Register or Submit a manuscript.
Quick Link
Recent Progress in Materials

(ISSN 2689-5846)

Recent Progress in Materials  (ISSN 2689-5846) is an international peer-reviewed Open Access journal published quarterly online by LIDSEN Publishing Inc. This periodical is devoted to publishing high-quality papers that describe the most significant and cutting-edge research in all areas of Materials. Its aim is to provide timely, authoritative introductions to current thinking, developments and research in carefully selected topics. Also, it aims to enhance the international exchange of scientific activities in materials science and technology.
Recent Progress in Materials publishes original high quality experimental and theoretical papers and reviews on basic and applied research in the field of materials science and engineering, with focus on synthesis, processing, constitution, and properties of all classes of materials. Particular emphasis is placed on microstructural design, phase relations, computational thermodynamics, and kinetics at the nano to macro scale. Contributions may also focus on progress in advanced characterization techniques.          

Main research areas include (but are not limited to):
Characterization & evaluation of materials
Metallic materials 
Inorganic nonmetallic materials 
Composite materials
Polymer materials
Biomaterials
Sustainable materials and technologies
Special types of materials
Macro-, micro- and nano structure of materials
Environmental interactions, process modeling
Novel applications of materials

Publication Speed (median values for papers published in 2024): Submission to First Decision: 7.1 weeks; Submission to Acceptance: 14.9 weeks; Acceptance to Publication: 11 days (1-2 days of FREE language polishing included)

Current Issue: 2025  Archive: 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019
Open Access Review

An Overview of Circular Economy Approaches for Plastics

Kuok Ho Daniel Tang *

  1. Department of Environmental Science, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA

* Correspondence: Kuok Ho Daniel Tang

Academic Editor: Mohammad Heidari-Rarani

Special Issue: Optimizing Material Processing and Resource Management in a Sustainable Circular Economy

Received: February 28, 2025 | Accepted: July 16, 2025 | Published: July 28, 2025

Recent Progress in Materials 2025, Volume 7, Issue 3, doi:10.21926/rpm.2503011

Recommended citation: Tang KHD. An Overview of Circular Economy Approaches for Plastics. Recent Progress in Materials 2025; 7(3): 011; doi:10.21926/rpm.2503011.

© 2025 by the authors. This is an open access article distributed under the conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is correctly cited.

Abstract

Plastic pollution has received worldwide attention due to its extensive environmental and health implications. The circular economy has emerged as a potential solution to plastic pollution. This overview comprehensively presents different plastic circular economy approaches and discusses their advantages, disadvantages, and implementation challenges. It highlights that the current plastic circular economy approaches primarily comprise mechanical recycling, chemical recycling, bio-based and biodegradable plastics, extended producer responsibility, deposit-refund schemes and take-back systems, design for circularity, and digital and smart waste management. Mechanical recycling is more well-established than chemical recycling but could downcycle plastic waste. Chemical recycling may facilitate the achievement of the closed-loop circular economy. Bio-based plastics can compete with food production and the biodegradable ones may require controlled composting conditions, though they come from renewable feedstocks. Extended producer responsibility promotes recycling and a shift toward sustainable materials but faces inadequate regulations and enforcement. Deposit-refund schemes and take-back systems are tied to extended producer responsibilities and depend on consumer awareness, infrastructure development, and regulatory enforcement. Design for circularity facilitates plastic reuse, recycling, and repurposing but is constrained by technology and cost. The digital and smart waste management approach improves the traceability and segregation of plastic waste but is limited by cost and digital infrastructure gap. In developing economies, the barriers to plastic circular economy implementation include economic constraints, technological challenges, expertise shortages, regulatory discrepancies, consumer habits, and a lack of infrastructural development. To overcome these barriers, the recommendations include supporting informal waste collection and its integration into the formal waste management system, public-private partnerships for investment, developing industrial composting facilities, enforcing clear labeling and disposal instructions, mandating extended producer responsibility, expanding collection points and accessibility, banning non-recyclable multi-layer plastics and developing artificial intelligence and blockchain for waste tracking.

Keywords

Circular economy; extended producer responsibility; plastic pollution; recycling; smart technology; waste management

1. Introduction

Plastics have become an integral part of modern society, revolutionizing industries ranging from packaging and healthcare to construction and electronics. Their versatility, durability, and cost-effectiveness have driven exponential production growth, reaching approximately 460 million metric tons annually [1]. However, this widespread use has resulted in severe environmental consequences, including plastic pollution, resource depletion, and greenhouse gas emissions [2]. Currently, the costs linked to the external effects (on the economy, environment, and society) of plastics after their use are estimated conservatively at $3.7 trillion. This amount surpasses the entire profit margin of the plastic packaging industry [3]. If no measures are implemented, the lifetime cost associated with plastics is projected to increase twofold by 2040, reaching US $7.1 trillion. This amount represents 85% of the total global health expenditure in 2018 and exceeds the combined GDP of Germany, Canada, and Australia in 2019 [3].

Linear economic approaches, which follow a "take-make-dispose" strategy, have exacerbated these challenges by generating vast amounts of plastic waste with limited recycling or recovery. In response, the concept of a circular economy (CE) for plastics has gained traction as a sustainable alternative, emphasizing resource efficiency, waste minimization, and closed-loop material cycles [4]. Thus, there is a significant opportunity for the industry to embrace this new plastics economy [5]. This shift could improve socioeconomic outcomes throughout the supply chain while significantly minimizing plastic waste and reducing its harmful impact on the environment [6].

The CE is an economic model designed to decouple growth from resource consumption by promoting strategies such as reuse, repair, recycling, and remanufacturing [7]. In the context of plastics, CE aims to reduce environmental footprints while retaining material value within the economy [8]. Transitioning from a linear to a circular system necessitates innovative business models, policy interventions, technological advancements, and behavioral shifts [9]. Several CE approaches have been proposed to achieve these goals, including recycling-based approaches, bio-based plastics, extended producer responsibility (EPR), and digital solutions such as blockchain-enabled traceability [10,11,12].

Despite the increasing focus on CE principles, the implementation of CE for plastics remains inconsistent across regions and industries. Several challenges hinder the widespread adoption, including economic barriers, technological limitations, regulatory gaps, and consumer behavior [13]. Current global plastic recycling rates remain low, with only about 9% of plastic waste being recycled, while the rest is incinerated, landfilled, or leaked into the environment [14]. Additionally, the complexity of plastic compositions, contamination in waste streams, and inadequate infrastructure further complicate the transition to a fully circular system. Addressing these barriers requires an interdisciplinary approach that integrates policy, industry, and scientific advancements [15].

Given the immense scale and complexity of the plastic pollution crisis, an overview that spans the breadth of CE approaches offers a more holistic and impactful contribution than narrowly focusing on a single strategy. Understanding the full landscape of CE strategies is critical to identifying synergies, gaps, and scalable solutions [16,17]. While deep dives into individual approaches can yield valuable technical insights, they often fail to capture the interconnected nature of the systems involved. In contrast, a broad overview enables cross-comparison of methods such as recycling, bio-based alternatives, extended producer responsibility, and digital tools, while highlighting how combinations of these strategies may be more effective across varying contexts [18]. This comprehensive lens is especially vital given the fragmented and uneven implementation of CE principles globally, and it allows for a more inclusive discussion of best practices, implementation barriers, and enabling conditions.

As such, this overview provides a comprehensive account of CE approaches for plastics, evaluating their effectiveness, challenges, and future potential. In contrast to existing reviews of the plastic CE that focus on limited approaches [19] or on practices specific to certain regions, like European countries [20], it explores a broader array of approaches globally, supported by cases of their implementation. Although existing reviews often emphasize particular enablers of the CE for plastic waste, such as consumer behavior and digitalization [21] or specific aspects like the value chain [22], this overview adopts a broader perspective by examining various plastic CE approaches without delving into specific components. By analyzing current research and emerging trends, this review aims to contribute to the discourse on sustainable plastic management and inform policymakers, businesses, and researchers on viable pathways toward a CE.

2. Literature Review Methods

A systematic approach was employed in this comprehensive overview to identify, evaluate, and analyze relevant academic research on CE approaches for plastics. The methodology involved the following steps:

  1. Search Strategy: A structured search was performed using academic databases comprising Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect. Key terms included "circular economy plastics," "plastic recycling," "sustainable plastic management," "waste-to-resource strategies," and "policy interventions in plastic waste management."
  2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: Studies included in this study must be 1) academic articles, technical reports, and official publications from authorities and governments, 2) peer-reviewed, 2) published within the last decade, 3) related to the CE approaches for plastics, 4) related to the implementation of the plastic CE; and 5) linked to the barriers, challenges, advantages and disadvantages of the CE approaches. Articles that are constrained to specific technological, material, and engineering advances were excluded from the overview since the focus is on the overarching CE approaches. Similarly, articles that propose regulatory frameworks and policies are excluded, as this review concentrates on the implementation of plastic CE approaches.
  3. Data Extraction and Categorization: Key themes were identified. The key themes here were the various plastic CE approaches. Studies were categorized to align with the article's thematic structure.
  4. Critical Analysis and Synthesis: The selected literature was critically analyzed to identify trends, knowledge gaps, and conflicting perspectives. Particular attention was given to studies that provided efficiencies of the CE approaches and real-world case studies.

