ArticleACS sustainable chemistry & engineering2023
Circularizing PET-G Multimaterials: Life Cycle Assessment and Techno-Economic Analysis.
Article in ACS sustainable chemistry & engineering, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chemical Recycling of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Medical Waste for the Sustainable Production of Biomedical Materials.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- From End Group to Tunable Comonomer: Sustainable Upcycling of Waste PET Into High-Value Added Copolyesters via a Controlled One-Pot Transesterification Process.ChemSusChem · 2026Article
- Article
- Healable and Reprocessable PETG-Based Dynamic Vinylogous Urethane Networks.Macromolecules · 2026Article
- Chemical Recycling of Polycarbonate Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene Blends via Organocatalyzed Acetolysis.ChemSusChem · 2026Article
- Technoeconomic Analysis for Biodegradable and Recyclable Paper Coated with Synthetic Ionic PBAT for Packaging Application.ACS sustainable chemistry & engineering · 2024Article
- Depolymerization within a Circular Plastics System.Chemical reviews · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recycling of multimaterials such as payment or access cards poses significant challenges. Building on previous experimental work demonstrating the feasibility of chemically recyclable payment cards made from glycol-modified poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET-G), we use life cycle assessment and techno-economic analysis to investigate two chemical recycling scenarios and evaluate their potential environmental and economic benefits. Recovering all components from the depolymerized products (Scenario 1) achieves substantial environmental benefits across most categories, reducing global warming by up to 67% compared to only recovering major components (Scenario 2). However, the environmental benefits in Scenario 1 incur 69% higher total annualized costs, causing its profitability to be dependent on a minimum selling price of £13.4/kg for cyclohexanedimethanol and less than a 10% discount rate. In contrast, Scenario 2 is less sensitive to discount rate variation and thus a lower risk and more economically feasible option, albeit less environmentally sustainable.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.