastics may affect environment and increases Global Warming (GW) (Hottle, Bilec, and Landis 2013). In past decades, environmental impact-based analysis is globally elevated and still on process. As manufacturing process is expected to be sustainable, polymers and its process must have minimal environmental impact. In this context, this article presents state of art review on sustainable aspects of polymers. Articles from several journal databases were collected and analysed. The results of analysis are presented and inferences were derived. There are many kinds of impact methodology being carried out for processes and products.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a methodology to find environmental impact of a product or process. Product life cycle starts with raw material extraction, processing, manufacturing, use, and disposal. Due to environmental consideration, bio-based plastic production is hiked and awareness also increased. Bio-based plastics are derived from biological substance such as cassava, sugarcane, cornstarch, vegetables, and oil. Manufacturing process, use phase, and Disposal scenarios are drivers for environmental impacts. Land filling, incineration, composting of plastics are key for climate change, carbon footprint and GW. Using lifecycle methodology, Global Warming (GW) potential, Acidification, Eutrophication, Ozone depletion, human toxicity, Ecotoxicity, smog formation, human health, Agricultural Land use are found for products or process. A total of 43 articles are reviewed and analysis is presented in sustainable perspective. In this regard, a systematic review methodology was done, and papers are selected based on ease of recyclability option, and sustainable perspective of thermoplastic polymers and production process, its end of life scenario options and system boundary considered in this study.

1.1. Review methodology

Totally 43 papers were identified in the context of sustainable aspects of polymers. Review methodology of the present study is mentioned as follows: Sustainability, Life Cycle Assessment, End of Life management, Design for Environment, Biopolymers, Sustainable Polymers and Environmental Impact are used as keywords in this present study. Major journals referred are Journal of Cleaner Production, Resources, Conservation and Recycling. Major databases referred are Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of science. Inclusion criteria for this review studies are: Journal papers on LCA of polymers, fossil-based, biopolymer- and polymer-based composite production, manufacturing, processing and disposal scenarios related studies, energy recovery and energy consumed by polymers and product-based and component-based polymers. Exclusion criteria is Studies on Thermosetting plastics are not considered in this study.

Among Sustainability aspects of polymers, this review focused on LCA studies related to bio-based polymers. Articles from various journals and databases are referred for review. Among all journals, ‘Journal of Cleaner Production’ and ‘Resources, Conservation and Recycling’ has a greater number of articles and in the year 2016 more articles regarding biopolymers and fossil-based polymers were published. Among all journal publishers, Elsevier contributes more papers.

2. Literature study

2.1. Bio-based polymers

Gironi and Piemonte (2011b) compared environmental impact for PET and PLA Bottles. Incineration, Mechanical recycling and land filling scenarios were considered and both materials are compared from raw material extraction to disposal. Out of 11 impact categories five impacts of PLA and PET had lesser impact each other. PET bottles had more impact than PLA bottles but in Ecosystem Quality, PLA reaches highest impact score.

Piemonte (2011) analysed environmental impact and total energy demand of PLA, Mater – Bi (Petroleum-Based plasticisers (66%) and TPS (34%) and compared with PET and PE cradle to gate and cradle to grave analysis. They followed two Methods (Open Loop and Closed). Recycling, incineration, composting and anaerobic digestion scenarios were performed for selected polymers. From LCA results, bio-based polymers are found lesser environmental impact. From energy demand point of view, PLA consumes 50% energy compared to PET and PE from non renewable resources (fossil). From renewable point of view, PLA has higher energy consumption for these polymers.

Kendall (2012) compared EI for, production of PHB from residuals and agricultural waste. GW and energy were observed over production for PHB from residuals.GW and energy are lesser when PHB derived from residuals compared to PHB from Corn.

Weiss et al. (2012) done review for production of bio-based materials. LCA of PHA, PLA, PET, for 1 Tonne production. NREU and GHG emissions were analysed for bio-based materials. Caprolactam (base material used to produce plastics) contribute more CC and uses more NREU. PLA had more impact than PET. From LCA results, bio-based material saves 55 ± 34 GJ/t with functional unit of 1 Tonne. From LCA results, extensive farming showed better results than conventional farming.

Hottle, Bilec, and Landis (2013) done review on sustainability assessment of bio-based polymers. Impacts of PLA, TPS and PHA are compared with five plastics (HDPE, LDPE, PET, PP and PS). In CO2 emission, PS and PLA showed high level impact. Impacts for PLA in EP, AP, OD and Ecotoxicity are significantly higher than other five polymers.

Yates and Barlow (2013) reviewed LCA of biodegradable and commercial biopolymers. Review of PLA, PHA and starch-based polymers focused on NREU and GW. Among all polymers, PS uses more NREU and PLA thermoform boxes generates more GW. PHA carrier bags has very higher GW in environmental category. PLA from clamshell showed lower EP among other polymers. From cumulative data NREU and GW for PHA had lesser impact than petrochemical polymers.

Papong et al. (2014) computed environmental impact of PLA and PET water bottles with composting, incineration, landfill, landfill with energy recovery and Hybrid disposal scenario. From the results, PET bottles had higher impact values compared to PLA bottles. In energy demand, most of the scenarios possess negative values, from that PET bottle recycling had higher negative value (while compared to production, recycling of PET) and PLA consumes little energy compared to PET during production.

Benetto et al. (2015) done LCA of TPS and PLA Multilayer film. Two EoL and system boundaries are followed: Recycling, Incineration, Cut-off & Expansion (Production of PET) respectively. One layer of TPS in the middle and two layers of PLA at external. For packing application, TPS, PLA, PP, PET are compared with I2002 (Impact 2002+ method) and ReCipe method. Cut – off having higher impact compared to expansion. In disposal, recycling and incineration having negative for one kg of ML in I2002. I2002 method enables to find four methods (HH, Ecosystem Quality, CC and Resources). ReCiPe method had higher impact compared to I2002 in impact. In HH impact, I2002 showed 1.5 times higher impact than ReCipe method for PET.

