F

Cir

DA

a

ARRAA

KCPPWA

1

upbtpii1e(

h0

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 105 (2015) 134–142

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

jo u r n al homep age: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / resconrec

ull length article

ompostable biopolymer use in the real world: Stakeholdernterviews to better understand the motivations andealities of use and disposal in the US

iana Meeks, Troy Hottle ∗, M.M. Bilec, A.E. Landisrizona State University, 370 ISTB4, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 7 April 2015eceived in revised form 21 October 2015ccepted 21 October 2015vailable online 14 November 2015

eywords:ompostlasticolylactic acid (PLA)aste reduction

udit

a b s t r a c t

The use of compostable biopolymers in the United States has grown over the past decade and is predictedto continue to grow over the coming years. Though many studies have been done to assess biopolymerenvironmental impacts, few have explored how they are actually being used and disposed of by con-sumers. Only with a thorough understanding of real world use will environmental assessments be ableto provide meaningful results that can inform best practices for municipal waste management. This paperidentifies and explores where consumers are most likely to come into contact with compostable biopoly-mers, actual disposal methods, and the motivation behind compostable biopolymer use and disposal. Toassess where compostable biopolymers are being used, audits of local grocery stores were conducted,as well as semi-structured interviews with compostable biopolymer users in four different food servicecategories (cafeterias, catering companies, limited food service establishments, and recreational con-cessions) were completed. Findings suggest that consumers are most likely coming into contact withcompostable biopolymers in a commercial food service setting. The decision to purchase compostablebiopolymers was based on a variety of factors, such as their perceived sustainability, but was not directlytied to the ability to compost them. One of the clearest distinctions between those who were able to

compost biopolymers and those who sent these products to landfill was the type of sustainability goalseach organization set. Measurable waste to landfill goals resulted in biopolymers being sent to compostfacilities, in contrast to an amorphous goal to be sustainable, which was connected to biopolymers beingsent to landfill. Yet for all food service categories, disposal decisions relied heavily on the regional wasteinfrastructure that was available.

© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

Over the past five decades the use of plastic has become ubiq-itous. Plastics are regularly used in the manufacturing of manyroducts, from grocery bags to synthetic lumber, and from tooth-rushes to sutures. Over 15,000 plastics manufacturers operate inhe U.S. with facilities located in every state. The value of shippedlastic goods in the U.S. was over $373 billion, and the plastics

ndustry is ranked as the third largest sector of U.S. manufactur-ng (Carteaux, 2013). In addition, plastics make up approximately3% of the country’s municipal solid waste stream, which is roughly

quivalent to 32 million tons of plastic waste generated annuallyUSEPA, 2012).

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 7403236672.E-mail address: troy.hottle@asu.edu (T. Hottle).

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.022921-3449/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Biopolymers are one of the fastest growing segments withinthe global plastics market. Biopolymers (or bioplastics) are plasticsthat can be produced from renewable materials, including sugar,corn, soy, hemp and captured methane from waste. Biopolymersdo not have to be made entirely out of renewable materials, asmany produced today are blends of conventional and renewablefeedstocks (Hartmann, 1998; Shen et al., 2009, 2010). Furthermore,some biopolymers such as Bio-PET have an identical polymericstructure as their conventional counterpart and can be recycledalong with fossil-based plastics of the same resin. With such a vari-ety of feedstocks and manufacturing processes not all biopolymersare biodegradable or compostable (Lopez et al., 2012; Roland-Holstet al., 2013; Hottle et al., 2013). Worldwide consumption of allbiopolymers including compostable and non-compostable plastics

in 2012 reached 981,056 t (less than 1% of total polymer con-sumption), and the market is expected to continue to grow in theUnited States (USDA, 2008) and globally (Shen et al., 2009; Rapra,2012). The growth of the biodegradable and compostable subset of

ation a

b2a

ciS0CDBCptapcsiantt

vbiot2ÁpaS2pTeisPewptwl(

tcCicgoiatwlcrtIA

D. Meeks et al. / Resources, Conserv

iopolymers is predicted at a rate of around 13% annually (Platt,006). Of total global biopolymer production, 43% are biodegrad-ble plastics including compostable polymers (EuBP, 2014a,b).

Compostable plastics must be able to degrade in a commercialomposting setting according to set American Society of Test-ng and Materials (ASTM) standards including ASTM D6400-04tandard Specification for Compostable Plastics, ASTM D6868-3 Standard Specification for Biodegradable Plastics Used asoatings on Paper and Other Compostable Substrates, and ASTM5338-98(2003) Standard Test Method for Determining Aerobiciodegradation of Plastic Materials Under Controlled Compostingonditions (ASTM, 2003a,b, 2004; Song et al., 2009). Of com-ostable plastics, polylactic acid (PLA) is the most abundant, buthermoplastic starch (TPS) and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) arelso common (Tabone et al., 2010; EuBP, 2014a,b). Biodegradablelastics still degrade but do not conform to the timeframe in whichommercial composting occurs and have a different set of ASTMtandards (Kale et al., 2007). This biodegradable technology is usedn products like grocery bags, trash bags, packaging, diapers, andgricultural mulch films (Ammala et al., 2011). It is important toote that while ASTM standards are an important industry codifica-ion, many commercial compost facilities are struggling to processhem; this issue is discussed in more detail below.

The drivers behind the growth of compostable biopolymersary across regions, often relating to bans on conventional plastics,io-preferred purchasing, and zero waste initiatives. Accord-

ng to the literature these drivers are associated with concernver increased fossil fuel use, greenhouse gas emissions, plas-ics pollution, decrease in landfill space, and human health (Ren,003; Kijchavengkul and Auras, 2008; Gironi and Piemonte, 2011;lvarez-Chávez et al., 2012; Gómez and Michel, 2013). For exam-le, there are many conventional plastic bans being implementednd compostable product mandates being established. Recently thetate of California has banned single use plastic bags (Steinmetz,014), and it is estimated that over 100 U.S. cities have bannedoly(styrene) (PS) food and beverage containers (Goldstein, 2013).he U.S. federal government’s BioPreferred Program mandates fed-ral bio-based product purchasing, and it is likely that it hasnspired cities across the U.S. to implement similar programs. Afterpeaking with a city representative, it is clear that the City ofhoenix is one example of this (Carsberg, 2014). Organizations invery state are either voluntarily adopting or mandated to createaste to landfill reduction plans. Additionally, growth in the com-osting industry and new organics waste diversion policies, such ashe newly passed legislation in both California and Massachusetts,hich requires all commercial organic wastes be diverted from

andfill, will continue to encourage waste to landfill reduction goalsYepsen, 2009; BioCycle, 2014; EEA, 2014).

Though compostable biopolymer use is growing in response tohe aforementioned trends, there have also been well documentedhallenges and concerns related to their use. The U.S. Compostingouncil has identified five key challenges which include: label-

ng & identification, enforcement & legislation, ASTM standards,onsumer education, and impacts to the National Organics Pro-ram (California Organics Recycling Council, 2011). Clear labelingr demarcation of compostable bioplastics is crucial for help-ng consumers (here consumers are defined as individuals whore using compostable biopolymer products, in either a residen-ial or commercial setting) accurately identify and separate theiraste in the right disposal bins. Enforcement and legislative chal-

enges refer to the lack of federal regulations for labeling productsompostable, biodegradable, or biobased. Without enforcement

egarding the use of these labels, some companies may mis-akenly market products as compostable when they are not.n addition, some products that have been designed to meetSTM compostability standards still are not degrading adequately

nd Recycling 105 (2015) 134–142 135

compared to other organic wastes (Ghorpade et al., 2001; Moheeand Unmar, 2007; Gómez and Michel, 2013; Hottle et al., 2015b).The reasons for this are varied, but one may be that some ASTMstandards include decomposition times that are longer than actualcommercial composting timeframes. For example, a variety ofASTM certified compostable biopolymers take over three months todecompose in a commercial compost facility and one of the largestcomposters in the Pacific Northwest States they have a ninetyday turn around time for creating finished compost (Worldcentric,2014; CedarGrove, 2015). The challenges associated with con-sumer education are many as there is profound misunderstandingbetween the terms biodegradable, compostable, bio-based, as soforth. Moreover, many consumers and compostable biopolymerusers do not have a general knowledge of the differences incomposting and landfilling compostable plastics. Lastly, compostthat has been made with compostable bio-plastic feedstock hascaused problems for organic growers as there has been debateover whether compost made with these products violates USDAOrganics label rules and regulations (California Organics RecyclingCouncil, 2011).

In addition to these challenges, there has been concern overwhich disposal method is ideal for compostables (Weiss et al., 2012;Yates and Barlow, 2013; Rossi et al., 2015), the use of GMO feed-stocks for bioplastics (Gerngross and Slater, 2000; van Beilen andPoirier, 2007; Snell et al., 2015), and possible impacts to humanhealth (Roes and Patel, 2007; Thompson et al., 2009; Álvarez-Chávez et al., 2012). Research around compostable bioplastics isongoing, and many stakeholders who currently handle these prod-ucts are also trying to determine best practices. For example, citiesnow working to divert more waste from landfill are grappling withmany of the aforementioned challenges. Trying to weigh the poten-tial costs and benefits to determine the overall sustainability ofthese products has become an important task for many managers,purchasers, and policy makers.

To help inform decision makers, various tools have been devel-oped to accurately assess what the impacts of different plasticsproducts may be. Over the past decade there has been a prolifera-tion of life cycle assessments for biopolymers but the assumptionsthat underpin assessment can drastically affect overall findings(Hottle et al., 2013). To date many environmental assessments ofbiopolymers have been done, including inventory improvementsfor life cycle assessments (Vink et al., 2010; Hermann et al., 2011)but few life cycle assessments adequately address end of life andfindings vary widely (Shen and Patel, 2008; Weiss et al., 2012;Hottle et al., 2013; Koller et al., 2013; Yates and Barlow, 2013).Moreover, gaps exist in the available literature which documenthow compostable biopolymers are being used and their exactmethod of disposal. This US-based study provides information onwhere compostable biopolymers are most commonly found, whois using them, and how organizations using these products areactually disposing of them. In addition, the study evaluates themotivations behind purchase and disposal decisions. Our overallintent is to provide understanding for how these products are beingused so that assessments are not limited by wide ranging assump-tions and can produce more meaningful results.

Through stakeholder and user interviews, this paper identi-fies where compostable plastics are being used and disposed, andthe motivation behind purchasing and disposal decisions. Stake-holders include producers and distributors in the compostablebiopolymer industry, compostable biopolymer experts, and deci-sion makers who currently manage these products like municipalsolid waste professionals or commercial composters. Users include

organizations that use compostable biopolymers, such as cafes,cafeterias, and recreational concessions. The findings from theseinterviews provide insight into how these products are now beingmanaged and in doing so we hope to contribute key information

1 ation

faa

2

agiiFvsvdva1

2

ardmaaShsa2ovaa

atubcaslcamabtroatpwswt

sa

36 D. Meeks et al. / Resources, Conserv

or important environmental assessment tools, decision makers,nd compostable biopolymer users, both food service businessesnd customers.

. Methods

To determine where compostable biopolymers are being usednd by whom, we began with audits of bioplastics in eight localrocery stores and three preliminary interviews with stakeholders,ncluding producers and distributors in the industry, in order todentify where consumers were using compostable biopolymers.ollowing the preliminary interviews, we conducted twelve inter-iews with a variety of regional compostable biopolymer users,uch as public and private cafeterias, restaurants, and sportingenues, to understand the motivations behind their purchasing andisposal practices. A limited number of participants were inter-iewed through non-representative qualitative expert elicitation,n established social science interviewing methodology (Trost,986; Sandelowski, 1995).

.1. Grocery store audits

In order to help define the scope of the research and gauge thevailability of compostable biopolymers for use and disposal in aesidential setting, an audit of eight local grocery stores was con-ucted. The audits were conducted over three days in the Phoenixetropolitan area. Costco, Wal-Mart, and Fry’s are food stores who

lso sell many other types of retail items such as clothes, toys,nd electronics. Safeway, Albertsons, Trader Joes, Whole Foods, andprouts are food stores who carry mainly food items but could alsoave a small selection of other assorted retail items. The stores wereelected as they cater to a wide range of consumers, affluence levels,nd consumer preferences. Three stores were visited on June 16th,014: Fry’s, Trader Joes and Whole Foods. Two more were auditedn June 17th: Costco and Wal-Mart, and the remaining three wereisited on June 18th, 2014: Albertsons, Safeway, and Sprouts. Forll grocers, the store manager was contacted and approval for theudit was received.

