PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 10, 2026Cleaner Environmental Systems1 citationsOpen Access

Life cycle assessment of converting waste plastics into activated carbon: A comparative analysis of HDPE, LDPE, PS, and PP feedstocks

View Full Paper
AWAnuchit WuttitrairatChulalongkorn UniversitySTSoottiwan ThamsakonChulalongkorn UniversityWDWachira DaosudBurapha University

Key Points

  • The aim is to evaluate the environmental impacts of converting different waste plastics into activated carbon through life cycle assessment methods.
  • Conducted cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment (LCA) of activated carbon production from PP, PS, LDPE, and HDPE.
  • Assessed three scenarios: baseline, recycling-integrated, and landfill disposal.
  • Analyzed global warming potential (GWP) and toxicological burdens across polymer types.
  • PP exhibited the highest GWP at 31.41 kg CO2 eq, while HDPE had the lowest at 17.79 kg CO2 eq in baseline.
  • Incorporating 20% recycling reduced GWP by 6.3% for PP and 9.5% for LDPE.
  • Landfilling showed lower GWP but increased ecotoxicity and human toxicity burdens, particularly for freshwater and marine ecosystems.

Abstract

Activated carbon (AC) is an important adsorbent for environmental treatment; however, the traditional method of production is energy-consuming and chemical-intensive. AC from valorized post-consumer plastics is a promising waste-to-resource route. This study presents a cradle-to-gate LCA of AC derived from polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), and high-density polyethylene (HDPE), evaluated across three scenarios—baseline, recycling-integrated, and landfill disposal. The effects of polymer type and char yield are demonstrated. PP had the highest global warming potential (31.41 kg CO 2 eq) in the baseline, and HDPE presented the lowest global warming potential (17.79 kg CO 2 eq). Including 20% recycling, all polymers had consistently lower burdens, with percentage reductions of 6.3% for PP, 7.2% for PS, 9.5% for LDPE, and 7.2% for HDPE. At 30% recovery, LDPE and HDPE showed the greatest reductions, at 14.2% and 12.7%. In contrast, landfill resulted in apparently lower GWPs (0.5–2.4 kg CO 2 eq versus 18–31 kg CO 2 eq, 92 to 97% reduction), but higher toxicological burdens for freshwater ecotoxicity (+78%), marine ecotoxicity (+74%), and human non-carcinogenic toxicity (+192%). Sensitivity analysis confirmed electricity consumption as the dominant driver, with effects evident at a 1%. At the ±10% accounting for electricity variation, PP’s GWP varied from 29.33 (–6.6%) to 33.45 (+6.5%) kg CO 2 eq, and HDPE ranged from 17.72 (–0.4%) to 18.29 (+2.8%) kg CO 2 eq. Overall, the results indicate that polymer-to-AC valorization, when coupled with recycling and electricity-saving, provides an opportunity to mitigate climate without the unsustainable practice of landfilling.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Wuttitrairat et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69d892886c1944d70ce03e88https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2026.100436
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper