## 1 Introduction
Mainly, changes in the structure and morphology caused by chain scission and inter/intra-molecular transesterifications, inducing changes in its chemical, thermal, mechanical, and rheologic properties, have been reported [34; 35]. As a whole, a significant performance loss after applying the second processing step was described, thus suggesting a drawback for the mechanical recycling of PLA. Several strategies have been explored to overcome these issues, including physical and chemical modifications, using stabilizers, chain extenders, reactive extrusion, and blending and compositing with other constituents [36; 37; 38; 39; 40; 41; 42]. For instance, [PERSON] et al. improved PLA's flexural and impact mechanical performance after multiple recycling steps using low percentages (8 wt%) of impact modifiers [43]. Particularly for PEG-plasticized PLA, research on reprocessing or recycling strategies is scarce, and only limited studies dealt with this topic, all of them considering reactive extrusion for the plasticization of PLA. [PERSON] et al. demonstrated that the addition of grafted acryl-poly(ethylene glycol) (acryl-PEG) during reactive extrusion was relevant to the molecular dynamics and segmental cooperativity of PLA, even more significant than the consequences of reprocessing, which contributed to reducing the dynamic fragility and increasing the PLA embrittlement after each reprocessing cycle [44]. In this regard, [PERSON] et al. also studied plasticized PLA with grafted acryl-PEG by reactive extrusion after several combined extrusion/compression molding cycles as a reprocessing strategy. They found that plasticized PLA underlay a more potent chain scission phenomenon (nearly double) than the neat PLA and concluded that at the current state, plasticized PLA by reactive extrusion could not be recycled and reused for the same application given the worsening of morphological and mechanical performance [45]. More recently, they assessed up to five processing cycles on the same plasticized PLA through reactive extrusion, but considered combined extrusion/injection cycles instead of compression molding for reprocessing [46]. Their main observation was that, although reactive extrusion significantly reduced the molar mass of the plasticized PLA due to chain scission reactions induced by free radicals, the mechanical and molecular performance remained almost unaltered after five reprocessing cycles. Several studies have been published in recent years regarding the recycling of PLA-based bionanocomposites. Among them, the contributions of [PERSON] [47], [PERSON] [48], [PERSON] [49], [PERSON] [50], [PERSON] [51], and [PERSON] [52] must be highlighted, with all of them containing only the PLA matrix and the nanoparticles. [PERSON] et al. evaluated the recycling of PLA/clay (2 wt%) nanocomposites during extrusion/compression and demonstrated that recycled materials, including service life simulation, behave similarly to the virgin ones after one recycling stage regardless of applying a washing step. Better particle dispersion after reprocessing was achieved, which contributed to counterbalancing polymer matrix degradation during recycling [47]. [PERSON] et al. studied the reprocessing of nanocomposites of PLA/graphene nanoplatelets (5 wt%) after five cycles using a single screw extruder and also found higher particle dispersion with a stabilizing effect of the nanoplatelets [48]. This was similar to what was demonstrated by [PERSON] et al. with PLA/hydrotalcite (5 wt%) nanocomposites, who also found the opposite effects of chain scission due to thermo-mechanical degradation caused by five extrusion cycles and the increase in filler dispersion after multiple reprocessing [49]. In this line, [PERSON] et al. prepared and recycled PLA/silk nanocrystals (1 wt%) nanocomposites and applied four reprocessing extrusion cycles, observing that the silk nanocrystals stabilized the mechanical performance after reprocessing [50]. On the other hand, [PERSON] et al.