A flowchart summarizing the review process is shown in Figure 1.

Click to view original image

Figure 1 Flowchart illustrating the methodology of the literature review.

3. Approaches of Plastic CE

The CE for plastics is a sustainable model aimed at eliminating plastic waste and pollution by designing materials for reuse, recycling, and regeneration. Unlike the traditional linear economy, which follows a "take-make-dispose" approach, the CE focuses on keeping plastics in circulation for as long as possible, reducing environmental impacts while maximizing resource efficiency [4]. This system relies on three key principles: eliminating unnecessary plastic waste, innovating for sustainable materials, and ensuring plastics are reused or recycled effectively [23].

The literature indicates that the main plastic CE approaches comprises 1) mechanical recycling approach that focuses on the collection, sorting, and reprocessing of plastic waste into new products [24,25]; 2) chemical recycling approach, which involves breaking down plastics into their molecular components through processes like pyrolysis, depolymerization, and gasification [26,27], 3) bio-based and biodegradable plastics approach, which promotes the development and use of plastics derived from renewable resources (e.g., plant-based polymers) and biodegradable alternatives to reduce environmental persistence [28,29], 4) EPR approach, mandating manufacturers to take responsibility for the end-of-life management of their plastic products, encouraging sustainable design, and improving waste management systems [30,31], 5) deposit-refund schemes and take-back systems, which incentivize consumers to return plastic products for proper recycling or reuse through financial incentives [32], 6) design for circularity approach, focusing on redesigning plastic products for longevity, reparability, and recyclability to minimize waste generation [33,34], and 7) digital and smart waste management approach, which utilizes digital technologies such as blockchain, artificial intelligence (AI)-driven waste sorting, and Internet of Things (IoT) tracking systems to enhance traceability and efficiency in plastic waste management [35]. These approaches are discussed in further detail below.

3.1 Mechanical Recycling Approach

Mechanical recycling is one of the most widely used methods for processing plastic waste, allowing it to be reintroduced into the production cycle without significant chemical changes. This process involves sorting, cleaning, shredding, melting, and reprocessing plastics into new products [24]. Mechanical recycling can be closed-loop, where recycled plastics are turned into products of similar quality. It can also be an open-loop system if the plastic degrades and is repurposed into lower-value items [25]. A closed-loop recycling system refers to a process where a material is continuously recycled into the same or similar product without significant loss of quality. This system minimizes waste and reduces the need for virgin materials, making it a key component of a CE. For instance, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles collected through recycling programs are cleaned, shredded, and reprocessed into new PET bottles [36]. An open-loop recycling system is a type of recycling process where waste materials are converted into new raw materials or products, but not necessarily into the same type of product they originated from. In this system, the recycled material may degrade in quality over time (downcycling) or be used in a different industry. For instance, in an open-loop system, plastic bottles are converted into polyester fibers used in textiles or carpets instead of being reprocessed into new bottles [37,38].

Mechanical recycling typically involves collection and sorting, during which waste materials collected from households, industries, or businesses are sorted manually or using automated systems, such as near-infrared sensors, air classifiers, or magnetic separators [39] (Figure 2). Materials are separated by type, color, and polymer composition to improve recyclability. Subsequently, the materials are cleaned to remove contaminants like food residues, adhesives, labels, or other impurities that can affect quality. They are then shredded into smaller pieces to facilitate processing [39] (Figure 2). The cleaned and shredded materials are melted at high temperatures to form pellets, flakes, or granules [24,40] (Figure 2). Additives like stabilizers or colorants may be introduced to enhance their properties. The molten materials are then molded, extruded, or pressed into new products [41]. In a closed-loop system, the materials are used to manufacture similar items from which they are derived. In an open-loop system, the materials are processed into new products [24].

Click to view original image

Figure 2 Processes of mechanically recycling plastic waste.

The mechanical recycling approach has the advantage of energy efficiency. Compared to chemical recycling, which is discussed in the subsequent section, this approach consumes less energy since it does not involve breaking down polymers into monomers. It also helps reduce carbon emissions associated with virgin plastic production [42]. Mechanical recycling is cheaper than chemical recycling since it does not require complex chemical processes. The process is well-established, making it more economically viable in many regions [43]. Additionally, it reduces the plastic waste bound for incineration or landfilling, thus reducing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with these disposal means [42]. However, many plastics, especially multi-layered and composite plastics, are difficult to recycle mechanically [44]. Certain thermoset plastics, such as epoxy resins, cannot be melted and reshaped. Recycled plastics also lose mechanical properties after each cycle due to polymer degradation. This limits their applications and often requires blending with virgin plastics to maintain quality [45]. Mechanical recycling requires clean and well-sorted plastic waste. The presence of contaminants in plastic waste, like food residues and additives, could reduce recyclability and product quality [46]. Unlike chemical recycling, mechanical recycling often leads to downcycling, where plastic is converted into lower-value products, e.g., from PET bottles into textiles rather than new bottles [41]. Efficient mechanical recycling requires a well-developed waste collection and sorting system, which is lacking in many regions. As mechanical recycling requires the diminution of plastic waste, it potentially generates and releases microplastics into the environment [47].

3.2 Chemical Recycling Approach

The chemical recycling approach is an advanced method for managing plastic waste, breaking down plastic polymers into their basic molecular building blocks. These molecules can then be repurposed into new plastics, fuels, or chemicals, contributing to a closed-loop CE for plastics [48]. Unlike mechanical recycling, which retains the polymer structure, chemical recycling decomposes plastics at the molecular level, allowing for higher quality and more versatile outputs. The major types of chemical recycling comprise pyrolysis, gasification, hydrolysis and solvolysis, and depolymerization [26] (Figure 3). Pyrolysis, otherwise called thermal depolymerization, involves heating plastics in the absence of oxygen to break them down into liquid fuels, monomers, or chemical feedstocks (Figure 3). It is suitable for polyolefins, like polyethylene and polypropylene, which are difficult to recycle mechanically [49]. Gasification is essentially a high-temperature process (approx. 1000°C) in low-oxygen conditions that converts plastics into syngas (CO2 + H2). Syngas can be used to produce methanol, ammonia, or fuels [50].

Click to view original image

Figure 3 Chemical recycling of plastic waste.

Hydrolysis and solvolysis are chemical recycling methods that utilize water, alcohols (such as methanol or ethanol), or other organic solvents to depolymerize plastics into their original monomers or oligomers (Figure 3). These techniques are particularly effective for condensation polymers like PET and polyamides (e.g., nylon) [51]. In hydrolysis, water reacts with ester or amide bonds under acidic, basic, or neutral conditions, often with the aid of heat and catalysts, to cleave the polymer chains into monomeric units such as terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol in the case of PET [52]. Solvolysis, in contrast, uses alcohols or other solvents in a process known as alcoholysis, glycolysis, or aminolysis, depending on the solvent type. For example, glycolysis of PET with ethylene glycol produces bis(hydroxyethyl) terephthalate (BHET), a precursor for repolymerization into new PET [53].

Depolymerization via these methods is highly selective and efficient for specific polymer types and offers the potential to produce monomers of near-virgin purity (Figure 3). This distinguishes it from mechanical recycling, which physically melts and reshapes plastics but often results in polymer degradation over repeated cycles. Moreover, advanced chemical recycling processes incorporate solvent purification steps, such as distillation, filtration, or crystallization, to remove dyes, additives, and other contaminants from the recovered monomers. These purification techniques enhance the quality and consistency of the output, making it suitable for high-performance applications, including food-grade packaging [26,54].

Because chemical recycling operates at the molecular level, it can effectively process complex waste streams, including multi-layered, contaminated, or composite plastics that are challenging for mechanical systems. It also minimizes microplastic formation, as polymers are not fragmented but rather broken down completely. Additionally, since the resulting monomers can be repeatedly re-polymerized without loss of quality, these processes offer the potential for closed-loop recycling, enabling the development of a truly circular plastic economy [55,56].

Nonetheless, chemical recycling has high energy consumption. Processes like pyrolysis and gasification require high temperatures, increasing energy demands. If powered by non-renewable energy, it can generate high carbon emissions [57]. It requires advanced chemical processing plants, which are costly to build and maintain. Some processes release toxic chemicals, such as dioxins, furans, or volatile organic compounds, and necessitate proper emission control systems [58]. Pyrolysis could produce low-quality liquid fuels rather than true circular materials. Gasification is efficient but primarily generates fuel rather than new plastics [57,58]. While promising, chemical recycling is not widely adopted due to high costs, energy requirements, and regulatory barriers [59]. Table 1 shows a comparison between chemical and mechanical recycling approaches.