The data (i.e. number and type of polymer) was visually collectednd documented while walking through each aisle or section ofhe grocery store. In order to maintain a consistent review of prod-ct categories, any areas that fell outside of the baby, beverage,read and bakery, breakfast and cereal, canned goods, condiments,ookies and snacks, dairy and eggs, the deli, frozen foods, fruitsnd vegetables, grains and pasta, international foods, meats andeafood, and cleaning and home products were not audited as somearger grocers sell many non-food items, including personal care orlothing. All rigid plastic packaging in each aisle was inspected. Inddition to packaging, we also looked for plastic products that wereade out of biopolymers (of any type, compostable, biodegrad-

ble, or non-biodegradable), such as PLA flatware. The item’s name,rand, size, and type of plastic were documented for all plas-ic packaging or products that were labeled with number sevenecycling symbol, PLA, plant-based, or PlantbottleTM. Plastics areften labeled with the number 1 through 7. Plastics labeled with

number 2–6, or that had no recycling symbol or any informa-ion about the plastic material were not documented. Number onelastics, which are PET, were inspected further to determine if theyere bio-PET products. After compiling the data from the grocery

tores, all products with a number seven were logged and a searchas conducted through company websites to determine plastic

ype.It is possible that some biopolymers were not accounted for. We

ought to capture all of the Bio-PET, but it is visually indistinguish-ble from PET, shares the same resin recycling code (number one),

and Recycling 105 (2015) 134–142

and is not always labeled as plant based or have a PlantbottleTM

trademark so it is possible not all Bio-PET products were identi-fied. Film, or flexible plastic packaging, was not inspected becauseit is difficult to determine what thin films are made from as theyare not often labeled. In addition, global production of rigid bio-plastics packaging greatly exceeds that of flexible packaging (EuBP,2014a,b).

2.2. Interviews

To scope and refine the interviews, which aimed to under-stand where compostable biopolymers are being used, we firstconducted preliminary, unstructured interviews. We reached outto six producers and/or distributors in the supply chain who eithermake or sell compostable biopolymer products: Sodexo, ArizonaRestaurant Supply, Western Paper, a Sprout’s Farmers Market,NatureWorks LLC, and EcoProducts. Out of the six contacted threewere available for interviews: a Sprouts manager, a representativefrom NatureWorks, and a representative from EcoProducts. BothNatureWorks and EcoProducts produce and distribute compostablebiopolymers, with NatureWorks being one of the largest producersof compostable PLA resin in the United States (Nampoothiri et al.,2010). The preliminary interviews were semi-structured and broadthemes were set out beforehand with follow up questions thatvaried based on interviewees’ responses. Themes included: whereindividual consumers are most likely coming into contact withcompostable bioplastics, the distribution of compostable biopoly-mers, and where the majority of product sales occur. Preliminaryinterviews lasted between 15 and 45 min and were all conductedover the phone. During the preliminary interviews, responses weredocumented on a laptop by the interviewer. After each preliminaryinterview, the interviewer immediately reviewed the questions toensure each one was answered adequately, check for errors, andfollow up with clarifying questions.

In addition to this, a variety of other stakeholders connected tocompostable biopolymer use were also interviewed. These stake-holder interviews included three governmental employees whohelp manage municipal solid waste, two from the City of Port-land and one from the City of Phoenix, three commercial-scalecomposters (Recycled City LLC, Roots Composting LLC, and the Uni-versity of New Hampshire), and a biopolymers industry expert tofurther develop our knowledge of current practices, challenges, andimplications of compostable biopolymer use. These stakeholderinterviews followed the same protocol as before with the excep-tion that contact with the City of Phoenix was in the form of anemail exchange.

The grocery store audit and the first three preliminary inter-views with producers and distributors suggested that residentialconsumers were not coming in contact with biopolymers (of anytype, compostable, biodegradable, or non-biodegradable), as theoverall number of biopolymer products in the store was lowand products that were there were not selling quickly. As such,the interview process was modified to gain an understanding ofwhere compostable biopolymers were being used and disposedso that we could identify organizations (compostable biopolymerusers) that would be appropriate for this research (Sandelowski,1995). Since compostable biopolymers are largely found in thefood service industry, we utilized the food service market seg-mentation strategy developed by the USDA to create categorieswhere compostable biopolymers are being used (USDA, 2010). Thisstatistically non-representative stratified sampling allowed for a

wider elicitation in overall participant experiences (Trost, 1986).We delineated five main categories which included: limited serviceeating places (organizations where customers pay prior to receivingfood or drink, such as a café), cafeterias (both public and private),

D. Meeks et al. / Resources, Conservation a

Table 1Interviews conducted with various stakeholders across the compostable biopolymersupply chain.

Completed interviews

Compostable biopolymer users∼ Location Date

CafeteriasArizona State University Tempe, AZ 8/13/2014Intel Chandler, AZ 8/1/2014Stanford University Stanford, CA 7/31/2014

Catering companiesAtlasta Catering and Event

ConceptsPhoenix, AZ 7/25/2014

Bruce Brown Catering Company Phoenix, AZ 7/21/2014Santa Barbara Catering Company Tempe, AZ 7/9/2014

Limited food serviceestablishments

Anonymous Café Tempe, AZ 7/8/2014Pomegranate Café Phoenix, AZ 7/30/2014The Cutting Board Bakery and

CaféMesa, AZ 8/11/2014

Recreational concessionsArizona Diamondbacks Phoenix, AZ 8/27/2014Desert Botanical Gardens and

Arizona Science CenterTempe & Phoenix, AZ 8/29/2014

Phoenix Convention Center Phoenix, AZ 7/28/2014Other compostable biopolymer stakeholders*

CompostersRecycled City LLC Phoenix, AZ 7/23/2014Roots Composting LLC Flagstaff, AZ 7/31/2014University of New Hampshire Durham, NH 7/10/2014

Industry expertBrenda Platt, Institute For Local

Self RelianceWashington, DC 8/29/2014

GovernmentCity of Phoenix Phoenix, AZ 7/30/2014City of Portland, Solid Waste and

Recycling: Residential CompostingPortland, OR 6/23/2014

City of Portland, Solid Waste andRecycling: CommercialComposting

Portland, OR 6/24/2014

Producers and distributors*

EcoProducts Boulder, CO 7/25/2014NatureWorks LLC Minnetonka, MN 6/20/2014Sprouts Farmers Market Tempe, AZ 6/29/2014

reMpeppdmottc

mtrppCsqatd

Works, stated that though they have some sales in grocery retail

∼ Indicates the second set of interviews, * indicates preliminary interviews.

ecreational food concessions (such as at sporting events), cater-rs, and hospitals. A list of establishments, within the Phoenixetropolitan area, which had the possibility of carrying com-

ostable biopolymers was made for each category, upon whichach establishment was contacted to confim the use of compostablelastic. A total of twelve establishments confirmed using com-ostable biopolymers; and were interviewed about their use andisposal practices. The second set of twelve interviewees are sum-arized in Table 1. Stanford was the one exception, being located

utside of the Phoenix area, and was chosen as an organizationo interview because no other large cafeterias were available andhey are well known for their waste reduction goals and as users ofompostable biopolymers.

