Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38576323›Full record

SynthesisWaste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA2025

How does plastic compare with alternative materials in the packaging sector? A systematic review of LCA studies.

Giovanni Dolci, Stefano Puricelli, Giuseppe Cecere, Camilla Tua, Floriana Fava, Lucia Rigamonti, Mario Grosso

Abstract readSystematic ReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Waste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The case for chewable tablets: reducing single-use plastic waste in pediatrics.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Giovanni DolciDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8273-3165
Stefano PuricelliDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8738-0074
Giuseppe CecereDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy.
Camilla TuaDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy.
Floriana FavaDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy.
Lucia RigamontiDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy.
Mario GrossoDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the recent years, packaging made of conventional plastics has been increasingly replaced by materials believed to be more sustainable. However, perceived sustainability must align with scientific assessments, such as life cycle assessments (LCAs). This review analysed 53 peer-reviewed studies published in the time range 2019-2023, aiming at understanding the state of the art in LCA about the environmental impacts of packaging by focusing on the comparison between plastics and alternative materials. The literature showed that consumer perceptions often differ from LCA findings and revealed that, frequently, conventional plastics are not the least environmentally friendly choice. Bioplastics typically show benefits only in the climate change and the fossil resource depletion impact categories. The heavy weight of glass turns out to affect its environmental performances with respect to the light plastics, with reuse being an essential strategy to lower the burdens. The comparison between plastics and metals is more balanced, leaning more towards plastics for food packaging. Similarly, paper resulted often preferable than plastics. Finally, for the other materials (i.e. wood and textiles), the picture is variable. To be competitive with plastics, the alternative materials require improvements like the optimisation of their production processes, their reuse and enhanced end-of-life options. At the same time, recycled polymers could boost the eco-performance of virgin plastics.

Indexed as

PlasticsProduct PackagingFood PackagingRecyclingPlasticsbioplasticsglassLife cycle assessmentmetalspackagingpaperplasticssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38576323
PMCPMC11874595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.