Table 1 Comparison between the mechanical and chemical recycling approaches.

3.3 Bio-Based and Biodegradable Plastics Approach

The bio-based and biodegradable plastics approach is an important approach within the plastic CE, aiming to reduce reliance on fossil-based plastics and minimize environmental pollution. This approach emphasizes the use of renewable resources to produce plastics and ensures their biodegradability for sustainable end-of-life management [60]. Bio-based plastics are made from renewable biological sources, such as corn starch, sugarcane, cellulose, and algae. Examples of bio-based plastics are polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), and bio-based polyethylene. Some bio-based plastics, such as bio-based polyethylene and polypropylene, are not biodegradable [28,61]. Biodegradable plastics are designed to break down into natural elements like carbon dioxide, water, and biomass through microbial activity. They can be petroleum-based, e.g., polybutylene adipate terephthalate, or bio-based, e.g., PLA and PHA. Their decomposition rates depend on environmental conditions and may require industrial composting facilities [29].

The bio-based and biodegradable plastics approach integrates with the 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) and introduces biodegradation and composting to close the material loop [62]. By using agricultural waste, non-food biomass, or dedicated bio-feedstocks, the approach promotes sustainable sourcing and reduces dependence on fossil fuels. The products are often designed for biodegradability, recyclability, or compostability, thus encouraging eco-design. Some bio-based plastics, like bio-polyethylene, can enter conventional mechanical or chemical recycling [63]. Certified biodegradable plastics decompose into non-toxic substances, supporting organic waste management [62]. Nonetheless, the approach faces the challenge of resource competition since bio-based plastics can compete with food production for land and water. Many biodegradable plastics degrade only in controlled composting conditions, not in natural settings. Mixing biodegradable plastics with conventional plastics can disrupt recycling processes. Higher production costs compared to fossil-based plastics limit widespread adoption [64,65].

3.4 Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Approach

The EPR is a key policy approach in the plastic CE, shifting the responsibility for post-consumer plastic waste management from governments and consumers to the producers who manufacture, distribute, and sell plastic products [30]. EPR mandates that producers take financial and/or operational responsibility for the collection, recycling, and disposal of plastics, encouraging more sustainable product design and waste management practices [31]. Under EPR, producers are required to implement take-back programs, fund recycling initiatives, and ensure proper waste disposal. This approach incentivizes companies to design products with longer lifespans, improved recyclability, and reduced environmental impact [66]. For instance, manufacturers may choose to use mono-material plastics instead of complex multi-layered plastics to enhance recyclability. Additionally, companies may invest in reuse strategies, such as refillable packaging, or support the development of biodegradable and bio-based alternatives to conventional plastics [66,67].

A well-structured EPR system includes mandatory recycling targets, eco-modulated fees, and reporting obligations. Producers often pay EPR fees based on the recyclability and environmental impact of their products—items with difficult-to-recycle plastics may incur higher fees, encouraging businesses to shift toward more sustainable materials [68]. Governments and regulatory bodies oversee compliance, ensuring that funds are allocated to waste collection, sorting, and recycling infrastructure. This financial support strengthens local waste management systems and reduces the burden on municipalities, promoting a more circular approach to plastic use [69].

Despite its benefits, EPR implementation faces challenges such as inadequate enforcement, lack of standardized regulations, and varying levels of industry participation. In many regions, weak infrastructure and poor waste segregation hinder the effectiveness of producer-led recycling efforts [70]. However, when properly enforced, EPR can significantly reduce plastic waste leakage into the environment, increase recycling rates, and encourage a transition from a linear “take-make-dispose” approach to a regenerative CE where plastics are continuously recovered and reused [71].

3.5 Deposit-Refund Schemes and Take-Back Systems

Deposit-refund schemes (DRS) and take-back systems are essential mechanisms in the plastic CE, designed to incentivize the return and proper recycling of plastic products and packaging [32]. These systems promote waste reduction, resource efficiency, and pollution prevention by ensuring that plastics remain within a closed-loop system rather than ending up in landfills or the environment [72]. DRS works by charging consumers a refundable deposit when purchasing products in plastic packaging, such as beverage bottles. Consumers can reclaim the deposit by returning the used packaging to designated collection points [73]. This system significantly improves collection rates and recycling efficiency, reducing littering and environmental pollution. Countries with well-established DRS, such as Germany and Sweden, achieve recycling rates of over 90% for PET bottles due to consumer participation driven by financial incentives [72,74]. Moreover, a well-managed DRS helps maintain high-quality plastic material streams, allowing for closed-loop recycling where plastics are reprocessed into new products of similar quality rather than being downcycled [75].

Take-back systems, on the other hand, place the responsibility on producers, retailers, or waste management companies to collect and properly manage plastic waste at the end of its life cycle [76]. These systems can be voluntary or mandatory, requiring manufacturers to provide collection points or reverse logistics systems for used plastic products. Take-back programs are widely used for electronic plastics, plastic packaging, and industrial plastic waste, ensuring that valuable materials are recovered and reintegrated into production cycles [76,77]. Some companies implement a closed-loop take-back approach, where plastics from returned products are directly reused in manufacturing new items, reducing reliance on virgin plastic production [66].

Both systems align with EPR principles, encouraging businesses to design for recyclability, reduce waste, and invest in sustainable packaging alternatives. However, successful implementation depends on consumer awareness, infrastructure development, and regulatory enforcement [78]. Challenges such as collection inefficiencies, contamination of materials, and logistical costs must be addressed to maximize their effectiveness [79]. When properly executed, deposit-refund schemes and take-back systems play a crucial role in transitioning from a linear economy to a sustainable CE for plastics.

3.6 Design for Circularity Approach

The design for circularity approach is a fundamental approach in the plastic CE, ensuring that plastic products and packaging are designed to be recyclable, reusable, or biodegradable from the outset [33]. This approach moves away from the traditional linear economy (“take-make-dispose”) by integrating sustainability principles into product design, thereby reducing plastic waste, minimizing environmental impact, and keeping plastic materials within a closed-loop system [34]. A key aspect of designing for circularity is the use of mono-material plastics instead of complex, multi-layered plastics that are difficult to recycle. For example, many food packaging materials consist of multiple plastic layers fused together, making separation and recycling challenging. By shifting to single-type plastics, manufacturers enable easier collection, sorting, and high-quality recycling. Additionally, modular design allows products such as electronics or packaging to be disassembled, facilitating material recovery and reuse [80,81].

Another critical strategy is lightweighting and material efficiency, where products are designed using fewer raw materials without compromising performance. This reduces plastic consumption at the source and lowers the carbon footprint of production and transportation [82]. Furthermore, incorporating recycled content into new plastic products helps close the material loop, reducing dependence on virgin plastics derived from fossil fuels. Some companies now use post-consumer recycled (PCR) plastics in packaging, which supports the demand for recycled materials and strengthens the market for secondary plastics [83]. Designing for circularity also involves enhancing product durability and reusability. Refillable and reusable packaging solutions, such as returnable bottles and bulk dispensing systems, extend the life cycle of plastics and reduce the need for single-use packaging [84]. Biodegradable and compostable plastics, when properly designed and certified for specific environments, further contribute to circularity by ensuring that plastics break down safely at the end of their life.

Despite its benefits, challenges such as technological limitations, cost barriers, and consumer behavior still hinder widespread adoption. Effective implementation requires collaboration between manufacturers, policymakers, and waste management systems to standardize recyclable designs and establish efficient collection infrastructures [85]. By prioritizing circular design principles, industries can significantly reduce plastic waste, lower environmental impact, and contribute to a more sustainable and resource-efficient plastic economy.

3.7 Digital and Smart Waste Management Approach

The digital and smart waste management approach is a technology-driven approach that enhances the efficiency, traceability, and sustainability of plastic waste management within the plastic CE [35]. By integrating IoT, AI, blockchain, and data analytics, this approach optimizes waste collection, sorting, and recycling processes, ensuring that plastics remain in a closed-loop system rather than polluting the environment [86].

One key application of smart waste management is the use of IoT-enabled waste bins and sensors that monitor fill levels and send real-time data to waste collection services. These smart bins help optimize collection routes, reduce transportation costs, and minimize carbon emissions by ensuring that waste is only collected when necessary [87]. Complementing this infrastructure, AI plays a transformative role in the automated classification and sorting of plastic waste. AI-powered systems, often combining high-resolution cameras, hyperspectral imaging, and machine learning algorithms, can accurately detect and classify plastics based on attributes such as polymer type (e.g., PET, high-density polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride), color, shape, and contamination level. For example, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are trained on large datasets to distinguish subtle differences in surface features and reflectance spectra, enabling real-time decision-making during the sorting process [88,89].

