substance
Polypropylene
A polymer, recorded by the registry's polymer rule (docs/registry.md, Polymers): the formula is the repeat unit C3H6 (end groups, catalyst residues and additives neglected), and the molar mass is that of the repeat unit, not of a chain; traded as resin pellets (homopolymer and copolymer grades, not split yet). The ChEBI id is poly(propylene), which cross-references CAS 9003-07-0 and gives (C3H6)n (ChEBI via EBI OLS, 2026-11-05). No InChIKey or PubChem CID: a polymer has no standard InChIKey, PubChem has no compound for CAS 9003-07-0, and the chemicals package (1.5.2) does not hold the CAS, so the entry is in tests/test_registry.py's CHEMICALS_PACKAGE_EXCEPTIONS.
- Formula
- C3H6
- CAS
- 9003-07-0
- ChEBI
- CHEBI:53550
Made by
- Polypropylene by Ziegler-Natta polymerisation of propylene, bulk loop and gas phaseMain productConcept · not reviewed
Used by
When a process with this chemical is added to the library, it appears here.
Routes compared
One route in the Atlas makes Polypropylene: nothing to compare yet. A comparison appears when a second route is added.
Per 1 kg of Polypropylene: inventory from each route's LCI dataset, unallocated; footprints per the functional unit of their own LCA.
| Route | Tier, design maturity, review status | Geography, year | Energy | Feedstocks | Key emissions | Footprint | Comparability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Polypropylene by Ziegler-Natta polymerisation of propylene, bulk loop and gas phasecontinuous Ziegler-Natta polymerisation in liquid propylene (loop reactors) or in the gas phase (fluidised bed), with extrusion; not the solvent slurry process or metallocene grades in particular | Tier 1 (sourced conceptual)Design maturity: Concept (research)Not independently reviewedDataset review: unreviewed | US, 2016 |
|
|
| no footprint | – |
ISO 14044 requires a critical review (by a panel of interested parties, ISO/TS 14071) of a comparative assertion intended to be disclosed to the public. These routes are listed side by side for screening; a statement that one is better than another needs that review. None of these routes has had such a review.