An overview on the separation/recycling methods for homogeneous transition metal catalysts in continuous flow on the lab- and industrial scale is provided.

This article presents a life cycle assessment of bio-based polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles with a cradle to grave scope and provides a comparison with petrochemical PET bottles for 13 environmental impact categories. Besides the baseline bio-based PET bottles, which are produced from Brazilian sugarcane reflecting status-quo, two alternative hypothetical bio-based product systems were considered: European wheat straw and European crops market mix composed of maize, wheat and sugar beet. The land-use change (LUC) impacts were assessed based on a deterministic model. The end-of-life impact was assessed using the EASETECH model. Baseline bio-based PET bottles performed overall worse than conventional petrochemical PET bottles, offering only better performance (about 10%) in abiotic depletion (fossil fuels). Comparable performance is observed for climate change (2% difference without the LUC, and 7% with LUC impacts). Using European crops for ethanol production (alternative 1) instead of Brazilian sugarcane resulted in a worse environmental performance, due to lower yields attained compared to Brazilian sugarcane. When wheat straw was considered as biomass feedstock for ethanol production (alternative 2), similar environmental performance with petrochemical PET bottles was seen.

To support progress towards the transition to a circular economy, the ability to measure circularity is essential. The consideration of the role biobased products can play in this transition is however still largely lacking in the current development of circularity monitoring approaches. The first step in coming to a suitable monitoring framework for biobased products is to define circular economy principles. In this paper, specific characteristics of biobased products were considered in defining six circular economy principles for biobased products: (1). Reduce reliance on fossil resources, (2). Use resources efficiently, (3). Valorize waste and residues, (4). Regenerate, (5). Recirculate and (6). Extend the high-quality use of biomass. In order to evaluate the circularity performance of biobased products with respect to these principles, what needs to be measured was defined considering both intrinsic circularity and impact of this circularity. The intrinsic indicators provide a measure of success in implementation of these circularity principles, and the latter impacts of circularity, i.e., impact of closing the loops on accumulation of hazardous substances and impact of circularity on sustainability (environmental, economic and social). Yet, to unlock the potential of a sustainable circular bioeconomy, strong accompanying measures are required.