Advanced robotic arms integrated with AI classifiers can then precisely separate items at high speed, significantly outperforming manual sorting in both accuracy and throughput. Furthermore, these systems continuously improve over time through feedback loops and adaptive learning, enhancing their performance in diverse and contaminated waste streams. By increasing the purity of sorted materials, AI-based sorting enhances the efficiency and economic viability of downstream recycling processes, particularly in facilities that handle mixed or post-consumer plastic waste. In doing so, AI technologies not only reduce human labor and error but also play a critical role in scaling circular economy practices through more intelligent, data-driven waste management.

Blockchain technology plays a crucial role in ensuring transparency and traceability in the plastic supply chain. By recording every step of a plastic product’s lifecycle—from production to disposal—blockchain creates a digital passport for plastics, helping industries track and verify the use of recycled materials [90]. This promotes compliance with EPR policies, prevents plastic leakage into the environment, and incentivizes manufacturers to incorporate more PCR plastics in their products.

Furthermore, mobile apps and digital platforms empower consumers to participate in the CE by providing waste disposal guidance, incentivized recycling programs, and deposit-refund schemes (DRS) [91]. Some platforms use QR codes or radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags on plastic packaging, allowing users to scan and access information about proper disposal methods, recycling locations, or return incentives. This enhances consumer awareness and increases the likelihood of plastics being disposed of correctly [92].

Despite its potential, the adoption of digital waste management systems faces challenges such as high initial costs, lack of standardized data systems, and digital infrastructure gaps in certain regions [86]. However, with continued investment and policy support, the integration of smart technologies into waste management can significantly enhance plastic recycling rates, reduce pollution, and drive the transition toward a fully circular plastic economy [92].

3.8 Comparison of Plastic CE Approaches

A comparison of the plastic CE approaches discussed above, in terms of their feasibility, scalability, technical maturity, environmental impact, and economic viability, is shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Comparison of the feasibility, scalability, technological maturity, environmental impact and economic viability of various plastic CE approaches.

4. Cases of Implementation of the Plastic CE Approaches

In reality, the plastic CE has been implemented to different extents in different parts of the world. Germany has one of the most successful DRS for plastic beverage bottles, achieving a recycling rate of over 90%. The system, known as Pfand, requires consumers to pay a small deposit (typically €0.25) when purchasing plastic bottles, which is refunded upon return at reverse vending machines located in supermarkets and convenience stores [78,93]. This initiative has significantly reduced plastic litter and ensured that high-quality PET plastic is collected and recycled efficiently. The success of the German DRS has influenced similar systems in other European countries, such as Sweden and the Netherlands [72].

Moreover, a Frankfurt-based materials-regeneration start-up leverages glycolysis technology in the chemical depolymerization and regeneration of post-industrial and post-consumer polyester textiles [94]. The process starts with a combination of contaminated polyester feedstocks, which are frequently mixed with cotton, dyes, or elastane. This mixture is then purified through crystallization and filtration to eliminate impurities. The clean material is subsequently chemically depolymerized using ethylene glycol and a reusable catalyst under milder conditions (lower temperatures and energy requirements), resulting in pure monomers like BHET or poly (hydroxyethyl terephthalate) (PHET). These are subsequently repolymerized into pellets, producing a high-purity product and emitting about 50% less CO2 compared to virgin polyester [94,95].

In the Netherlands, Dutch companies and policymakers have prioritized design for circularity, particularly in plastic packaging. The Netherlands-based company Unilever has developed packaging solutions that are 100% recyclable, reusable, or compostable, integrating PCR plastic into their bottles [96]. The country also encourages mono-material packaging, reducing the complexity of recycling processes. These efforts align with the Plastic Pact Netherlands, which aims to reduce virgin plastic use and increase recycling rates through improved product design [97].

In Italy, a chemical subsidiary of an Italian energy company is playing a leading role in advancing plastic circularity through mechanical and advanced recycling initiatives. In 2022, a post-consumer plastic mechanical recycling plant was established in Porto Marghera, Venice, with a processing capacity of around 20,000 tons per year [98]. This facility specializes in converting sorted polyethylene and polystyrene waste into high-quality secondary raw materials suitable for applications in packaging, construction, and automotive industries. Beyond mechanical recycling, the company has expanded into advanced recycling through its investment in pyrolysis and depolymerization technologies. It is piloting systems to convert mixed plastic waste into synthetic oil, which can be refined and reused in traditional polymer production [98]. This dual approach—mechanical and chemical—enables the handling of both clean and contaminated plastic waste streams, thus extending the life cycle of materials otherwise destined for incineration or landfill. By embedding circularity into its industrial model, the company is aligning with the EU Green Deal objectives and contributing to Italy’s transition toward a more resource-efficient, low-carbon economy [99].

Japan has implemented an advanced smart waste management system that relies on IoT technology, AI-driven sorting, and meticulous waste segregation [100]. Cities such as Kamikatsu have adopted a zero-waste approach, where residents sort waste into more than 40 different categories, ensuring high levels of recycling and resource recovery [101]. Additionally, Japan has invested in AI-powered sorting machines that use optical sensors and deep learning to separate plastic waste by polymer type, improving recycling efficiency. The integration of digital tools into waste management has helped Japan maintain one of the highest plastic recycling rates in the world, at approximately 85% [102].

Chile has taken a strong regulatory approach by implementing the EPR Law, which mandates that producers of plastic packaging and products take responsibility for their post-consumer waste [103]. Under this law, companies are required to finance collection, recycling, and proper disposal. The regulation has encouraged businesses to adopt eco-design principles, incorporate recycled plastics into new products, and participate in take-back programs. By 2030, Chile aims to double its plastic recycling rates through EPR initiatives [104].

In India, mandatory take-back systems for plastic packaging have been introduced under its Plastic Waste Management Rules. Companies like Coca-Cola and Nestlé have partnered with waste collection and recycling enterprises to establish return and recycling infrastructure for multi-layered plastic waste [105]. These efforts are particularly crucial in addressing the country’s high plastic pollution levels. Cities such as Pune and Bengaluru have also pioneered waste-picker inclusion programs, where informal recyclers play a key role in collecting and sorting plastics for recycling [106].

Sweden has invested heavily in bio-based and biodegradable plastic alternatives, particularly in the packaging and food service industries. Companies such as Tetra Pak have introduced bio-based cartons made from plant-derived polymers, reducing reliance on fossil-based plastics [107]. Sweden also promotes industrial composting facilities for biodegradable plastics, ensuring proper decomposition and integration into circular waste management systems. These initiatives align with Sweden’s goal of achieving a fossil-free economy by 2045 [107].

Typically, plastic CE approaches are not implemented independently. The examples mentioned earlier necessitated the investment and development of mechanical and chemical recycling systems, allowing the collected plastics to be either recycled or repurposed. In the case of biodegradable plastics, composting facilities have been established for organic recycling, facilitating the breakdown of plastics and the utilization of their nutrients. In Germany, for instance, the implementation of CE approaches is highly integrated. Germany has one of the highest recycling rates globally (~67%). Its “Green Dot” system requires manufacturers to use recyclable packaging [108]. BASF and other companies are developing chemical recycling for plastic waste, converting hard-to-recycle plastics into raw materials [109]. Research into bioplastics and compostable alternatives is expanding, with some cities offering separate collections for compostable plastics [110]. The Packaging Act (VerpackG) makes producers responsible for waste collection and recycling. A Pfand system (bottle deposit refund) ensures high recovery rates for beverage containers (~98%) [111]. Electronics and batteries must be collected by retailers and manufacturers for recycling under Germany’s ElektroG law. Germany’s eco-design standards push for durable and repairable products, reducing electronic and plastic waste [112].

As for Japan, it has strict sorting systems for mechanical recycling, achieving a plastic recycling rate of approximately 85%. Companies like JEPLAN use chemical depolymerization to recycle polyester into new fibers [113]. Japan is investing in bio-based plastics from seaweed and plant-based materials. Under the Home Appliance Recycling Law, producers must collect and recycle refrigerators, televisions, and air conditioners. PET bottles have collection points in supermarkets for efficient deposit refunds. Retailers must take back used electronic goods when selling new ones, ensuring proper recycling [114]. Cities like Kamikatsu use QR codes for waste tracking, improving recycling rates [101].

Generally, the EU has adopted a comprehensive and multi-faceted strategy to transition plastics toward a circular economy, emphasizing prevention, design innovation, and systemic transformation across the value chain. Central to this vision is the EU Plastics Strategy, a key component of the Circular Economy Action Plan, which mandates all plastic packaging on the EU market to be recyclable or reusable by 2030 [115]. The European Environment Agency (EEA) further supports this transition through detailed assessments such as “Plastics, the circular economy and Europe’s environment”, highlighting both environmental challenges and circular opportunities. Recent updates emphasize growing capacities for mechanical recycling, a shift toward bioplastics, and reduced plastic waste exports [13]. Complementing these policies, initiatives like “ReShaping Plastics” by Plastics Europe and SYSTEMIQ offer scenarios to cut plastic waste and greenhouse gas emissions by combining upstream (e.g., reduced demand, eco-design) and downstream (e.g., recycling technologies) measures [116]. Together, these policies and roadmaps reflect the EU’s integrated approach, combining regulation, innovation funding, and stakeholder engagement to close material loops and retain plastic value within the economy.