Broeren et al. (2016) deployed sustainability assessment frame work for early-stage product (re)design material selection processes. Two bio-based plastics are compared with reference materials. Reference material is a flame retardant PC/ABS blend. Panels used as exterior housing for office printer is manufactured using Injection moulding. Mainly focused on GHG with Incineration scenario is taken. Bio lorganic carbon removal is negative for bio-based PTT and PLA. The study showed a frame work for material selection during early stage of Product design.

Ingrao, Gigli, and Siracusa (2017) LCA done for PLA trays and compared with PS trays. Environmental impact assessment was carried for PLA food packaging trays including Production of granules and transportation. For all impact categories PLA trays had higher impact than PS trays except in Resources an NREU. From the research, it was found that 8.98 g was for one PS tray and 11.36 g is needed for PLA trays and Total damage (single score) of PLA granule lesser than Transport (damage) of PLA and rises GW significantly. PLA manufactured process had lesser impact than PS granules.

Hottle, Bilec, and Landis (2017) done LCA for eight polymers (PLA, TPS, PET, bio-PET, HDPE, bio- HDPE, LDPE, bio – LDPE). Following scenarios were attempted composting, landfill and recycling. Production phase (Virgin) of polymers are considered. Data obtained from literature for eight polymers. Polymers were analysed for different scenario with different % level. Functional unit of 1 kg of Resin. Production impact of PLA was lesser in few impact categories. Production impact of petrochemical polymers (PET, HDPE, and LDPE) had attained 100% damage level in impact categories. Land filling of PLA and TPS causes highest Global Warming in impact assessment. 40% to 60% of environmental impact got reduced during recycling for petrochemical polymers in FFD.

Unger et al. (2017) performed LCA for single-use disposable medical products and bio-based polymers. End of life scenario is MSW (Material Solid Waste) and RMW (Regulated Medical waste) for both polymers. LCA for petrochemical plastics into bio-based plastics (PP and PLA) in medical devices. MSW of polymers reaches high environmental impact in ET. LCA is performed with 2³ design of experiment, to find environmental impact of polymers with various % level of biopolymers substitution (composition). By substitution method, SF was increased 3 to 4 times.

Broeren et al. (2017) developed of sustainable starch plastics. LCA of starch plastics manufactured from virgin starch and starch reclaimed from wastewater. Environmental impacts of six types of starch plastic granules were assessed. GHG emissions saved by plastic’s composition and some composition showed 85% reduction and others an 80% increase compared to the petrochemical counterpart. Higher GHG savings were obtained from components such as PBAT and PBS are minimised and starch, natural fibres and mineral fillers are maximised. Additionally, compared with alternate feedback (Sugarcane PLA), generated more impact in ALU and EP.

Horowitz, Frago, and Mu (2018) done LCA of Green2O water bottles and mixed bottle with recycled PET resin and regular PET resin. Four types of water bottles are compared and LCA analysis was conducted. ENSO, PLA (corn-based), recycled PET, and regular (petroleum-based) PET. A special additive used in ENSO bottle, which helped the bottle to degrade after disposed as landfill. Recycled PET and ENSO bottles were better than PLA and regular PET bottles. PLA bottle had lesser impacts in CAR, RO and GW categories but highest impact in seven out of 14 categories.

Zhang et al. (2018) done LCA of polylimonene carbonate (PLC) production processes. PLC derived from different process and environmental impact were compared. Two methods are used to produce PLC. PLC from Citrus (from orange) & PLC from Algae. PLC derived using silica dissolved in solvent. Process method involved in PLC. PLC from Algae had seven negative impacts out of eleven categories. Effect of solvent in process also compared for environmental impacts.

Changwichan, Silalertruksa, and Gheewala (2018) done LCA of bioplastics and PP. LCA was carried out for following materials. Cassava and Sugar cane-based PLA, PBS & PHA. For PP, Land filling 75% and 25% Recycling and for bioplastics, hybrid EoL. In single score for scenario 3, had negative impacts except PP. In impact result, AP and LOP for SPHA plastics had higher impact than others. Gironi and Piemont (2011a) performed a comparative LCA for Mater – Bi (Bo degradable Plastics) and PE. Cradle to gate and Cradle to grave with recycling scenario were considered with functional unit of 1 kg Shoppers bag. Mater -Bi had lesser environmental impact compared to PE in Cradle to Gate scenario and in Cradle to grave, Mater – Bi failed when compared to PE with recycling scenario. 1000 shoppers made from 68 kg of Master – Bi and 52 kg for PE. 0.9 kg of granule is produced from 1 kg recycled shoppers. Progressing with recycling scenario for PE changed the environmental impact of both polymers.

Van der Harst and Potting (2013) compared ten disposal cups (Cradle to Grave analysis). Ten disposal cups were taken from literature and compared with different geographical location database for GW. Cups were analysed for landfill, composting and incineration scenarios. From the results, GW for PS from EU/US had higher impact in composting scenario. Lowest impact is for PB-PE (paper board – PE) in composting scenario with US location. Recycling of petroleum plastics allows GW decrease instead of landfilling. Landfilling can decrease GW paperboard cups instead of incineration scenario and additional benefits of methane can extracted.

Buccino et al. (2017) done LCA of PE coated paper ice cream cup. Four impacts were analysed AP, EP, PCO, OD, GW and AD. Different end of life scenarios were attempted. Hybrid end of life were attempted. System boundaries were divided into three categories and analysed for impacts. Upstream, Downstream and Core process. When % of landfill increases, acidification increased. Among all three process, downstream had three times lesser impact than others. Incineration of polymer had lesser impacts than landfill.

Wang et al. (2012) analysed carbon foot print of sign substrate (sign Board materials) using life cycle approach. Two materials were analysed for carbon footprint i.e. recycled e-plastic waste (75 % used printer cartridge and 25% plastics used computers) and aluminium. Aluminium sign (sign board) substrate uses more resources and emits three times of GHG compared to recycled plastic.