For the second set of twelve interviews, initial contact wasade via email or phone, where upon the interviewer explained

he research and scheduled an interview in order to speak with aepresentative about the organization’s use and disposal of com-ostable biopolymers. All interviews were over the phone or inerson except one exchange with a catering company (Bruce Brownatering) that was conducted over email. The interviews wereemi-structured and each category of food service had a list ofuestions and general themes to address. In all cases, respondents

nswered questions about the types of compostable biopolymershey used, why they chose to purchase them, and the method ofisposal. The interviewers also asked follow up questions to gain

nd Recycling 105 (2015) 134–142 137

further insight and elucidate their compostable biopolymer use anddisposal stories. Again, while interviewing, answers to questionsand notes were typed in real time. After each interview the inter-viewer immediately reviewed the questions to ensure each one wasanswered adequately, check for errors, and follow up with clari-fying questions. The original interview questions can be found inAppendix A.

The interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analy-sis (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). The results and interview analysisonly represent organizations from the second set of interviews withcompostable biopolymer users (Table 1). Responses were classifiedaccording to three critical questions identified based on gaps in theliterature including: motivations behind compostable biopolymerpurchase, disposal practice, and motivation behind disposal choice.Next we searched for the challenges each organization associatedwith using and disposing of biopolymers. In addition, special atten-tion was paid to how much influence individual consumers had onthe purchase decision and disposal of these products.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Grocery store audit

Seven out of eight grocers carried items that were made fromor packaged with biopolymers. Fig. 1 presents the findings of theaudit for all grocers audited. There were a variety of different typesof products found with some of the most common being bio-PETbottles, PLA utensils, and compostable trash bags. Fig. 2 shows thetypes of products found at all of the grocers. This represents the totalnumber of biopolymer products available in each store and does notaccount for the total number of plastic products in each store. Thepercentage of biopolymer products, compared to all conventionalplastic, was very small, and the biopolymer products are not alwaysclearly identifiable. For example, the Stonyfield yogurt cup labeldoes not mention anywhere on it that the packaging is plant based,instead the bottom of the yogurt cup states “this cup is made fromplants.” There were an abundance of number seven products, overforty items across the eight stores, including items such as 4 oz.Motts Applesauce packs, Nescafe Tasters Choice packaged coffee,and some of the one gallon bottles of Arizona Tea. According to theASTM a number seven resin code on plastics incorporates all otherpossible types of polymers and materials which are made out ofmultiple resins or are multi-layered (Wilhelm, 2008).

There are a limited number of biopolymer products (of anytype, compostable, biodegradable, or non-biodegradable) availablefor residential consumers to buy and the Sprouts store managerdescribed the sales volume for compostable utensils as low. Fur-thermore, even with the number seven plastics, the total numberof products identified represents a very small portion of all the plas-tic products and packaging in the grocery section of the stores,which the Spouts manager estimated ranged from hundreds forsmaller grocers, to thousands for larger grocery stores. The resultsfrom this audit show that individuals are not coming into contact orpurchasing many biopolymer products, of any kind, via their localgrocers, and as such, use and disposal of any type of biopolymersin a residential setting is still quite low.

Preliminary interviews with NatureWorks LLC and EcoProductssupported these findings, and suggested that if and when con-sumers do come into contact with compostable biopolymers, itis most likely occurring in a commercial foodservice setting (e.g.,restaurant) rather than at home. A representative from Nature-

and food packaging they have more contact with the commercialfood service sector. EcoProducts, a large manufacturer and dis-tributor of compostable plastic products, reported that the vast

138 D. Meeks et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 105 (2015) 134–142

Fig. 1. The number of biopolymer products found at each grocery store categorized bybiopolymer material used are labeled as unknown.

Fig. 2. The total count of biopolymer products found categorized by product type.The “other” type consists of sponges, a soap bottle, straws, and a party pack withassorted biopolymer products such as compostable utensils and cups. BP is theb

mTccttsmolbits

“greenest” footprint possible, and to align with their environmentalbranding. Another common reason given among the landfillers of

iopolymer.

ajority of their sales are to commercial food service businesses.he main types of businesses EcoProducts sells to fall into six mainategories: colleges and universities, corporate campuses, healthare, large venues (e.g. professional sports arenas), restaurants, andhe hospitality industry. The EcoProducts respondent also notedhat as these products are not as competitive in a retail setting,uch as a grocery store, compostable biopolymers do not see asuch use in homes. In addition to this she stated that because

f new mandates, such as the ones banning conventional plastics,arger organizations are increasingly turning toward compostableiopolymers. Though consumers are using compostable plastics

n a limited way in a residential setting, the majority of con-

act is within institutional settings, specifically commercial foodervice.

the type of biopolymer material. Products where no information on the type of

3.2. Compostable biopolymer user interviews

More than thirty organizations with a commercial food servicecomponent and possible compostable biopolymer use werecontacted. Out of those thirty, twelve interviews were conductedbetween June 1st, 2014 and September 1st, 2014. Each food servicecategory had three interviews attributed to it, except hospitalsas we were not able to find any in the Phoenix area that usedcompostable biopolymer products. The interview process provedhelpful because it revealed information typically missed in quanti-tative data collection related to compostable biopolymer disposal,particularly related to the importance of communication in theoverall waste management system. Generally, most organizationsusing compostable biopolymers sent their waste to landfill. Outof the twelve organizations, three composted their compostablebiopolymers – all from the cafeteria category. None of the orga-nizations interviewed disposed of their compostable biopolymersby recycling, which is logical as these products are not acceptedin municipal recycling facilities (Song et al., 2009). The motivationbehind these disposal decisions, and reasons given for purchase,will be discussed in the subsequent sections.

3.3. Understanding motivation

For each food service category there were a variety of reasonscited for the decision to purchase and use these products. Fig. 3 is agraphical representation of the motivations that food service orga-nizations shared for purchasing compostable plastics. Many of thereasons given from recreational concessions, limited food serviceestablishments, and caterers were related or overlapped, and outof the four food service types all but cafeterias sent their com-postable biopolymers to landfill. All companies who landfilled theircompostable biopolymers (recreational concessions, limited foodservice establishments, and caterers) stated that using compostablebiopolymer products aligned with the organizations’ intention anddesire to be a sustainable company. In addition, they wanted to usebiopolymers for their perceived environmental benefits, to have the

biopolymers was that integrating sustainability into business prac-tices is considered the norm and that using compostable products

D. Meeks et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 105 (2015) 134–142 139

Fig. 3. Responses given to the question “why does your organization choose to use compostable plastics?” For each food service category there were three organizationsi Recrer

hnusgcbfitTdba

bdnaaanutttacpdepp

nterviewed; the four categories are Caterers, Limited Food Service Establishments,easons indicate how many organizations gave that particular response.

elped them fulfill that expectation. Many recreational concessionsoted the need to stay competitive in contract renegotiations andsed compostable biopolymers as a way to signal a move towardustainable business operations and to align with their contractors’oals. Other reasons given across the organizations who landfillompostable biopolymers included wanting to use products thatroke down (they believed the PLA products would degrade in land-lls), wanting to avoid the use of conventional plastics, and thathey wanted to support products that used bio-based feedstocks.here was only one case where the main reason for purchase wasriven by individual consumer preference. In this instance, a catererought biopolymers to have on hand in case a client specificallysked for them.