Globally, the United Nations (UN), led by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), frames plastic pollution as a planetary crisis requiring global, systemic change. UNEP 2023 annual report outlines a roadmap to reduce plastic pollution by 80% by 2040 through a combination of circular strategies: reducing unnecessary plastic production, promoting reuse systems, improving recycling infrastructure, and implementing EPR schemes. These approaches emphasize lifecycle thinking and equity, recognizing the need for international cooperation and support for developing nations [117]. In parallel, the UN Global Plastics Treaty negotiations, a historic process launched in 2022, aim to create a legally binding instrument covering the full life cycle of plastics. The draft treaty considers measures such as global caps on virgin plastic production, mandatory recycled content, and monitoring of plastic leakage [118]. Additionally, UNDP’s community-based circular solutions, supported by the Global Environment Facility, showcase bottom-up approaches to plastic reuse, recycling, and livelihood enhancement [119]. Together, these efforts signal a bold move toward a globally coordinated circular economy for plastics, combining policy, finance, and grassroots action.

Nonetheless, the implementation of the plastic CE in developing countries remains limited and fragmented, though it is gaining momentum. Most developing nations still rely heavily on linear plastic economies, dominated by informal waste management systems, low recycling rates, and limited infrastructure. However, increasing awareness of plastic pollution, policy shifts, and international cooperation are slowly fostering CE approaches. In many countries across South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America, informal waste pickers handle a significant portion of plastic recycling (e.g., up to 90% in India) [120,121]. While they play a critical role in material recovery, the sector lacks regulation, safety standards, and access to modern technology, limiting efficiency and scalability. Only a few nations, such as Nigeria and Bangladesh, have established extensive EPR frameworks; however, when they do exist, enforcement is frequently ineffective [122,123]. Pilot DRS are being tested in countries like Kenya and Indonesia [70]. Digital technologies (e.g., mobile platforms for waste collection coordination, blockchain traceability) are emerging through donor-funded and NGO-led initiatives. Eco-design and design for circularity remain minimal, with most packaging still optimized for cost rather than reuse or recyclability [124].

5. Barriers to Implementing the Plastic CE Approaches

Despite the fact that the plastic CE approaches have achieved success in certain countries, challenges in their implementation remain, especially in developing countries. Developing countries often lack the necessary infrastructure for efficient collection, sorting, and processing of plastic waste, leading to high contamination rates and low-quality recycled materials. Informal waste-picking sectors dominate waste management, but they typically focus on high-value plastics (e.g., PET and high-density polyethylene), while lower-value plastics are discarded or burned [125]. Additionally, limited public awareness and inadequate waste separation at the source further reduce recycling efficiency [8]. Another major challenge is the economic viability—imported virgin plastics, often subsidized or cheaper due to fluctuating oil prices, make recycled plastics less competitive. In India, for instance, approximately 90% of plastic recycling is handled by the informal sector, where waste pickers manually collect and sort plastic waste. However, due to poor segregation at the source and contamination from food residues and non-recyclable plastics, much of the plastic waste cannot be effectively recycled [122]. Additionally, small-scale recyclers struggle with low-profit margins, as virgin plastics are often cheaper due to government subsidies on petrochemicals. As a result, a large proportion of plastic waste ends up in landfills or the environment [124].

High capital investment requirements and a lack of technical expertise hinder the adoption of chemical recycling in developing countries. These processes demand stable energy sources, which can be unreliable in regions with frequent power shortages [126]. Moreover, the fragmented nature of waste streams, often containing a mix of non-recyclable plastics, food residues, and hazardous materials, complicates the feedstock supply for chemical recycling. Additionally, weak environmental regulations and enforcement mechanisms increase the risk of pollution from emissions and toxic byproducts [125].

The transition to bio-based and biodegradable plastics in developing countries is limited by high costs, weak consumer demand, and inadequate composting infrastructure [29]. Many biodegradable plastics require industrial composting conditions, which are rarely available. Furthermore, there is widespread misinformation, leading to improper disposal. Many people assume these plastics decompose naturally in the environment, contributing to littering issues [127]. Agricultural land competition is another challenge, as using crops for bioplastic production could affect food security in regions already struggling with agricultural sustainability [128].

Developing countries struggle with implementing deposit-refund and take-back systems due to inadequate logistics, lack of consumer participation, and weak financial support. Many consumers do not return plastic waste because of low awareness or because informal recyclers already collect valuable waste items [93]. Setting up collection centers requires significant investment, which governments and businesses may be reluctant to provide. Additionally, the lack of digital tracking systems increases the risk of fraud and inefficiency. In many cases, existing informal recycling networks operate in parallel to formal schemes, creating conflicts and reducing the effectiveness of deposit-refund initiatives [123].

Manufacturers in developing countries often focus on low-cost production, prioritizing cheap, non-recyclable materials to remain competitive in the market. Many products are designed for single use, and there is little investment in research and development for sustainable alternatives [120]. Moreover, a lack of standardized regulations and incentives for eco-design discourages businesses from adopting circularity principles. Consumers in these regions also tend to favor inexpensive, disposable plastics due to affordability, making it difficult to shift towards durable and recyclable alternatives [85,129].

The implementation of digital waste management solutions in developing countries faces multiple challenges, including poor internet connectivity, limited access to technology, and financial constraints [92]. Smart waste tracking systems, AI-driven sorting technologies, and blockchain-based transparency initiatives require substantial investment, which many municipalities cannot afford [91]. Furthermore, a lack of skilled professionals to operate and maintain these technologies further hampers progress. Privacy concerns and weak data protection laws also create hesitancy in adopting digital waste monitoring systems. In many cases, informal waste collectors lack access to technology, making it difficult to integrate them into digital waste management frameworks [130]. Bangladesh has attempted to introduce digital waste tracking systems, but adoption remains limited due to poor internet connectivity and lack of funding for smart waste infrastructure [131]. While some cities have implemented pilot programs using AI-powered waste sorting, scaling these technologies has been difficult because of financial constraints and a lack of skilled workers. Additionally, many waste collectors lack access to digital tools, making it hard to integrate them into smart waste management frameworks [132].

6. Conclusion

The increasing severity of global plastic pollution has prompted a shift from the traditional linear economy of processing plastics from fossil fuels, using them, and discarding them at the end of their life to the circular economy. The plastic CE, which emphasizes resource efficiency, waste minimization, and closed-loop material cycles, has been progressively developed. The most popular approaches of this economy are the mechanical recycling approach, the chemical recycling approach, bio-based and biodegradable plastics, the EPR approach, deposit-refund schemes and take-back systems, the design for circularity approach, and the digital and smart waste management approach. Although there is a growing emphasis on CE principles, the implementation of CE for plastics varies significantly among different regions and industries. Various obstacles impede broader acceptance, such as economic constraints, technological challenges, expertise shortages, regulatory discrepancies, consumer habits, and a lack of infrastructural development. The following are recommended to overcome these challenges:

  1. Formalizing and Supporting the Informal Sector: Governments can integrate waste pickers into the formal waste management system by providing training, safety equipment, and fair wages.
  2. Public-Private Partnerships for Investment: Governments can attract investors by offering tax incentives and subsidies for chemical recycling plants.
  3. Developing Industrial Composting Facilities: Governments should invest in composting infrastructure and incentivize businesses to set up biodegradable waste collection systems. 
  4. Enforcing Clear Labeling and Disposal Instructions: Public education campaigns should clarify biodegradable versus conventional plastics to prevent misuse and contamination in recycling streams.
  5. Mandating EPR with Strict Enforcement: Governments should require producers to finance collection and recycling through taxes, eco-levies, or deposit schemes.
  6. Expanding Collection Points and Accessibility: Establishing widespread, easy-to-access collection centers in markets, schools, and transport hubs can improve participation.
  7. Banning Non-Recyclable Multi-Layer Plastics: Governments should phase out multi-layer packaging that is difficult to recycle and promote mono-material plastics for easy processing.
  8. AI and Blockchain for Waste Tracking: Developing countries can use AI-powered sorting systems and blockchain waste traceability.

In line with the recommendations, future studies can focus on optimizing waste sorting, improving the efficiency of chemical recycling, developing business and policy models that scale up plastic circularity in the informal sector, improving the effectiveness of EPR in developing economies, studying consumer perceptions and behaviors towards sustainable plastic alternatives, and developing AI and blockchain technologies for plastic waste management.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank the University of Arizona for the administrative support provided.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, writing: K. H. D. Tang.

Competing Interests

The author declares that there are no known conflicts of interest.

