Human toxicity
Recycling and incineration are the preferable options. The degradation processes occurring in the case of
composting, landfill and anaerobic digestion lead to a higher contribution to this indicator.
Table 57 Ranking of end-of-life options within each scenario for human toxicity
Case Composting RecyclingIncineration
with energy
recoveryLandfill Anaerobicdigestion^2[PLA] + +++ ++
2[MB] + +++ ++ ++ +++ best option
2[BIO] + +++ ++ ++ intermediary option
3[PLA1] 1 ++++ 1 ++ + worst option
3[PLA1] 2 ++++ 2 ++ option not assessed
Studies n°1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 do not include this indicator(^1) Feedstock recycling scenario
(^2) Chemical recycling scenario
Human toxicity
(kg 1,4‐DB eq)
Key parameters
The assumptions that were found to have the highest influence on the results were:
the degradation rate of the biopolymer in landfills and during composting and the inclusion or
exclusion of biogenic carbon
the type of energy valorisation included
the avoided production of material consideredThe role and influence of each of these parameters are investigated below.
Degradation rate and biogenic carbon
The issue of the degradation rate is of key importance in assessing the environmental performances
of composting and landfill as illustrated in Table 58 and Figure 31. As mentioned previously, the specificity of
biopolymers is to be biodegradable but however the degradation rate varies between the different types
of biopolymers. For instance, the degradation rate is lower for biopolymers resulting from a blend between oil-
based polymers and organic compounds. There seems to be considerable uncertainty around this issue
since the degradation rate chosen for PLA in the various cases varies from 0% to 98%. The carbon
that is not degraded is sequestered and will thus not be degraded into, for instance, methane.
Table 58 Degradation rates assumed for composting and landfill for biopolymers