Vinodh, Jayakrishna, and Joy (2012) performed LCA for automobile ABS component and used Eco indicator and CML methods. From LCA results, emissions of various product stages were obtained; from that ABS injection moulding provides highest emissions to air. Next highest level of emission to air is provided by power grid mix process. Power grid mix showed highest level of impact in CO2, EP, OD, AP, HH and Ecotoxicity.

2.2. Petroleum-based polymers

Chilton, Burnley, and Nesaratnam (2010) performed LCA for PET with recycling (Closed loop recycling) and energy recovery (Combined Heat and Power) scenario. Closed loop recycling had lesser impact compared to energy recovery. In climate change, power generation had nearly 10% impact being increased.

Tabone et al. (2010) ranked 12 Polymers based on environmental impact. Among 12 polymers, seven Petroleum plastics, four bio-based plastics and one from both. From the results, GPPS had higher impact and ranked first based on LCA results.

Shen, Worrell, and Patel (2010) compared EI of PET Bottle to PET Fibre recycling. Four recycling cases, Mechanical recycling, semi-mechanical, oligomer recycling and Monomer recycling were analysed. Virgin PET had higher impacts in all categories compared to recycled PET fibre. Mechanical recycled PET had low impact in all categories.

Harst et al. (2013) compared ten disposal cups (Cradle to Grave analysis). Ten disposal cups were taken from literature and compared with different geographical location database for GW. Cups were analysed for landfill, composting and incineration scenarios. From the results, GW for PS from EU/US had higher impact in composting scenario. Lowest impact is for PB-PE (paper board – PE) in composting scenario with US location. Recycling of petroleum plastics allows GW decrease instead of landfilling. Landfilling can decrease GW paperboard cups instead of incineration scenario and additional benefits of methane can extracted.

Tsiropoulos et al. (2015) compared bio-based HDPE and bio-based PET from Sugarcane ethanol and ethanol production was done in brazil and India. Ethanol-based biopolymers were analysed for LCA and compared with petrochemical Plastics. Impact of partial bio-based PET was similar to petrochemical manufactured process in greenhouse gas emission and non-renewable energy use was lesser. Production from brazil ethanol had higher impacts and based on overall LCA, bio PET from brazil ethanol had higher impact than the Indian ethanol in Human Health and Ecosystem Quality. In GHG emission, PTA (purified terephthalic acid) and end of life scenario for Indian-based bio PET was slightly higher. In all impact (GHG, NREU, HH and Ecosystem Quality) MEG (monoethylene glycol) had higher impact than Brazil and Indian-based PET.

Chen, Pelton, and Smith (2016) performed LCA of bio and fossil-based polymer bottles.12 PET bottle Production (Feedstock) scenarios were considered and all scenarios are compared. All 12 production systems starts with PTA (purified terephthalic acid) production. In all 12 production methods, raw material (PTA Production) had higher impact than materials. Corn Stover is best alternative feedstock for bio PET bottles.

Dassisti et al. (2016) compared LCA of Two HDPE net materials (Recycled and Non Recycled HDPE) and compared with Glass Sheet and PVC sheet. Recycled HDPE had lesser impact in all categories. Glass sheet had 14 times EP impact and 10Times in GW. For HT and OD impact, both HDPE had equal impact.

Yin et al. (2016) done environmental impact assessment for producing Steel Reinforcing Mesh (SRM), virgin PP fibre, industrial PP waste and domestic PP Recycling. Production of PP creates more environmental impact compared to recycling. Industrial PP fibres had lesser impacts compared to SRM. COE of SRM was 15 times higher than industrial PP. Virgin plastic reduces water usage into 3.5 times than Domestic PP recycling process. GW of Virgin PP production was little higher than PP fibre production.

Shah, Varandani, and Panchani (2016) done LCA of household water tanks made up of RCC, Mild steel and Linear Low Density Polyethylene (LLDPE). Three different material water tanks were compared for environmental impacts. HH, Ecosystem and Resources were only considered for all three materials. LCA results showed that household water tanks of LLDPE had lesser environmental impacts HH, ecosystems and resource depletion.

Vahidi et al. (2016) done comparative LCA for six types of wastewater pipe materials. Two sewer systems were compared. Gravity sewer system & Pressure sewer system. Both systems were compared with six types of materials. Among six pipe materials, ductile iron had higher impact and reinforced concrete had lesser impact and can be a good alternative pipe. HDPE and PVC had lesser impact than FRP. PVC had lesser impact in all impact categories. From LCA results, Gravity sewer system was better than the Pressure sewer system.

Ingarao et al. (2017) done life cycle energy and CO₂emission of PP, Tin Steel and Glass in food packaging across European Countries. Three different materials energy and CO₂ emission were analysed. PP, Tin Steel and Glass. Recycling scenario was taken for analysis. PP had lower energy and CO₂ emission compared to other materials. Glass had higher CO₂ emission and energy consum0ption. Primary energy and COE were observed for same system boundaries. From that PP had lesser impact and UK and Greece had lesser COE. Glass Consumes more primary energy compared to other materials.

2.3. Composites

Khanna, Bakshi, and Lee (2008) measured Life cycle energy saving for Carbon nanofiber (CNF) and carbon nano glass fibre (CNGF) composites. Automobile body panel was replaced with CNF and CNGF instead of steel and environmental impact of CNF and CNGF were compared with steel. Initially strength was compared with steel, then energy was calculated for use phase of the components. Esterification process was used as system boundary due to unavailability of unsaturated polyester data base.

Xu et al. (2008) performed LCA for Wood fibre PP composite sheets. Wood fibre reinforced with PP with 10, 30 and 50 % of fibre content and pure PP was used to compare environmental impacts. Pure PP causes more damage to Environment and 30 % of fibre content (composition) composite had lesser impact than other composites. In all impact categories, PP attained 100% impact score and in weight effect category, PP score was slightly higher than composites.

