ArticleOpen research Europe2022
Lab-scale and full-scale industrial composting of biodegradable plastic blends for packaging.
Article in Open research Europe, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing Polymer Biodegradability: Standardized Methods, Critical Challenges, and Future Directions.Polymers · 2026Review
- Dramatic Enhancement in Polylactide Hydrolysis and Biodegradability Utilizing Low Levels of Organic Anhydrides As Masked Acids.ACS central science · 2026Article
- Lab-scale and full-scale industrial composting of biodegradable plastic blends for packaging.Open research Europe · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The acceptance of compostable plastic packaging in industrial composting plants is not universal despite available certification due to the persistence of plastic residues after composting. To better understand this discrepancy, this study compared the disintegration rates of two blends designed for rigid packaging (polylactic acid based) and soft packaging (polybutylene succinate based) in lab-scale composting tests and in an industrial composting plant. Methods: A lab-scale composting test was conducted in triplicates according to ISO 20200 for 4, 8 and 12 weeks to check the disintegration potential of the blends. Duplicate test material were then exposed in the compost pile of an industrial composting plant for a duration of 3 weeks and compared with a supplementary lab-scale test of the same duration. Results: The rigid packaging samples (1 mm thickness) retained on average 76.4%, 59.0% and 55.7% of its mass after 4, 8 and 12 weeks respectively in the lab-scale. In the plant, the average remaining mass was 98.3%, much higher compared to the average of 68.9% after 3 weeks in the supplementary lab-scale test. The soft packaging samples (109±9 µm sample thickness) retained on average 45.4%, 10.9% and 0.3% of its mass after 4, 8 and 12 weeks respectively in the lab-scale. In the plant, a high average remaining mass was also observed (93.9%). The supplementary lab-scale test showed similar remaining mass but higher fragmentation after 3 weeks. Conclusions: The results show that the samples achieved significant disintegration in the lab-scale but not in the plant. The difference between the tests that might further contribute to the differing degradation rates is the composition and heterogeneity of the composting substrate. Therefore, the substrate composition and thermophilic composting duration of individual plants are important considerations to determine the suitability of treating compostable plastic in real-world conditions.
Indexed as
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.