References

  1. OECD. Global plastics outlook: Economic drivers, environmental impacts and policy options [Internet]. Paris, France: OECD Publishing; 2022. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1787/de747aef-en. [CrossRef]
  2. Tang KHD. Climate change and plastic pollution: A review of their connections. Trop Environ Biol Technol. 2023; 1: 110-120. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  3. WWF. Societal cost of plastic produced just in 2019 revealed at US $3.7 trillion: More than the GDP of India [Internet]. Gland, Switzerland: WWF; 2021. Available from: https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?3507866/These-costs-for-plastic-produced-in-2040-will-rise-to-US71-trillion-unless-urgent-action-is-taken.
  4. Neves SA, Marques AC. Drivers and barriers in the transition from a linear economy to a circular economy. J Clean Prod. 2022; 341: 130865. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  5. Tang KHD. Enhanced plastic economy: A perspective and a call for international action. Environ Sci Adv. 2023; 2: 1011-1018. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  6. Morseletto P. Sometimes linear, sometimes circular: States of the economy and transitions to the future. J Clean Prod. 2023; 390: 136138. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  7. Korhonen J, Honkasalo A, Seppälä J. Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecol Econ. 2018; 143: 37-46. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  8. Tang KHD. Attitudes towards plastic pollution: A review and mitigations beyond circular economy. Waste. 2023; 1: 569-587. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  9. Rashid S, Malik SH. Transition from a linear to a circular economy. In: Renewable energy in circular economy. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2023. pp. 1-20. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  10. Bucknall DG. Plastics as a materials system in a circular economy. Philos Trans R Soc A. 2020; 378: 20190268. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  11. King S, Locock KE. A circular economy framework for plastics: A semi-systematic review. J Clean Prod. 2022; 364: 132503. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  12. Tang KHD, Zhou J. Ecotoxicity of biodegradable microplastics and bio-based microplastics: A review of in vitro and in vivo studies. Environ Manag. 2024; 75: 663-679. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  13. Preka R, Fiorentino G, De Carolis R, Barberio G. The challenge of plastics in a circular perspective. Front Sustain Cities. 2022; 4: 920242. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  14. Geyer R, Jambeck JR, Law KL. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci Adv. 2017; 3: e1700782. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  15. Sheldon RA, Norton M. Green chemistry and the plastic pollution challenge: Towards a circular economy. Green Chem. 2020; 22: 6310-6322. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  16. Arijeniwa VF, Akinsemolu AA, Chukwugozie DC, Onawo UG, Ochulor CE, Nwauzoma UM, et al. Closing the loop: A framework for tackling single-use plastic waste in the food and beverage industry through circular economy-A review. J Environ Manag. 2024; 359: 120816. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  17. Liu Q, Martinez-Villarreal S, Wang S, Tien NN, Kammoun M, De Roover Q, et al. The role of plastic chemical recycling processes in a circular economy context. Chem Eng J. 2024; 498: 155227. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  18. Jiang X, Bateer B. A systematic review of plastic recycling: Technology, environmental impact and economic evaluation. Waste Manag Res. 2025. doi: 10.1177/0734242X241310658. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  19. Payne J, McKeown P, Jones MD. A circular economy approach to plastic waste. Polym Degrad Stab. 2019; 165: 170-181. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  20. Robaina M, Murillo K, Rocha E, Villar J. Circular economy in plastic waste-Efficiency analysis of European countries. Sci Total Environ. 2020; 730: 139038. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  21. Khatami F, Vilamová Š, Cagno E, De Bernardi P, Neri A, Cantino V. Efficiency of consumer behaviour and digital ecosystem in the generation of the plastic waste toward the circular economy. J Environ Manag. 2023; 325: 116555. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  22. Johansen MR, Christensen TB, Ramos TM, Syberg K. A review of the plastic value chain from a circular economy perspective. J Environ Manag. 2022; 302: 113975. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  23. Aurisano N, Weber R, Fantke P. Enabling a circular economy for chemicals in plastics. Curr Opin Green Sustain Chem. 2021; 31: 100513. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  24. Larrain M, Van Passel S, Thomassen G, Van Gorp B, Nhu TT, Huysveld S, et al. Techno-economic assessment of mechanical recycling of challenging post-consumer plastic packaging waste. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2021; 170: 105607. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  25. Schyns ZO, Shaver MP. Mechanical recycling of packaging plastics: A review. Macromol Rapid Commun. 2021; 42: 2000415. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  26. Davidson MG, Furlong RA, McManus MC. Developments in the life cycle assessment of chemical recycling of plastic waste–A review. J Clean Prod. 2021; 293: 126163. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  27. Lase IS, Tonini D, Caro D, Albizzati PF, Cristóbal J, Roosen M, et al. How much can chemical recycling contribute to plastic waste recycling in Europe? An assessment using material flow analysis modeling. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2023; 192: 106916. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  28. Döhler N, Wellenreuther C, Wolf A. Market dynamics of biodegradable bio-based plastics: Projections and linkages to European policies. EFB Bioeconomy J. 2022; 2: 100028. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  29. Nazareth MC, Marques MR, Pinheiro LM, Castro ÍB. Key issues for bio-based, biodegradable and compostable plastics governance. J Environ Manag. 2022; 322: 116074. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  30. Tumu K, Vorst K, Curtzwiler G. Global plastic waste recycling and extended producer responsibility laws. J Environ Manag. 2023; 348: 119242. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  31. Ramasubramanian B, Tan J, Chellappan V, Ramakrishna S. Recent advances in extended producer responsibility initiatives for plastic waste management in Germany and UK. Mater Circ Econ. 2023; 5: 6. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  32. Calabrese A, CoSTA R, Ghiron NL, Menichini T, Miscoli V, Tiburzi L. Operating modes and cost burdens for the European deposit-refund systems: A systematic approach for their analysis and design. J Clean Prod. 2021; 288: 125600. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  33. Mitrano DM, Wagner M. A sustainable future for plastics considering material safety and preserved value. Nat Rev Mater. 2022; 7: 71-73. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  34. Zhu Z, Liu W, Ye S, Batista L. Packaging design for the circular economy: A systematic review. Sustain Prod Consum. 2022; 32: 817-832. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  35. Kannan D, Khademolqorani S, Janatyan N, Alavi S. Smart waste management 4.0: The transition from a systematic review to an integrated framework. Waste Manag. 2024; 174: 1-14. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  36. Häußler M, Eck M, Rothauer D, Mecking S. Closed-loop recycling of polyethylene-like materials. Nature. 2021; 590: 423-427. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  37. Blanco A, Juan R, Istrate R, Paredes B, Martin-Gamboa M, Domínguez C, et al. Assessing the circularity of post-consumer HDPE milk bottles through open-loop recycling and their environmental impact. Clean Environ Syst. 2024; 13: 100185. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  38. Chairat S, Gheewala SH. Life cycle assessment and circularity of polyethylene terephthalate bottles via closed and open loop recycling. Environ Res. 2023; 236: 116788. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  39. Bernat K. Post-consumer plastic waste management: From collection and sortation to mechanical recycling. Energies. 2023; 16: 3504. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  40. Lase IS, Bashirgonbadi A, van Rhijn F, Dewulf J, Ragaert K, Delva L, et al. Material flow analysis and recycling performance of an improved mechanical recycling process for post-consumer flexible plastics. Waste Manag. 2022; 153: 249-263. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  41. Shen L, Worrell E. Chapter 31-Plastic recycling. In: Handbook of recycling. 2nd ed. Elsevier; 2024. pp. 497-510. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  42. Klotz M, Haupt M, Hellweg S. Potentials and limits of mechanical plastic recycling. J Ind Ecol. 2023; 27: 1043-1059. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  43. Bashirgonbadi A, Lase IS, Delva L, Van Geem KM, De Meester S, Ragaert K. Quality evaluation and economic assessment of an improved mechanical recycling process for post-consumer flexible plastics. Waste Manag. 2022; 153: 41-51. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  44. Seier M, Archodoulaki VM, Koch T. The morphology and properties of recycled plastics made from multi-layered packages and the consequences for the circular economy. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2024; 202: 107388. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  45. Lamtai A, Elkoun S, Robert M, Mighri F, Diez C. Mechanical recycling of thermoplastics: A review of key issues. Waste. 2023; 1: 860-883. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  46. Vogt BD, Stokes KK, Kumar SK. Why is recycling of postconsumer plastics so challenging? ACS Appl Polym Mater. 2021; 3: 4325-4346. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  47. Suzuki G, Uchida N, Tanaka K, Matsukami H, Kunisue T, Takahashi S, et al. Mechanical recycling of plastic waste as a point source of microplastic pollution. Environ Pollut. 2022; 303: 119114. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  48. Tang KHD. State of the art in textile waste management: A review. Textiles. 