Cafeterias, the only food service category where compostableiopolymers were being sent to compost facilities, had noticeablyifferent reasons for purchasing biopolymers. It is important toote that this is not likely the case for all cafeterias across the nation,s an elementary school or correctional facility cafeteria may oper-te in a much different manner. Like the other food service types,ll three cafeterias valued integrating sustainability into their busi-ess practices or are motivated by broader sustainability goals tose compostable bioplastics, but unlike the rest of the organiza-ions they all cited specific and measurable waste reduction goalshat they were trying to achieve. All three organizations also saidhat they used biopolymers in order to simplify sorting so as tochieve greater waste diversion. Using compostable biopolymersan reduce the time individuals spend sorting trash and help sim-lify the process, which reduces contamination and thus helps

rive diversion rates higher, as previous research has shown (Hottlet al., 2015a). Other reasons given were that that switching to com-letely reusable products (e.g. ceramic plates and cups) was costrohibitive and that compostable biopolymers were able to replace

ational Concessions, and Cafeterias. The numbers in parentheses next to the stated

a wide variety of products typically destined to landfill which wouldfurther reduce the overall waste of the organization.

Out of all the reasons given between cafeterias and theother food service categories, interviewers documented very fewinstances of greenwashing, which is defined as “a superficial orinsincere display of concern for the environment” (Collins EnglishDictionary, 2014). In most cases the organizations felt stronglyabout working to make decisions that produced positive impactsfor both the environment and the organization. For most all foodservice categories, these products were more expensive than con-ventional disposables, but purchasers were willing to pay morebecause they believed they were making the right choice. Onelimited food service establishment was so committed to buyingcompostable biopolymers that after a period of financial hardshipwhere they were not able to afford compostable bioplastics theypromptly resumed buying them even before they had completelyrecovered financially.

Though all organizations cared about the environment andthe responsibility of the choices they were making, not all orga-nizations had the resources to allocate to detailed analysis andmanagement of these products. This can been seen in the twoinstances where respondents’ purchase decision was motivated inpart, because they believed the compostable biopolymers woulddegrade in landfills; compared to cafeteria managers who thor-oughly understood where these products would and would notdegrade. All of the cafeterias interviewed (ASU, Stanford, andIntel) were part of larger organizations that employ hundreds orthousands of people and have substantial annual operating budg-

ets. Similarly, all cafeterias also had strategic sustainability plansand measurable sustainability goals. Even for recreational foodcourts, which are relatively large, their concessions were con-tracted (in two out of the three cases) by smaller local companies.

1 ation

Ism

whlamccoctpbc

mapsmbIwgusfmttdebMitnidbdt

3

lettnawfhdspcabtO

40 D. Meeks et al. / Resources, Conserv

n addition, each cafeteria had a dedicated project manager whopecifically focused on issues related to sustainability and wasteanagement.For the most part, companies from the other three categories

ere much smaller, and the individual deciding what to purchasead many other duties and responsibilities. For example, for all

imited food service establishments the owner was the purchaser,s well as the marketing director, human resources, the kitchenanager, and they also often worked in the café during the day

ooking or serving. All organizations from the different food serviceategories were trying to make good choices but the disparity inverall organizational resources impacted decision making. In thease of organizations with limited resources, some switched overraditionally recyclable products (such as cold cups) to a com-ostable biopolymer product which resulted in an increase in wasteeing sent to landfill as they could not compost the cups, whichould have previously been sent to a recycling facility.

Larger drivers, i.e. conventional plastic bans, organics recyclingandates, and a growing trend to reduce waste to landfill could

lso be seen in organizations’ decision to purchase compostablelastics. It is most clearly reflected in the cafeteria food serviceegment, especially in Stanford’s case where they are working toeet state and city waste diversion goals and abide by laws that

an PS and conventional plastic bags. Over the past few years bothntel and ASU decided, independent of regional laws, to establish

aste to landfill reduction goals, with ASU originally having set aoal to reach zero waste by 2015. In every case organizations weresing compostable biopolymer products in response to the growingocial trend to integrate sustainability into business practices and,or a variety of reasons, they believed using compostable biopoly-

ers represented a more sustainable option. Aside from cafeterias,he decision to purchase compostable plastics did not seem linkedo organizations’ ability to compost them. In addition, purchasingecisions had very little to do with individual consumer prefer-nce. Out of the twelve organizations only one stated that theyought compostable biopolymers because of customer demand.any organizations stated that few customers had ever explic-

tly commented on the use of compostable bioplastics or seemedo have any awareness of them. Overall, our findings suggest thateither residential consumers nor food service patrons are driv-

ng the purchase and use of compostable biopolymers; the primaryrivers are linked to organizational waste diversion and sustaina-ility goals. Legislative bans were not found to be the exclusiverivers among interviews; though they did accompany organiza-ional drivers in states with bans.

.4. Understanding disposal

As noted before, all organizations in the catering category, theimited food service category, and the recreational concessions cat-gory sent compostable biopolymers to landfill. In contrast, allhree organizations in the cafeteria category did their best to sendhe compostable biopolymers to composting facilities. Out of theine facilities that sent their compostable bioplastics to landfill,ll stated lack of access to commercial composting infrastructurehich were also able to accept these products, as the main reason

or landfilling. Two of the three limited food service establishmentsave a commercial composter, but explained that their composterid not accept compostable biopolymers. For recreational conces-ions and caterers a handful of organizations had some kind ofre-consumer organics disposal stream, so that organics could beomposted or anaerobically digested. Pre-consumer organic waste

re the kitchen food scraps, and other organic waste such as card-oard, that is generated behind the counter by the kitchen orhe organizations staff. The Phoenix Convention Center used anRCA on-site organic waste aerobic digester which allows food

and Recycling 105 (2015) 134–142

waste to be sent to wastewater treatment for disposal, DesertBotanical Gardens had staff that came and picked up food scrapsto use for composting, and Atlasta Catering composted all pre-consumer organics with a local commercial facility. All nine of theorganizations that did not compost their compostable biopolymersexplicitly stated a desire to find a commercial facility that wouldaccept them, even if it meant paying more for the service. One of thecatering companies stated that they have been looking for two yearsto find a composter in the Phoenix valley that will accept their post-consumer organics waste. The Arizona Diamondbacks, which haveoccasionally held zero waste events, noted that they were only ableto do so because the events were special occurrences and as suchthey had organics trucked approximately 140 mi away to a facilitythat accepted compostable plastics. It was decided that long-termtransport to this facility was neither economically or environmen-tally sustainability for the organization. For the Phoenix area, andmany other parts of the country, there is no easily accessible com-posting infrastructure. Even if there are commercial composters, itcan be a challenge to find one that will accept organics mixed withcompostable biopolymers.