Rajendran et al. (2012) compared EI of two composites (recycled and virgin composites). Recycled PP (RPP) with glass fibre and virgin PP (VPP) with Glass fibre are compared and recycled PP with flax fibre and virgin PP with flax fibre are compared. RPP with glass fibre impact was lesser compared with virgin PP and flax fibre with virgin PP had more impact and in few impact categories recycled PP had more impacts. In Flax composite, virgin and recycled PP have near value to each other. In GW impact, for raw material category both 20% RPP with flax and 20% VPP with flax had negative impact and in end of life scenario, 20% G-RPP (glass reinforced pp) and G-VPP (glass reinforced virgin pp) has high impact.

Qiang et al. (2014) compared EI of two PLA wood composite (20% wood and 80% PLA toughed with PHA & 20% wood + 55% PLA + 25% PHA). AHP method was used to determine the weighted environmental impact. Composition one had more impact than two.

La Rosa et al. (2014) performed LCA for eco-sandwich epoxy resin and traditional sandwich and polyurethane. Hemp production to cropping was considered and landfill scenario was focused. From impact assessment, both eco and traditional composites results are similar except human toxicity. Human toxicity was very low for eco composite compared to Polyurethane composite.

Batouli et al. (2014) did LCA for structural insulated panels (SIP). Three different types of kenaf core polyurethane (PU) composites panels were created with different % and compared to 0% of Kenaf (Pure Rigid PU). Landfill scenario is assumed, 20 km transport and electrical energy were given as inputs. LCA was performed for both Kenaf and PU. From that kenaf was found to have lower impact.

Korol, Burchart-Korol, and Pichlak (2016) did LCA of five different PP composite pallets. Plastic pallet manufactured from biocomposites and composites based on polypropylene (PP), glass fibres (GF) and natural fibre cotton fibres (CF), jute fibres (JF), and kenaf fibres (KF) are analysed for Environmental impact assessment. Lesser environmental impact was observed from LCA results in kenaf and jute fibres as reinforce material. Highest impact on PP, PPGF and PPCF. With respect to all impact categories, highest environmental impact were observed for PPCF and PP. PPCF use more agricultural land in impact categories and human toxicity was also very high in this composition. Based on overall eco efficiency analysis, PPCF and PPGF were found to have higher impact.

Sommerhuber et al. (2017) did LCA of Wood Plastic Composite (WPC). Two cases were presented. 100 % virgin wood and plastic (Cradle to gate) & 100 % recovered or recycled (EOL incineration with energy recovery). Two scenarios: Virgin vs secondary & Recycling vs energy recovery. In these two scenarios: Recovered material had lower impact in few categories: 30% cradle to gate had higher impact in all categories compared to 60% of wood compounds. WPC processing had lesser impact.

Haylock and Rosentrater (2018) done LCA and Techno Economic analysis of Poly Lactic acid composite bio-based and traditional fillers. Comparison of organic and in Organic fillers included DDGS, flax, hemp, rice husks, and wood, were compared against inorganic fillers (glass and talc) for PLA-based composites. Two scenarios were considered: LCA comparison to calculate the energy and environmental impacts in production of PLA biocomposites, with different fillers, processing methods, material constraints, and end-of-life options. Five End of life scenarios are done: Recycling, incineration, landfill, landfill + methane extraction and No End of Life Option. Cost analysis: In all scenarios, Glass and TALC having higher cost with 0.01,0.1 and 1 kg (DDGS is low in all categories).

Khoshnava et al. (2018) developed sustainable composite for building materials using LCA method. Hybrid biocomposite was fabricated and compared with Glass fibre PP and PE. 11 layers of fibre composites are created for building materials. Similarly, GF composite plates were created. LCA was carried out for both GF and Hybrid composite. Normalisation factor, endpoint method and various impact assessment were done for samples. Energy data and materials were taken from Eco Invent. Agricultural data were used for kneaf fibres. Sustainable biocomposite was suggested for building materials.

Table 1 indicates environmental impact categories of polymers from literature. Different polymers were analysed for environmental impact. From literature survey, GW, Ozone depletion, Acidification, Eutrophication, Respiratory effects, Ecotoxicity and Fossil Fuel depletion were widely focused in LCA.

Table 1. Impact categories of polymers

	Articles	OD	COE	GHG	CC	GW	AP	EP	CAR	NCAR	RE	ET	FFD	METAD	SF	AD	NRD	PMF	Radiation	MD	ULU	ALU/LU	WD	FWE	FW/WU	HHC	HH NC	HH	CFP	HT	Energy	MAET	PCO	TE	TA	NREU
	Khanna, Bakshi, and Lee (2008)																														✓
	Xu et al. (2008)				✓		✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓							✓		✓
	Gironi and Piemonte (2010)	✓			✓		✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓						✓	✓		✓
	Chilton, Burnley, and Nesaratnam (2010)	✓			✓		✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓						✓
	Tabone et al. (2010)	✓				✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓
	Shen, Worrell, and Patel (2010)					✓	✓	✓								✓									✓					✓			✓	✓	✓
	Gironi and Piemont (2011a)	✓				✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓						✓	✓		✓
	Piemonte (2011)					✓																														✓
	Kendall (2012)					✓
	Rajendran et al. (2012)	✓				✓	✓	✓																	✓					✓		✓	✓	✓	✓
	Weiss et al. (2012)	✓			✓		✓	✓																												✓
	Wang et al. (2012)																												✓
	Vinodh, Jayakrishna, and Joy (2012)	✓			✓		✓	✓																					✓
	Hottle, Bilec, and Landis (2013)	✓				✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓			✓															✓
	Yates and Barlow (2013)					✓	✓	✓																												✓
	Harst et al (2013)					✓
	Papong et al. (2014)					✓	✓	✓																						✓
	Qiang et al. (2014)					✓	✓	✓				✓			✓																		✓
	La Rosa et al. (2014)	✓				✓	✓	✓								✓									✓					✓		✓	✓	✓	✓
	Batouli et al. (2014)	✓				✓	✓	✓				✓			✓		✓								✓	✓	✓
	Tsiropoulos et al. (2015)			✓				✓				✓																✓								✓
	Benetto et al. (2015)											✓					✓											✓
	Chen, Pelton, and Smith (2016)	✓			✓		✓	✓				✓	✓		✓													✓						✓	✓
	Dassisti et al. (2016)	✓				✓	✓	✓								✓														✓			✓
	Yin et al. (2016)					✓		✓					✓												✓
	Belboom and Leonard (2016)	✓			✓		✓	✓					✓				✓	✓		✓		✓			✓							✓
	Broeren et al. (2016)			✓																		✓														✓
	Korol, Burchart-Korol, and Pichlak (2016)	✓			✓								✓	✓				✓	✓		✓	✓			✓			✓		✓		✓	✓		✓
	Shah, Varandani, and Panchani (2016)																											✓
	Vahidi et al. (2016)	✓				✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓
	Ingrao, Gigli, and Siracusa (2017)				✓	✓					✓	✓																✓								✓
	Hottle, Bilec, and Landis (2017)	✓				✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓
	Unger et al. (2017)	✓				✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓
	Sommerhuber et al. (2017)					✓	✓	✓								✓																	✓
	Ingarao et al. (2017)		✓																												✓
	Buccino et al. (2017)	✓				✓	✓	✓								✓																	✓
	Broeren et al. (2017)			✓				✓														✓														✓
	Haylock and Rosentrater (2018)					✓	✓	✓	✓						✓																✓
	Horowitz, Frago, and Mu (2018)	✓				✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓									✓														✓	✓
	Zhang et al. (2018)	✓			✓								✓					✓				✓	✓		✓					✓				✓	✓
	Khoshnava et al. (2018)	✓			✓								✓	✓				✓	✓		✓	✓		✓	✓					✓		✓	✓	✓	✓
	Changwichan, Silalertruksa, and Gheewala (2018)					✓	✓	✓					✓									✓