2023; 3: 454-467. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  49. Kaminsky W. Chemical recycling of plastics by fluidized bed pyrolysis. Fuel Commun. 2021; 8: 100023. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  50. Weiland F, Lundin L, Celebi M, van der Vlist K, Moradian F. Aspects of chemical recycling of complex plastic waste via the gasification route. Waste Manag. 2021; 126: 65-77. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  51. Maisels A, Hiller A, Simon FG. Chemical recycling for plastic waste: Status and perspectives. ChemBioEng Rev. 2022; 9: 541-555. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  52. Kopperi H, Mamidi V, Suresh G, Mohan SV. Tandem chemical hydrolysis and bioelectrochemical upcycling of waste polyethylene terephthalate (PET) for sustainable biobutanol and ethanol production ensuring plastics circularity. Green Chem. 2025; 27: 2359-2373. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  53. Luna E, Olazabal I, Roosen M, Müller A, Jehanno C, Ximenis M, et al. Towards a better understanding of the cosolvent effect on the low-temperature glycolysis of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET). Chem Eng J. 2024; 482: 148861. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  54. Tang KHD. Valorization of plastic waste through incorporation into construction materials. Civil Sustain Urban Eng. 2022; 2: 96-109. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  55. Martinez-Narro G, Hassan S, Phan AN. Chemical recycling of plastic waste for sustainable polymer manufacturing–A critical review. J Environ Chem Eng. 2024; 12: 112323. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  56. Jiang J, Shi K, Zhang X, Yu K, Zhang H, He J, et al. From plastic waste to wealth using chemical recycling: A review. J Environ Chem Eng. 2022; 10: 106867. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  57. Dogu O, Pelucchi M, Van de Vijver R, Van Steenberge PH, D'hooge DR, Cuoci A, et al. The chemistry of chemical recycling of solid plastic waste via pyrolysis and gasification: State-of-the-art, challenges, and future directions. Prog Energy Combust Sci. 2021; 84: 100901. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  58. Kumar M, Bolan S, Padhye LP, Konarova M, Foong SY, Lam SS, et al. Retrieving back plastic wastes for conversion to value added petrochemicals: Opportunities, challenges and outlooks. Appl Energy. 2023; 345: 121307. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  59. Voss R, Lee RP, Fröhling M. Chemical recycling of plastic waste: Comparative evaluation of environmental and economic performances of gasification-and incineration-based treatment for lightweight packaging waste. Circ Econ Sustain. 2022; 2: 1369-1398. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  60. Choudhury BK, Haloi R, Bharadwaj KK, Rajkhowa S, Sarma J. Bio-based and biodegradable plastics as alternatives to conventional plastics. In: Plastic and Microplastic in the Environment: Management and Health Risks. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2022. pp. 170-186. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  61. Tang KHD. Lignocellulosic materials for green packaging: The prospects and challenges. Eng Technol J. 2021; 6: 969-976. [Google scholar]
  62. Filiciotto L, Rothenberg G. Biodegradable plastics: Standards, policies, and impacts. ChemSusChem. 2021; 14: 56-72. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  63. Kumar R, Sadeghi K, Jang J, Seo J. Mechanical, chemical, and bio-recycling of biodegradable plastics: A review. Sci Total Environ. 2023; 882: 163446. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  64. Goel V, Luthra P, Kapur GS, Ramakumar SS. Biodegradable/bio-plastics: Myths and realities. J Polym Environ. 2021; 29: 3079-3104. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  65. Skoczinski P, Krause L, Raschka A, Dammer L, Carus M. Current status and future development of plastics: Solutions for a circular economy and limitations of environmental degradation. Methods Enzymol. 2021; 648: 1-26. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  66. Lorang S, Yang Z, Zhang H, Lü F, He P. Achievements and policy trends of extended producer responsibility for plastic packaging waste in Europe. Waste Dispos Sustain Energy. 2022; 4: 91-103. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  67. Joltreau E. Extended producer responsibility, packaging waste reduction and eco-design. Environ Resour Econ. 2022; 83: 527-578. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  68. Maitre-Ekern E. Re-thinking producer responsibility for a sustainable circular economy from extended producer responsibility to pre-market producer responsibility. J Clean Prod. 2021; 286: 125454. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  69. Cowger W, Willis KA, Bullock S, Conlon K, Emmanuel J, Erdle LM, et al. Global producer responsibility for plastic pollution. Sci Adv. 2024; 10: eadj8275. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  70. Johannes HP, Kojima M, Iwasaki F, Edita EP. Applying the extended producer responsibility towards plastic waste in Asian developing countries for reducing marine plastic debris. Waste Manag Res. 2021; 39: 690-702. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  71. Lifset R, Kalimo H, Jukka A, Kautto P, Miettinen M. Restoring the incentives for eco-design in extended producer responsibility: The challenges for eco-modulation. Waste Manag. 2023; 168: 189-201. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  72. Lu Z, Hasselström L, Finnveden G, Johansson N. Cost-benefit analysis of two possible deposit-refund systems for reuse and recycling of plastic packaging in Sweden. Clean Waste Syst. 2022; 3: 100048. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  73. Zorpas AA. Promoting circular economy: The transformative impact of deposit refund systems. Waste Manag Res. 2024; 42: 1093-1095. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  74. Agnusdei GP, Gnoni MG, Sgarbossa F. Are deposit-refund systems effective in managing glass packaging? State of the art and future directions in Europe. Sci Total Environ. 2022; 851: 158256. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  75. Picuno C, Gerassimidou S, You W, Martin O, Iacovidou E. The potential of Deposit Refund Systems in closing the plastic beverage bottle loop: A review. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2025; 212: 107962. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  76. Vimal KE, Agarwal V, Mathiyazhagan K. Barriers in the adoption of buyback schemes for used plastic packaging material–A contextual relationship analysis. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2022; 178: 106084. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  77. Xu J, Ng CT, Cheng TC. Remanufacturing strategies under product take-back regulation. Int J Prod Econ. 2021; 235: 108091. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  78. Rhein S, Sträter KF. Intended and unintended effects of statutory deposit return schemes for single-use plastic bottles: Lessons learned from the German experience. GAIA. 2021; 30: 250-256. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  79. Amin S, Strik D, van Leeuwen J. A multi-method approach to circular strategy design: Assessing extended producer responsibility scenarios through material flow analysis of PET plastic in Jakarta, Indonesia. J Clean Prod. 2022; 367: 132884. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  80. Eriksen MK, Christiansen JD, Daugaard AE, Astrup TF. Closing the loop for PET, PE and PP waste from households: Influence of material properties and product design for plastic recycling. Waste Manag. 2019; 96: 75-85. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  81. Hahladakis JN, Iacovidou E. Closing the loop on plastic packaging materials: What is quality and how does it affect their circularity? Sci Total Environ. 2018; 630: 1394-1400. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  82. Kamp Albæk J, Shahbazi S, McAloone TC, Pigosso DC. Circularity evaluation of alternative concepts during early product design and development. Sustainability. 2020; 12: 9353. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  83. Korley LT, Epps III TH, Helms BA, Ryan AJ. Toward polymer upcycling—Adding value and tackling circularity. Science. 2021; 373: 66-69. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  84. Vidal F, van der Marel ER, Kerr RW, McElroy C, Schroeder N, Mitchell C, et al. Designing a circular carbon and plastics economy for a sustainable future. Nature. 2024; 626: 45-57. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  85. Dumée LF. Circular materials and circular design—Review on challenges towards sustainable manufacturing and recycling. Circ Econ Sustain. 2022; 2: 9-23. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  86. Chidepatil A, Bindra P, Kulkarni D, Qazi M, Kshirsagar M, Sankaran K. From trash to cash: How blockchain and multi-sensor-driven artificial intelligence can transform circular economy of plastic waste? Adm Sci. 2020; 10: 23. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  87. Pardini K, Rodrigues JJ, Hassan SA, Kumar N, Furtado V. Smart waste bin: A new approach for waste management in large urban centers. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 88th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC-Fall); 2018 August 27-30; Chicago, IL, USA. Piscataway Township: IEEE. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  88. Gupta PK, Shree V, Hiremath L, Rajendran S. The use of modern technology in smart waste management and recycling: Artificial intelligence and machine learning. In: Recent advances in computational intelligence. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2019. pp. 173-188. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  89. Lubongo C, Daej MA, Alexandridis P. Automated sorting technology for plastic waste. In: Reuse of Plastic Waste in Eco-Efficient Concrete. Woodhead Publishing; 2024. pp. 13-35. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  90. Taylor P, Steenmans K, Steenmans I. Blockchain technology for sustainable waste management. Front Political Sci. 2020; 2: 590923. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  91. Oyinlola M, Schröder P, Whitehead T, Kolade O, Wakunuma K, Sharifi S, et al. Digital innovations for transitioning to circular plastic value chains in Africa. Afr J Manag. 2022; 8: 83-108. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  92. Kurniawan TA, Othman MH, Hwang GH, Gikas P. Unlocking digital technologies for waste recycling in Industry 4.0 era: A transformation towards a digitalization-based circular economy in Indonesia. J Clean Prod. 2022; 357: 131911. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  93. Zhou G, Gu Y, Wu Y, Gong Y, Mu X, Han H, et al. A systematic review of the deposit-refund system for beverage packaging: Operating mode, key parameter and development trend. J Clean Prod. 2020; 251: 119660. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  94. Mitta H, Li L, Havaei M, Parida D, Feghali E, Elst K, et al. Challenges and opportunities in catalytic hydrogenolysis of oxygenated plastics waste: Polyesters, polycarbonates, and epoxy resins. Green Chem. 2025; 27: 10-40. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  95. Malmaison R. Axens, IFPEN and JEPLAN announce qualification and commercialization by Axens of the Rewind® PET chemical recycling process [Internet]. Paris, Fance: IFPEN; 2024. Available from: https://www.ifpenergiesnouvelles.com/article/launch-commercialization-rewindr-pet-process.