Despite the infrastructure challenges, cafeterias that werelocated in the Phoenix metropolitan area were able to find a com-poster for their pre and post-consumer organics waste. Even thoughthe cafeterias have been able to compost their compostable plastics,all three also stated sufficient composting infrastructure as one ofthe biggest challenges to using compostable biopolymers. In each ofthe three organizations project managers worked hard to find, col-laborate with, or create the necessary composting infrastructure.For example, ASU worked with their hauler, Waste ManagementInc., to find a location to which they could send their organic waste.In contrast, Stanford has had access to more commercial compost-ing facilities, but finding a good fit was still a challenge. Stanford’srespondent explained that development of the composting markethas been crucial. In Stanford’s vicinity three composting facilitiesare now operating: one that only accepts and sells high qualityorganics and soil amendment, one that creates a low quality com-post for fill in construction projects and accepts most anything, anda composter that sits in between—they will accept compostablebiopolymers and work to create a medium quality soil amend-ment that can be sold to residential and commercial customers. ForStanford it was the development of the regional compost marketthat dictated their ability to find a facility that would accept theirpost-consumer organics and compostable biopolymers. In sum, itseems that three components created the necessary conditionsthat enabled cafeterias to send their compostable biopolymersto a compost facility: they each had measurable waste to land-fill goals, waste diversion and organics programs were activelymanaged and monitored, and each cafeteria had the resourcesto dedicate to the above tasks and to secure a commercial com-poster or connect to robust regional infrastructure that was alreadyintact.

It is important to note that even with organizations whohave commercial composters, some compostable biopolymers stillended up being sent to landfill. For all cafeterias interviewed, thiswas the case, though the percentage lost to landfill could not bedetermined. For post-consumer separated waste streams this isa common occurrence, and can be seen with recycling as well aswith separated organic streams. For a number of reasons, it is verydifficult to get 100% of waste sorted correctly and to the desiredwaste treatment facility. For compostable biopolymers, organiza-tions noted that diversion loss can occur in two ways, onsite andthen at the commercial composters facility itself. Within the orga-

nization, individuals not sorting their waste into the correct bin(i.e. throwing their compostable cup into the landfill bin), custodialstaff not correctly sorting bags at dumpster, and staff being directedto toss composting waste because it looks as if it has too much

ation a

curnbcs

cpiwbeteawaicioaiacpws

pikdertitsipftbs

4

boTtuarmobmfew

D. Meeks et al. / Resources, Conserv

ontamination, are all ways compostable biopolymers could endp being sent to landfill. At the compost facility, composters couldeject entire organic waste loads because of too much contami-ation, and composters may screen biopolymers out of compostecause it cannot be sorted from the other conventional plasticontaminates. Both of these decisions result in biopolymers beingent to landfill.

Contrary to what was observed for purchasing decisions, it islear that individual consumers have more of an impact on com-ostable biopolymer end of life. Though individuals have more

mpact via their disposal decision, every type of organization wasorking to alter the overall system design to reduce this impact,

oth purposefully and otherwise. For example, caterers have manyvents where trained servers clear and sort trash (regardless ofhe type of disposables used), some of the limited food servicestablishments do a post sort of all their organic waste, recre-tional concessions may utilize bin-guards (staff that stand by theaste bins and help consumers sort all waste correctly). Cafeterias

lso identified a number of additional ways they mitigate lossesn order to get organics diversion rates as high as possible. Intellosely monitors all landfill and compost dumpsters and follows upmmediately with staff if there are unexpected tonnage increasesr decreases. Strong relationships, supported by regular meetingsnd trainings with property management and their contract clean-ng company is used to drive better diversion rates as well. ASUnd Stanford use a variety of different management strategies toorrect individual sorting error including effective signage and binlacement, bin guards, and post event sorting. In addition, they alsoork closely with their contractors be they food service, custodial

taff, or waste handlers.For all organizations the most important factor related to com-

ostable biopolymer disposal decisions was access to compostnfrastructure and the overall compost market development. Forey decision makers, such as municipal solid waste managers orirectors, especially in cities where bio-preferred purchasing isncouraged, it may be beneficial to devote equal attention andesources to support the composting infrastructure for productshat demonstrate improved environmental impacts for compost-ng rather than landfilling (Yates and Barlow, 2013). The choiceo compost biopolymers may also result in consequential diver-ion of food waste for composting, improving the environmentalmpacts of food waste and those associated with biopolymer dis-osal (Levis and Barlaz, 2011). This would include the opportunityor all organizations with pre and post-consumer organics accesso commercial composting, and for composters to be supportedy a robust market that supplies compost to a variety of differentectors.

. Conclusion

After the grocery store audits which identified relatively fewiopolymers were available in retail settings, this research focusedn compostable biopolymers in commercial food service settings.he decision to purchase these products is impacted by larger socialrends, such as zero waste initiatives and plastics bans, but individ-al user motivation was based on a variety of different factors. Forll food service categories disposal decisions relied heavily on theegional waste infrastructure that was available. In Phoenix whereunicipal commercial composting is not readily available, for the

rganizations we spoke with, most compostable biopolymers wereeing landfilled. Consequently, in regions where there is no com-

ercial composting infrastructure, this research suggests that most

ood service providers are sending biopolymers to landfill, how-ver quantifying the mass of composting and landfill waste streamsill require waste audits and material flow analyses. This research

nd Recycling 105 (2015) 134–142 141

also found that motivation to purchase was not explicitly linked tothe ability to compost the compostable biopolymers nor driven byindividual consumer preference.

Sustainability of biopolymers with a potential use in food serviceindustries must consider the available waste infrastructure anddisposal methods of commercial food service providers. In addi-tion, the most appropriate method of disposal for compostablebiopolymers may depend on individual business factors and withwhich impacts the organization is most concerned. For example,with a commercial food service business which uses large quanti-ties of disposable cold cups, and is most concerned with decreasingwaste to landfill, it may be more sustainable to stay with conven-tional plastic products that can be readily recycled (Hottle et al.,2015a). Alternatively, a business that creates large quantities ofdisposable, food-soiled products, and is concerned with decreasingwaste to landfill, may find that the most appropriate option fortheir business is compostable biopolymers as most material recov-ery facilities do not accept small plastics products like utensils andhave trouble with organic contamination in the recycling process.