Table 2 shows inventory database and system boundary from literature survey. From literature survey, many articles used SimaPro software for LCIA for polymers. Many articles used ReCiPe method for analysis of environmental impact of polymers. Cradle to gate and cradle to grave were the system boundaries most attempted in research studies. Most authors analysed environmental impact in European context. Eco Invent Database was used to analyse environmental impact for biopolymers and fossil-based polymers.

Table 2. Materials and inventory data base used for Life Cycle Assessment

Bio – *; General Polymers/YES – ✓; Recycled – #; Cradle to gate – CG; Cradle to Grave – CR; Composite – Wood/Glass Fibre/Natural Fibres; Not available – NA
No	Articles	PLA	PHA/PHB	TPS	HDPE	LDPE	PET	PS	PE	PU	PP	ABS	PVC	Master – Bi	Composite	location	Boundary
	Khanna, Bakshi, and Lee (2008)							✓			✓				✓	NA	CG
	Xu et al. (2008)															Australian
	Gironi and Piemonte (2010)	✓					✓									Europe	CR
	Chilton, Burnley, and Nesaratnam (2010)						✓									NA	NA
	Tabone et al. (2010)	✓	✓		✓	✓	* ✓				✓		✓			NA	NA
	Shen, Worrell, and Patel (2010)						✓									Europe	NA
	Gironi and Piemont (2011a)								✓#					✓		Europe	CG & CR
	Piemonte (2011)	✓					✓		✓					✓		Europe	CR
	Kendall (2012)		✓													US	CR
	Rajendran et al. (2012)										✓
	Weiss et al. (2012)	✓	✓				✓
	Wang et al. (2012)											✓				US
	Vinodh, Jayakrishna, and Joy (2012)											✓				Indian
	Hottle, Bilec, and Landis (2013)	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
	Yates and Barlow (2013)	✓	✓		✓		✓	✓			✓
	Harst et al (2013)	✓					✓ #	✓	✓		✓					Europe & US
	Papong et al. (2014)	✓					✓									Europe	CG
	Qiang et al. (2014)	✓	✓												✓
	La Rosa et al. (2014)									✓					✓	Europe	CG
	Batouli et al. (2014)									✓					✓	Europe
	Tsiropoulos et al. (2015)				✓				✓							Brazil & Europe	CG
	Benetto et al. (2015)	✓		✓			✓				✓						CR
	Chen, Pelton, and Smith (2016)						✓									Europe & US
	Dassisti et al. (2016)				✓											Europe
	Yin et al. (2016)										✓					Australian
	Belboom and Leonard (2016)				✓ *												CR
	Broeren et al. (2016)	✓									✓	✓			✓
	Korol, Burchart-Korol, and Pichlak (2016)										✓					Europe	CR
	Shah, Varandani, and Panchani (2016)					✓										Indian	CG
	Vahidi et al. (2016)				✓								✓			US
	Ingrao, Gigli, and Siracusa (2017)	✓						✓								Europe	CG
	Hottle, Bilec, and Landis (2017)	✓		✓	✓ *	✓ *	✓ *										CR
	Unger et al. (2017)				✓
	Sommerhuber et al. (2017)					✓					✓				✓	Europe	CG
	Ingarao et al. (2017)										✓
	Buccino et al. (2017)								✓
	Broeren et al. (2017)	✓	✓			✓										Europe
	Haylock and Rosentrater (2018)	✓															CR
	Horowitz, Frago, and Mu (2018)	✓					✓
	Zhang et al. (2018)							✓									CR
	Khoshnava et al. (2018)		✓								✓
	Changwichan, Silalertruksa, and Gheewala (2018)	✓									✓						CR

Table 3 shows application and End of Life scenarios attempted by researchers form literature. From Table 3, most authors analysed product-based polymers for environmental impact assessment, Waste disposal scenario attempted are landfill, incineration, composting and recycling.