  96. Linderhof V, Oosterhuis FH, Van Beukering PJ, Bartelings H. Effectiveness of deposit-refund systems for household waste in the Netherlands: Applying a partial equilibrium model. J Environ Manag. 2019; 232: 842-850. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  97. Lobelle D, Shen L, van Huet B, van Emmerik T, Kaandorp M, Iattoni G, et al. Knowns and unknowns of plastic waste flows in the Netherlands. Waste Manag Res. 2024; 42: 27-40. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  98. Cafiero LM, De Angelis D, Tuccinardi L, Tuffi R. Current state of chemical recycling of plastic waste: A Focus on the Italian Experience. Sustainability. 2025; 17: 1293. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  99. Gromek-Broc K. The European green deal and regionalisation: Italian and Polish case studies. In: Regional Approaches to the Energy Transition: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2023. pp. 75-104. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  100. Onoda H. Smart approaches to waste management for post-COVID-19 smart cities in Japan. IET Smart Cities. 2020; 2: 89-94. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  101. Shenyoputro K, Jones TE. Reflections on a two-decade journey toward zero waste: A case study of Kamikatsu town, Japan. Front Environ Sci. 2023; 11: 1171379. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  102. Honma S, Hu JL. Cost efficiency of recycling and waste disposal in Japan. J Clean Prod. 2021; 284: 125274. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  103. Silva U, Baigorrotegui G. The Chilean regulation of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE): Some of the challenges and opportunities to incorporate informal E-waste recyclers. In: Handbook of Electronic Waste Management. Butterworth-Heinemann; 2020. pp. 517-531. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  104. Cayumil R, Khanna R, Konyukhov Y, Burmistrov I, Kargin JB, Mukherjee PS. An overview on solid waste generation and management: Current status in Chile. Sustainability. 2021; 13: 11644. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  105. Rafey A, Siddiqui FZ. A review of plastic waste management in India–challenges and opportunities. Int J Environ Anal Chem. 2023; 103: 3971-3987. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  106. Patel S, Kollarath RM. Urban solid waste management for energy generation. In: Urban Energy Systems: Modeling and Simulation for Smart Cities. Scrivener Publishing LLC.; 2023. pp. 119-139. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  107. Molina-Besch K, Keszleri H. Exploring the industrial perspective on biobased plastics in food packaging applications–Insights from Sweden. Sustain Prod Consum. 2023; 35: 72-84. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  108. Azevedo BD, Scavarda LF, Caiado RG, Fuss M. Improving urban household solid waste management in developing countries based on the German experience. Waste Manag. 2021; 120: 772-783. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  109. Franz AW, Buchholz S, Albach RW, Schmid R. Towards greener polymers: Trends in the German chemical industry. Green Carbon. 2024; 2: 33-44. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  110. Macht J, Klink-Lehmann J, Venghaus S. Eco-friendly alternatives to food packed in plastics: German consumers’ purchase intentions for different bio-based packaging strategies. Food Qual Prefer. 2023; 109: 104884. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  111. Frommeyer B, Koch J, Scagnetti C, Lorenz M, Schewe G. Recycled or reusable: A multi-method assessment of eco-friendly packaging in online retail. J Ind Ecol. 2024; 28: 100-115. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  112. Kummer S, Löhle S, Schmiedel U. Consumer survey on the final consumer behavior concerning the disposal of WEEE in Germany. Waste Manag Res. 2022; 40: 538-544. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  113. McNeeley A, Liu YA. Assessment of PET depolymerization processes for circular economy. 1. Thermodynamics, chemistry, purification, and process design. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2024; 63: 3355-3399. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  114. Portugaise MK, Jóhannsdóttir L, Murakami S. Extended producer responsibility’s effect on producers’ electronic waste management practices in Japan and Canada: Drivers, barriers, and potential of the urban mine. Discov Sustain. 2023; 4: 8. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  115. Palm E, Hasselbalch J, Holmberg K, Nielsen TD. Narrating plastics governance: Policy narratives in the European plastics strategy. Environ Politics. 2022; 31: 365-385. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  116. Rizos V, Urban P, Righetti E, Kassab A. Chemical recycling of plastics [Internet]. Brussels, Belgium: CEPS Chemical Recycling Initiative; 2023. Available from: https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/chemical-recycling-of-plastics/.
  117. UNEP. Annual Report 2023 [Internet]. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme; 2023. Available from: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/44777/UNEP_Annual_Report_2023.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
  118. March A, Winton S. Unlocking opportunities to fulfil the Global Plastics Treaty. Nat Rev Earth Environ. 2025; 6: 435-436. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  119. EJ Ferdin A, Chook JW, Manzano-Fischer P. Community-Based Plastic Waste Management Initiatives: A Key to Combating Plastic Pollution. In: Combating Plastic Pollution in Terrestrial Environment: Challenges and Strategies for a Sustainable Future. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2025. pp. 165-186. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  120. Ferronato N, Maalouf A, Mertenat A, Saini A, Khanal A, Copertaro B, et al. A review of plastic waste circular actions in seven developing countries to achieve sustainable development goals. Waste Manag Res. 2024; 42: 436-458. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  121. Hossain R, Islam MT, Shanker R, Khan D, Locock KE, Ghose A, et al. Plastic waste management in India: Challenges, opportunities, and roadmap for circular economy. Sustainability. 2022; 14: 4425. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  122. Ahmed Z, Mahmud S, Acet H. Circular economy model for developing countries: Evidence from Bangladesh. Heliyon. 2022; 8: e09530. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  123. Allen-Taylor KO. Combining extended producer responsibility (EPR) and deposit refund system (DRS) policy for higher recovery and recycling of plastic bottles and sachet water waste: Application of vending machine and designated return depot centre in Lagos, Nigeria. Open J Environ Res. 2022; 3: 22-34. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  124. Joshi C, Seay J, Banadda N. A perspective on a locally managed decentralized circular economy for waste plastic in developing countries. Environ Prog Sustain Energy. 2019; 38: 3-11. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  125. Browning S, Beymer-Farris B, Seay JR. Addressing the challenges associated with plastic waste disposal and management in developing countries. Curr Opin Chem Eng. 2021; 32: 100682. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  126. Li H, Aguirre-Villegas HA, Allen RD, Bai X, Benson CH, Beckham GT, et al. Expanding plastics recycling technologies: Chemical aspects, technology status and challenges. Green Chem. 2022; 24: 8899-9002. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  127. Ilyas RA, Sapuan SM, Ibrahim R, Atikah MS, Asyraf MR, Norrrahim MN, et al. Environmental Advantages and Challenges of Bio-Based Packaging Materials. In: Bio-based Packaging: Material, Environmental and Economic Aspects. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2021. pp. 371-380. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  128. Mendes AC, Pedersen GA. Perspectives on sustainable food packaging: Is bio-based plastics a solution? Trends Food Sci Technol. 2021; 112: 839-846. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  129. Barra R, González P. Sustainable chemistry challenges from a developing country perspective: Education, plastic pollution, and beyond. Curr Opin Green Sustain Chem. 2018; 9: 40-44. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  130. Mondal S, Singh S, Gupta H. Green entrepreneurship and digitalization enabling the circular economy through sustainable waste management-An exploratory study of emerging economy. J Clean Prod. 2023; 422: 138433. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  131. Hossain I, Haque AM, Ullah SA. Assessing sustainable waste management practices in Rajshahi City Corporation: An analysis for local government enhancement using IoT, AI, and Android technology. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2024. doi: 10.1007/s11356-024-33171-7. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  132. Shahabuddin M, Uddin MN, Chowdhury JI, Ahmed SF, Uddin MN, Mofijur M, et al. A review of the recent development, challenges, and opportunities of electronic waste (e-waste). Int J Environ Sci Technol. 2023; 20: 4513-4520. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
Newsletter
Download PDF Download Full-Text XML Download Citation
0 0
Newsletter  

TOP