Environmental impact of bioplastic use: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout their lifecycle, petroleum-based plastics are associated with many environmental problems, including greenhouse gas emissions, persistence in marine and terrestrial environments, pollution, etc. On the other hand, bioplastics form a rapidly growing class of polymeric materials that are commonly presented as alternatives to conventional petroleum-based plastics. However, bioplastics also have been linked to important environmental issues such as greenhouse gas emissions and unfavorable land use change, making it necessary to evaluate the true impact of bioplastic use on the environment. Still, while many reviews discuss bioplastics, few comprehensively and simultaneously address the positives and negatives of bioplastic use for the environment. The primary focus of the present review article is to address this gap in present research. To this end, this review addresses the following questions: (1) what are the different types of bioplastics that are currently in commercial use or under development in the industry; (2) are bioplastics truly good for the environment; and (3) how can we better resolve the controversial impact of bioplastics on the environment? Overall, studies discussed in this review article show that the harms associated with bioplastics are less severe as compared to conventional plastics. Moreover, as new types of bioplastics are developed, it becomes important that future studies conduct thorough life cycle and land use change analyses to confirm the eco-friendliness of these new materials. Such studies will help policymakers to determine whether the use of new-generation bioplastics is indeed beneficial to the environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".