Table 3. Disposal scenario of polymers

Mechanical recycling – *; Chemical recycling – #;
No	Articles	Landfill	Incineration	Recycling	Energy recovery	Municipal Waste	Anaerobic Digestion	Composting
	Khanna, Bakshi, and Lee (2008)
	Xu et al. (2008)
	Gironi and Piemonte (2010)	✓		*		✓
	Chilton, Burnley, and Nesaratnam (2010)			✓	✓
	Tabone et al. (2010)
	Shen, Worrell, and Patel (2010)			*
	Gironi and Piemont (2011a)	✓		✓
	Piemonte (2011)		✓				✓	✓
	Kendall (2012)
	Rajendran et al. (2012)
	Weiss et al. (2012)
	Wang et al. (2012)
	Vinodh, Jayakrishna, and Joy (2012)
	Hottle, Bilec, and Landis (2013)
	Yates and Barlow (2013)
	Harst et al (2013)	✓	✓
	Papong et al. (2014)	✓	✓	#	✓			✓
	Qiang et al. (2014)				✓
	La Rosa et al. (2014)	✓
	Batouli et al. (2014)	✓
	Tsiropoulos et al. (2015)
	Benetto et al. (2015)		✓	✓
	Chen, Pelton, and Smith (2016)
	Dassisti et al. (2016)			✓
	Yin et al. (2016)			✓
	Belboom and Leonard (2016)
	Broeren et al. (2016)	✓
	Korol, Burchart-Korol, and Pichlak (2016)
	Shah, Varandani, and Panchani (2016)	✓
	Vahidi et al. (2016)
	Ingrao, Gigli, and Siracusa (2017)
	Hottle, Bilec, and Landis (2017)	✓		✓				✓
	Unger et al. (2017)
	Sommerhuber et al. (2017)			✓	✓
	Ingarao et al. (2017)			✓
	Buccino et al. (2017)	✓	✓
	Broeren et al. (2017)
	Haylock and Rosentrater (2018)	✓	✓	✓
	Horowitz, Frago, and Mu (2018)			✓
	Zhang et al. (2018)
	Khoshnava et al. (2018)
	Changwichan, Silalertruksa, and Gheewala (2018)	✓	✓	✓				✓

3. General observations

Life Cycle Assessment is a tool to measure environmental impact of polymers based on specified system boundaries. LCA is categorised based on system boundaries ‘Cradle to Gate’ and ‘Cradle to Grave’, which include raw material extraction to End of life of polymers. The purpose of this review is to identify polymers with minimal environmental impact among various polymers with appropriate manufacturing or production process. This state of art of LCA review may help manufacturing practitioners to identify eco friendlier polymers or polymer-based composites with minimal environmental impacts with optimised manufacturing process. Many authors widely used SimaPro software and Ecoinvent database to quantify environmental impact with different life cycle perspective. To find environmental impact, ReciPe and Eco Indicator methods were widely. Table 2 shows many LCA studies were performed in European context. There are many kinds of impacts which were analysed and compared with different types of EoL scenarios (Tables 1 and 3). Due to reliability and reasonable strength properties, polymers were used for many applications. In recent years worldwide by average, 320 million tonnes of plastics were produced per year (Thakur et al. 2018). More output and less recycling process of plastics increased GHG emissions which resulted in increasing GW impact. Design engineers should improve sustainable factors of plastic products by changing design and implement eco friendlier materials. Use of fossil-based resources should be optimum and bio-based products to be incorporated to market to avoid increase of GW. Feedstock material would be recycled or bio-based material is an option for new product development to reduce GW. Awareness of take back policy for plastic products should be spread wide to customer after EoL. Life cycle methodology has consistency to evaluate environmental impact of bio-based polymers for substitution of petrochemical polymers. System boundary decides impacts of production process for virgin or recycled polymers. Chilton, Burnley, and Nesaratnam (2010) addressed that closed loop recycling system boundary had good potential to reduce environmental impacts for recycled PET. Similarly, Shen, Worrell, and Patel (2010) expressed, recycled PET with mechanical recycling process had lesser impacts than other types of recycling. When moving to bio-based polymers, PLA is good option and had potential to degrade in landfill scenario. Main content for PLA production is starch produced from Cassava. For bio-based polymer production, ALU requirement is high. Broeren et al. (2017) found reclaimed starch uses 60% lesser ALU and reduces NERU as well as GHG than virgin production. From energy perspective, PLA consumed little more energy than petrochemical polymers for 1 kg production (Papong et al. 2014). Because of soft nature strength PLA cannot be used for all applications, instead this composite would be an alternate solution. Following inferences are observed from previous studies;

• Geographical location and environmental impacts are varying and shows major differences.

• Quantitative assessments, functional LCA design tools for green design methods, toxicity of reactants and the reaction heat can be used to quantity adherence principles. Chemical design-based data could help to improve awareness and practice to chemist-based manufacturer regarding chemical products.

• LCA allows manufacturer to select clean production processes, lesser hazard and lesser toxic materials, optimising energy efficiency of production process, waste management and recycling (La Rosa et al. 2014).

• Bio feedstock (Corn, Cassava, Sugarcane etc.,) production (raw material) from biological resources, uses pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers significantly increases environmental impacts. Cultivation and cropping use large agricultural land for biological feedstock (Gironi and Piemonte 2010).

• Three main raw materials – corn, cassava, and sugarcane are being used for bioplastics production (Gironi and Piemonte 2011a; Kendall 2012). Greener chemicals would help to reduce environmental impact in the future for production of Lactic acid and cassava starch production (Starch production and cultivation increases EP) (Papong et al. 2014).

• Bio feedstock could save fossil fuels and mineral and enhance sustainable product development from industry perspective. Alternative bio feedstock extraction from waste residues, by products and intensive crops should enhance (Kendall 2012; Chen, Pelton, and Smith 2016; Yates and Barlow 2013).

4. Discussions

Bio-based polymers are environmentally friendlier compared to fossil-based polymers. Raw material extraction to use phase of material attains different processing methods and application. Using fossil-based polymers causes more environmental impacts globally. From literature survey, authors have done LCA for both bio-based polymers and fossil-based polymers. From analysis result, bio-based polymers have minimal environmental impact compared with petroleum-based polymers. Many authors have done analysis for products like water bottle, automobile components, composite panels, trays, ice cream cups, pallets and food packaging, etc.