However, it is beyond the scope of this paper to decide if com-postable bio-polymers can ultimately be considered a sustainableproduct or which end of life treatment is the most environmentallybeneficial. It is important to note that the peer reviewed litera-ture lacks evidence and consensus one way or the other related tothe sustainability of compostable biopolymers. Most compostablebiopolymer assessments to date focus on plastic production andignore the complicated realities of waste handling (Gerngross andSlater, 2000; Tabone et al., 2010; Hottle et al., 2013; Vink and Davies,2015). Many studies on municipal solid waste treatment meth-ods vary widely. For example, composting has been found to beone of the best ways to treat food and food soiled waste becauseof the reduced methane generation compared to landfill while onthe other hand it has been demonstrated to be one of the worstoptions because there is no opportunity for energy recovery viaanaerobic digestion or landfill gas capture (Finnveden et al., 2007;Marchettini et al., 2007; Favoino and Hogg, 2008; Kim and Kim,2010; Saer et al., 2013). For compostable bioplastics which are notfood soiled some studies show it may be preferable to landfill them(Lundie and Peters, 2005).

This research clearly demonstrates a demand for compostablebiopolymer plastics among various food service providers but theambiguity regarding end of life is pervasive. The uncertainty con-cerning end of life could undermine the investments and effortsof stakeholders throughout the supply chain who are creating andusing products they hope will have improved environmental per-formance. Though there is clearly a need for further research aroundwhat end of life treatments are the most beneficial, the compostablebiopolymers continue to expand into the plastics market. In orderto improve the overall environmental performance of compostablebiopolymers it is important to understand the motivations behindpurchasing, and for compostable biopolymers that perform bet-ter in composting situations, create robust waste systems that canaccommodate increasing volumes of compostable waste. Increasedcommunication along the life cycle for compostable biopolymerscan help stakeholders create a dialogue, clarifying their goals andexpectations as they assume greater responsibility for the impactsof the products they use.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Science FoundationAward No. CBET-1246547 “Evaluating Sustainable Disposal Options

for Compostable Biopolymers” and amendment 003 ResearchExperiences for Undergraduates. Any opinions, findings and con-clusions or recommendations expressed in this material are thoseof the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF.

1 ation

A

i1

R

Á

A

A

A

A

BCCCC

C

E

E

E

F

F

G

G

G

G

G

H

H

H

H

H

H

K

K

K

Yates, M.R., Barlow, C.Y., 2013. Life cycle assessments of biodegradable,commercial biopolymers—a critical review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 78, 54–66.

42 D. Meeks et al. / Resources, Conserv

ppendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found,n the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.0.022.

eferences

lvarez-Chávez, C.R., Edwards, S., Moure-Eraso, R., Geiser, K., 2012. Sustainabilityof bio-based plastics: general comparative analysis and recommendations forimprovement. J. Cleaner Prod. 23 (1), 47–56.

mmala, A., Bateman, S., Dean, K., Petinakis, E., Sangwan, P., Wong, S., Yuan, Q., Yu,L., Patrick, C., Leong, K.H., 2011. An overview of degradable and biodegradablepolyolefins. Prog. Polym. Sci. 36 (8), 1015–1049.

STM, 2003a. Standard test method for determining aerobic biodegradation ofplastic materials under controlled composting conditions. In: ASTMD5338-98(2003). ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

STM, 2003b. Standard specification for biodegradable plastics used as coatings onpaper and other compostable substrates. In: ASTM D6868-03. ASTMInternational, West Conshohocken, PA.

STM, 2004. Standard specification for compostable plastics. In: ASTM D6400-04.ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

ioCycle, 2014. California’s New Laws to Accelerate Organics Recycling BioCycle.alifornia Organics Recycling Council, 2011. Compostable Plastics 101.arsberg, S., 2014. Email communication. D. Meeks.arteaux, W.R., 2013. The State of the U.S. Plastics Industry. K 2013.edarGrove, 2015. Ask Cedar Grove, Retrieved 10/19/2015, from

〈http://cedar-grove.com/residential/ask-cedar-grove/how-long-does-it-take-to-make-compost-from-start-to-finish〉.

ollins English Dictionary, 2014. Greenwash, Retrieved 11/22/2014, from〈http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/greenwash〉.

EA, 2014. Commercial Food Waste Disposal Ban. EEA, Massachusetts, From〈http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/recycle/reduce/food-waste-ban.html〉.

uBP, 2014a. Applications, From 〈http://en.european-bioplastics.org/market/applications/〉.

uBP, 2014b. Production Capacity, From 〈http://en.european-bioplastics.org/market/market-development/production-capacity/〉.

avoino, E., Hogg, D., 2008. The potential role of compost in reducing greenhousegases. Waste Manage. Res. 26 (1), 61–69.

innveden, G., Björklund, A., Reich, M.C., Eriksson, O., Sörbom, A., 2007. Flexibleand robust strategies for waste management in Sweden. Waste Manage. 27 (8),S1–S8.

erngross, T.U., Slater, S.C., 2000. How green are green plastics? Sci. Am. 283 (2),36–41.

horpade, V.M., Gennadios, A., Hanna, M.A., 2001. Laboratory composting ofextruded poly(lactic acid) sheets. Bioresour. Technol. 76 (1),57–61.

ironi, F., Piemonte, V., 2011. Life cycle assessment of polylactic acid andpolyethylene terephthalate bottles for drinking water. Environ. Prog.Sustainable Energy 30 (3), 459–468.

oldstein, E., 2013. Proposals to Ban Polystyrene Foam Containers and Set NewRequirements for Restaurant Food Waste Composting on Launchpad in NewYork City Council, 〈http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/egoldstein/proposals to ban polystyrene f.html〉.