4.1. Inferences from material perspective

• PLA, TPS, and PHA are bio-based polymers which are derived from starch, and their environmental impact are very lesser from lifecycle impact analysis. From production point of view, starch-based polymers consume more agricultural land and using reclaimed starch instead of virgin, starch leads to modest decrease in NREU and GHG emissions, up to 60% reductions in eutrophication and agricultural land use (Broeren et al. 2017).

• It is observed that, Ozone depletion, Radiation and Acidification for PLA and TPS are high during polymer production (Tabone et al. 2010; Gironi and Piemonte 2011b).

• Environmental impact of PET was lesser for Mechanical recycling compared to virgin PET (Shen, Worrell, and Patel 2010). Similarly, PP had low impact on recycling (Rajendran et al. 2012) in comparison to virgin PP.

• Production of polymers from residues had lesser impacts compared to virgin production method (Kendall 2012; Chen, Pelton, and Smith 2016).

4.2. Inferences from product perspective (PET water bottle-based studies)

In this section, PET water bottle production options are disscussed because many articles widely explored thi application. Disposal of water bottles creates more impact than some other polymer products from literature survey. Most water bottles were made of both PET. PET bottles are widely used globally, and it is used for one-time purpose and disposed off as waste. Due to environmental considerations and government regulations, usage of bio plastics was raised globally. Bio PET is produced from corn starch and waste residues mixed with bottle production. Production of polymers from residual reduces GW potential and CO_2. Disposal scenario determines the environmental impact of polymers. Waste PET bottles are recycled as fibre and mixed with virgin granule to reduce resource utilisation. From analysis view point, Recycling of PET bottles create negative impacts and saves energy during polymer production (Papong et al. 2014).

4.3. Inferences from viewpoint of end of life scenario

End of life scenario of polymers decides the environmental impact for a product or process. For both bio-based and petrochemical-based polymers, many scenarios were analysed and summarised by many authors. In sustainability aspect, polymers should have minimal environmental impacts and consumption of energy for processing is lesser than petrochemical polymers. Major strategies still followed for polymer disposal is landfill, incineration, recycling and composting. From Van der Harst and Potting (2013) study it is found that, globally both bioplastic and petrochemical plastics, when subjected to incineration and landfill scenario had reduced GW.

4.3.1. Recycling

A petrochemical polymer has potential of raising environmental impact during disposal scenario and causes climate change and human toxicity. Recycling and energy recovery from plastics creates lesser impacts compared to production of virgin plastics. The renewability of natural fibres and the recyclability of thermoplastic polymers provide an attractive eco-friendly material (Xu et al. 2008). Recycled PET bottles reduce environmental impacts and production of virgin PET and energy by burning causes GW increase (Papong et al. 2014; Chilton, Burnley, and Nesaratnam 2010) Mechanical and semi mechanical recycling option for PET had lower impact compared to production of virgin PET (Shen, Worrell, and Patel 2010). Petrochemical polymers are preferred to recycling instead of land filing or incineration, because it causes ozone layer depletion, climate change and increases GW. In case of 100% recycling option, bio-based polymers produces very less impact in fossil fuel depletion and land occupation than other scenario (Changwichan, Silalertruksa, and Gheewala 2018). Yin et al. (2016) analysed LCA results showing that industrial recycled PP fibre offers important environmental benefits over virgin PP fibre and industrial recycled PP fibre in terms of benefits in CO₂ equivalent, PO₂ equivalent, water and Oil equivalent. Polyethene (PE) had lesser impacts during mechanical recycling option (Perugini, Mastellone, and Arena 2005).

4.3.2. Landfill

The awareness of global warming and climate change by polymer incineration and landfill were improved according to government regulations. Land filling of polymers pollutes land and increase human toxicity, from that observation for 1% degradation of PET takes 100 years (Chilton, Burnley, and Nesaratnam 2010). From product point of view for PLA bottles, landfill scenario without energy recovery is worst case as it increases GHG (Papong et al. 2014). Landfill of bio-based polymers tend to degrade after a period. under anaerobic condition, bio-based polymers were digested and emits methane from landfill site (Papong et al. 2014). In this event generated methane gas mixed with atmosphere in landfill scenario. Papong et al. (2014) found that, collection and generation of energy from landfill methane gas causes lesser impact. Energy recovery option reduces certain amount of cost as well as production of electricity. Bio-based polymers composed itself during landfill, but petroleum-based polymers pollutes environment. From Sommerhuber et al. (2017) study, bio-based polymers under condition of landfill with and without energy recovery scenario, both showed same kind of results in negative side of plot. Similarly, for petroleum based polymers but in the positive side of plot. Production of polymers from residues leads to reduction in fugitive gas collection from landfill (Kendall 2012).

4.3.3. Incineration

Bio-based polymers are better to get composted itself instead of incineration and another option is recycling and energy recovery from polymers. Not only incineration causes damage to some bioplastics (PLA and TPS) but landfill also increase GW and recycling of PLA and TPS reduces impact (Hottle, Bilec, and Landis 2017). With reference to incineration with energy recovery option, a reasonable amount of environmental impacts is reduced instead of incineration without energy recovery option. From Papong et al. (2014) and Saibuatrong, Cheroennet, and Suwanmanee (2017) study, it is found that lowest environmental impacts were obtained from 100% incineration with energy recovery option for bio-based polymers with cradle to grave boundary system. At the same time, energy consumption of end of life scenarios, recycling option gives better results compared to incineration scenario for polymers (Papong et al. 2014). In the context of alternative materials like composites, energy recovery option had more environmental impact than recycling option (Sommerhuber et al. (2017): Haylock and Rosentrater (2018)). Incineration of bio-based polymers is not advisable because it causes GW potential. Composting of bio-based plastics had good environmental benefits compared to incineration option, then compared to petroleum-based plastics, bio-based polymers had lower impacts in incineration scenario (Papong et al. 2014).