ómez, E.F., Michel Jr., F.C., 2013. Biodegradability of conventional and bio-basedplastics and natural fiber composites during composting, anaerobic digestionand long-term soil incubation. Polym. Degrad. Stabil. 98 (12),2583–2591.

artmann, M.H., 1998. Biopolymers from Renewable Resources. Springer, NewYork, NY.

ermann, B.G., Debeer, L., De Wilde, B., Blok, K., Patel, M.K., 2011. To compost ornot to compost: carbon and energy footprints of biodegradable materials’waste treatment. Polym. Degrad. Stabil. 96 (6), 1159–1171.

ottle, T.A., Bilec, M.M., Brown, N.R., Landis, A.E., 2015a. Toward zero waste:composting and recycling for sustainable venue based events. Waste Manage.38, 86–94.

ottle, T.A., Luna Aguero, M., Bilec, M.M., Landis, A.E., 2015b. Alkaline amendmentfor the enhancement of compost degradation for polylactic acid (PLA)biopolymer products. Compost. Sci. Util., http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2015.1102664.

ottle, T.A., Bilec, M.M., Landis, A.E., 2013. Sustainability assessments of bio-basedpolymers. Polym. Degrad. Stabil. 98 (9), 1898–1907.

sieh, H.-F., Shannon, S.E., 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.Qual. Health Res. 15 (9), 1277–1288.

ale, G., Auras, R., Singh, S.P., Narayan, R., 2007. Biodegradability of polylactidebottles in real and simulated composting conditions. Polym. Test. 26 (8),1049–1061.

ijchavengkul, T., Auras, R., 2008. Compostability of polymers. Polym. Int. 57 (6),793–804.

im, M.-H., Kim, J.-W., 2010. Comparison through a LCA evaluation analysis of foodwaste disposal options from the perspective of global warming and resourcerecovery. Sci. Total Environ. 408 (19), 3998–4006.

and Recycling 105 (2015) 134–142

Koller, M., Sandholzer, D., Salerno, A., Braunegg, G., Narodoslawsky, M., 2013.Biopolymer from industrial residues: Life cycle assessment ofpoly(hydroxyalkanoates) from whey. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 73, 64–71.

Levis, J.W., Barlaz, M.A., 2011. What is the most environmentally beneficial way totreat commercial food waste? Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (17), 7438–7444.

Lopez, J., Vilaseca, F., Barberà, L., Bayer, R., Pèlach, M., Mutjé, P., 2012. Processingand properties of biodegradable composites based on Mater-Bi® and hempcore fibres. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 59, 38–42.

Lundie, S., Peters, G.M., 2005. Life cycle assessment of food waste managementoptions. J. Cleaner Prod. 13 (3), 275–286.

Marchettini, N., Ridolfi, R., Rustici, M., 2007. An environmental analysis forcomparing waste management options and strategies. Waste Manage. 27 (4),562–571.

Mohee, R., Unmar, G., 2007. Determining biodegradability of plastic materialsunder controlled and natural composting environments. Waste Manage. 27(11), 1486–1493.

Nampoothiri, K.M., Nair, N.R., John, R.P., 2010. An overview of the recentdevelopments in polylactide (PLA) research. Bioresour. Technol. 101 (22),8493–8501.

Platt, D.K., 2006. Biodegradable Polymers: Market Report. Smithers RapraPublishing.

Rapra, S., 2012. The Future of Bioplastics: Market Forecasts to 2017.Ren, X., 2003. Biodegradable plastics: a solution or a challenge? J. Cleaner Prod. 11

(1), 27–40.Roes, A.L., Patel, M.K., 2007. Life cycle risks for human health: a comparison of

petroleum versus bio-based production of five bulk organic chemicals. RiskAnal. 27 (5), 1311–1321.

Roland-Holst, D., Triolo, R., Heft-Neal, S., Bayrami, B., 2013. Bioplast. Calif.,http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/publications/Documents/1469%5C20131469.pdf.

Rossi, V., Cleeve-Edwards, N., Lundquist, L., Schenker, U., Dubois, C., Humbert, S.,Jolliet, O., 2015. Life cycle assessment of end-of-life options for twobiodegradable packaging materials: sound application of the European wastehierarchy. J. Cleaner Prod. 86, 132–145.

Saer, A., Lansing, S., Davitt, N.H., Graves, R.E., 2013. Life cycle assessment of a foodwaste composting system: environmental impact hotspots. J. Cleaner Prod. 52,234–244.

Sandelowski, M., 1995. Sample size in qualitative research. Res. Nurs. Health 18(2), 179–183.

Shen, L., Haufe, J., Patel, M.K., 2009. Product Overview and Market Projection ofEmerging Bio-Based Plastics PRO-BIP 2009. Utrecht University, Utrecht.

Shen, L., Patel, M., 2008. Life cycle assessment of polysaccharide materials: areview. J. Polym. Environ. 16 (2), 154–167.

Shen, L., Worrell, E., Patel, M., 2010. Present and future development in plasticsfrom biomass. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefin. 4 (1), 25–40.

Snell, K.D., Singh, V., Brumbley, S.M., 2015. Production of novel biopolymers inplants: recent technological advances and future prospects. Curr. Opin.Biotechnol. 32, 68–75.

Song, J., Murphy, R., Narayan, R., Davies, G., 2009. Biodegradable and compostablealternatives to conventional plastics. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B: Biol. Sci. 364(1526), 2127–2139.

Steinmetz, K., 2014. California Becomes First State to Ban Plastic Bags. Time, SanFrancisco, CA.

Tabone, M.D., Cregg, J.J., Beckman, E.J., Landis, A.E., 2010. Sustainability metrics: lifecycle assessment and green design in polymers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (21),8264–8269.

Thompson, R.C., Moore, C.J., vom Saal, F.S., Swan, S.H., 2009. Plastics, theenvironment and human health: current consensus and future trends. Philos.Trans. R. Soc., B: Biol. Sci. 364 (1526), 2153–2166.

Trost, J.E., 1986. Statistically nonrepresentative stratified sampling: a samplingtechnique for qualitative studies. Qual. Sociol. 9 (1), 54–57.

USDA, 2008. U.S. Biobased Products Market Potential and Projections through2025. United States Department of Agriculture.

USDA, 2010. Bulk of Food Away From Home Expenditures in 2010.USEPA, 2012. Municipal solid waste generation. In: Recycling, and Disposal in the

United States: Facts and Figures for 2012.van Beilen, J.B., Poirier, Y., 2007. Prospects for biopolymer production in plants.

Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biotechnol. 107, 133–151.Vink, E.T., Davies, S., 2015. Life cycle inventory and impact assessment data for

2014 IngeoTM polylactide production. Ind. Biotechnol. 11 (3), 167–180.Vink, E.T.H., Davies, S., Kolstad, J.J., 2010. The eco-profile for current Ingeo®

polylactide production. Ind. Biotechnol. 6 (4), 212–224.Weiss, M., Haufe, J., Carus, M., Brandão, M., Bringezu, S., Hermann, B., Patel, M.K.,

2012. A review of the environmental impacts of biobased materials. J. Ind. Ecol.16, S169–S181.

Wilhelm, R., 2008. Resin Identification Codes, Retrieved 7/17/2014, from〈http://www.astm.org/SNEWS/SO 2008/wilhelm so08.html〉.

Worldcentric, 2014. Compostable Plastics, Retrieved 10/19/2015, from〈http://worldcentric.org/biocompostables/bioplastics〉.

Yepsen, R., 2009. U.S. residential food waste collection and composting. BioCycle50 (12), 35, http://www.biocycle.net/2009/12/15/u-s-residential-food-waste-collection-and-composting/.