4.3.4. Composting

Composting of bioplastics is an alternative strategy instead of landfilling because degradation leads to GW and climate change impacts. Biopolymers are being designed with features such as biodegradability and composability, which are standardised in US according to ASTM D6400-04 Standard Specification for Compostable Plastics (Hottle, Bilec, and Landis 2013). Composting of bioplastics can be best effective than incineration (Weiss et al. 2012). Composting site requrires more space and cities are dense of population (Papong et al. 2014). Incineration has low acidification potential instead of getting disposed off as landfill of bioplastics (Buccino et al. 2017). Industrial composting facilitates lesser impact to the environment compared to any other composting. Aerobic decomposition generates more CO₂. Kendall (2012) stated that Composting or any aerobic decomposition of PHB would lead to emissions of CO₂. The environmental impact of bioplastics based on, applying credits (allocation methods), allocation of material and degradation assumptions to landfill and composting (Van der Harst and Potting 2013). The optimal disposal scenarios, landfilling, incineration and composting is dependent on bioplastic types (Hottle, Bilec, and Landis 2013). From Papong et al. (2014) study, it is found that GW potential had lesser value compared to landfill for bio-based plastics.

4.4. Inferences based on environmental impacts

Life cycle impact of polymer is differing based upon disposal scenario and functional unit. Considering PLA and TPS if undergone incineration, generates more damage to environment, if it is recycled or compost impact gets reduced rapidly. Ozone layer depletion, Acidification, and Eutrophication for PLA was higher compared to fossil-based polymers with production of 1 kg granule (Gironi and Piemonte 2010; Hottle, Bilec, and Landis 2013). In many geographical locations, these impacts became very same and it is not only depending on functional unit of 1 kg production and it is applicable for product also.

For production of sustainable polymers, energy consumption should be optimum in Production to end phase. Energy-related studies were focused in few articles. From Papong et al. (2014) study, PLA consumes more energy compared to PET, and for production of 1 kg of bottles, PLA consumes 1.20 kg material. In the same case, PET recycling saves energy while compared to production of virgin PET. Similarly, Khanna, Bakshi, and Lee (2008) found that 60% energy saved replacing composites instead of steel in its total life cycle.

5. Future research and recommendations

This article presents Sustainable aspects of polymers from view point of LCA studies. A total of 43 articles were reviewed. The analysis of studies was done from viewpoint of materials, processing methods, LCA method and impacts. Based on the analysis, research gaps were derived, and inferences were presented. Discussions are presented from material, product, End of life and environmental impact-based perspectives. Future perspective section enables understanding alternative technologies and possible studies to improve LCA aspects. Biopolymers are more sustainable than fossil-based polymers-based on LCA results. Environmental impact and emissions of polymers is driven by processing, manufacturing methods and EoL. Cradle to grave studies explores to understand the phase that had more environmental impact during polymers production and significant impacts that can be reduced by modifying process or sequence of operation. Not only changing sequence of operation can be a perfect solution for analysis, LCA method categories (CML Baseline, Eco Indicator, ReciPe etc …) also influence the environmental impacts of polymers in different geographical location. In that case, comparison of different LCA methods enable examination of environmental impact of polymers from region to region. Vinodh, Jayakrishna, and Joy (2012) compared environmental impact of ABS using CML Baseline and Eco Indicator methods. Implementation of 3 R’s (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) in polymer production will be an alternative sustainable strategy to minimise environmental impact globally. Deploying ISO 14,040 standards and identifying proper Goal and scope definition, inventory data, impact assessment and interpretation in polymer production industries lead to enhancement of new technologies to develop sustainable polymers globally. From review following insights are derived:

• Fossil-based (petrochemical) polymer must be recycled and it saves energy instead of production of virgin polymers.

• While exploring bio-based polymers, it consumes more agricultural land and provides more radiation impacts from Life cycle impact assessment.

• From sustainable aspect of polymer, manufacturing process and Waste management of polymers should be focused.

• Selecting appropriate geographical location and LCA methodologies can also be a part of developing sustainable polymers.

• Nano processing methods and materials data base should be improved.

• Future work can be done on developing forming technologies for biopolymers and additionally, there are many factors that contribute to carbon emissions like organic degradation, degradation rates, landfill temperature, methane generation, land-fill gas capture efficiency, landfill gas use, and modelling approaches (Hottle, Bilec, and Landis 2017).

• Alternate technologies like pyrolysis would be the better option for waste management of polymers during end of life scenarios. Pyrolysis decomposes organic materials into gas and liquid which can be reused as fuels or chemical (Song, Youn, and Gutowski 2009). From Song, Youn, and Gutowski (2009) study, it was found that 19 MJ/kg of energy was obtained from polymer composite waste in pyrolysis process. Sidorov et al. (2016) stated that environmental impact of pyrolysis process had lesser impact than combustion process. Pyrolysis had least impact compared to incineration (Wu et al. 2014).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

P Ramesh

P Ramesh is Research Scholar from production engineering. He is pursuing Ph.D degree in National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, India. His area of research is Additive manufacturing. Previously he worked as Assistant Professor in mechanical department from CARE group of institution, Tiruchirappalli. He completed his master’s degree in M.E CAD/CAM from Saveetha Engineering college, Chennai. He did bachelor’s degree in Mechanical engineering from J.J college of Engineering and Technology, Tiruchirappalli.

S Vinodh

S. Vinodh is an Associate Professor in the Department of Production Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu, India. He completed his Ph.D. degree under AICTE National Doctoral Fellowship scheme from PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, India. He completed his Master’s degree in Production Engineering from PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, India and Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from Government College of Technology, Coimbatore, India. He was a Gold Medallist in his undergraduate study. He has published over 100 papers in International Journals and Conference proceedings. He received Highly Commended Paper Award from Emerald Publishers for the year 2016.  His research interests include Sustainable Manufacturing, Lean Manufacturing, Agile Manufacturing, Rapid Manufacturing, Product Development and Industry 4.0.