Life cycle assessment of different reuse percentages for glass beer bottles

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is increasingly becoming an important tool for ecological evaluation of products or processes. In this study the environmental impacts associated with the returnable and the non-returnable glass beer bottles were assessed in order to compare different reuse percentages. The inventory analysis is performed with data obtained from two Portuguese companies (a glass bottles producer and a brewery) and completed with the BUWAL database. It includes all operations associated with the bottles’ manufacture, the brewery and the wastewater treatment plant. The environmental impact assessment considers both the potential ecological and ecotoxicological effects of the emissions. The environmental impact categories included and discussed in this study are the contribution to ecological and human health, global warming, stratospheric ozone depletion, acidification, eutrophication and photochemical ozone creation. The first category is divided into three subcategories that are human toxicity, critical air volume and critical water volume. This study was performed for several reuse percentages and returnable bottle cycles, and is comprised of a sensitivity analysis. The general output is that the relative importance of the impacts associated with the use of returnable and/or non-returnable bottles depends on the number of cycles performed by the returnable bottles. According to the impact index defined in this study, the most significant impacts are the eutrophication and the final solid wastes generated, and the least significant impact is the ozone depletion.     

Combined application of LCA and eco-design for the sustainable production of wood boxes for wine bottles storage

Methods  

The main objective of this study is to combine the environmental evaluation of a basic wood box used to store wine bottles by means of the integration of two environmental methodologies: a quantitative methodology known as life cycle assessment (LCA) and a qualitative methodology which is useful in integrating environmental aspects into design, that is, the design for the environment (DfE). The LCA study covers the life cycle of wood box production from a cradle-to-gate perspective. A wood processing company located in Galicia (NW, Spain) was analysed in detail, dividing the process chain into five stages: cogeneration unit, material assembling, painting, packaging and distribution to clients.     

A life cycle assessment of packaging options for contrast media delivery: comparing polymer bottle vs. glass bottle

Purpose

This paper compares environmental impacts of two packaging options for contrast media offered by GE Healthcare: +PLUSPAK? polymer bottle and traditional glass bottle. The study includes all relevant life cycle stages from manufacturing to use and final disposal of the bottles and includes evaluation of a variety of end-of-life disposal scenarios. The study was performed in accordance with the international standards ISO 14040/14044, and a third-party critical review was conducted.

Methods

The functional unit is defined as the packaging of contrast media required to deliver one dose of 96 mL to a patient for an X-ray procedure. Primary data are from GE Healthcare and its suppliers; secondary data are from the ecoinvent database and the literature. A variety of end-of-life disposal scenarios are explored using both cutoff and market-based allocation. Impact assessment includes human health (midpoint) and ecosystems and resources (end point) categories from ReCiPe (H) and cumulative energy demand. Sensitivity analyses include (1) bottle size, (2) secondary packaging, (3) manufacturing electricity, (4) glass recycled content, (5) scrap rate, (6) distribution transport, (7) contrast media, and (8) choice of impact assessment method. Uncertainty analysis is performed to determine how data quality affects the study conclusions.

Results and discussion

This study indicates that the polymer bottle outperforms the glass bottle in every environmental impact category considered. Bottle components are the most significant contributors, and the vial body has the highest impacts among bottle components for both polymer and glass bottles. The polymer bottle exhibits lower impact in all impact categories considered regardless of the following: end-of-life treatment (using either cutoff or market-based allocation), bottle size, manufacturing electricity grid mix, glass recycled content, scrap rate, contrast media, distribution transport (air vs. ocean), and choice of impact assessment method. Secondary packaging can be a major contributor to impact. The polymer bottle has considerably lower impact compared to the glass bottle for all multi-pack configurations, but the comparison is less clear for single-pack configurations due to significantly higher packaging material used per functional dose, resulting in proportionally higher impacts in all impact categories.

Conclusions

The lower impacts of the polymer bottle for this packaging application can be attributed to lower material and manufacturing impacts, lower distribution impacts, and lower end-of-life disposal impacts. The results of this study suggest that using polymer rather than glass bottles provides a means by which to lower environmental impact of contrast media packaging.     

Life cycle environmental impacts and costs of beer production and consumption in the UK

Purpose

Global beer consumption is growing steadily and has recently reached 187.37 billion litres per year. The UK ranked 8th in the world, with 4.5 billion litres of beer produced annually. This paper considers life cycle environmental impacts and costs of beer production and consumption in the UK which are currently unknown. The analysis is carried out for two functional units: (i) production and consumption of 1 l of beer at home and (ii) annual production and consumption of beer in the UK. The system boundary is from cradle to grave.

Methods

Life cycle impacts have been estimated following the guidelines in ISO 14040/44; the methodology for life cycle costing is congruent with the LCA approach. Primary data have been obtained from a beer manufacturer; secondary data are sourced from the CCaLC, Ecoinvent and GaBi databases. GaBi 4.3 has been used for LCA modelling and the environmental impacts have been estimated according to the CML 2001 method.

Results and discussion

Depending on the type of packaging (glass bottles, aluminium and steel cans), 1 l of beer requires for example 10.3–17.5 MJ of primary energy and 41.2–41.8 l of water, emits 510–842 g of CO₂ eq. and has the life cycle costs of 12.72–14.37 pence. Extrapolating the results to the annual consumption of beer in the UK translates to a primary energy demand of over 49,600 TJ (0.56 % of UK primary energy consumption), water consumption of 1.85 bn hl (5.3 % of UK demand), emissions of 2.16 mt CO₂ eq. (0.85 % of UK emissions) and the life cycle costs of £553 million (3.2 % of UK beer market value). Production of raw materials is the main hotspot, contributing from 47 to 63 % to the impacts and 67 % to the life cycle costs. The packaging adds 19 to 46 % to the impacts and 13 % to the costs.

Conclusions

Beer in steel cans has the lowest impacts for five out of 12 impact categories considered: primary energy demand, depletion of abiotic resources, acidification, marine and freshwater toxicity. Bottled beer is the worst option for nine impact categories, including global warming and primary energy demand, but it has the lowest human toxicity potential. Beer in aluminium cans is the best option for ozone layer depletion and photochemical smog but has the highest human and marine toxicity potentials.

     

Effect of Brewery Size on the Main Process Parameters and Cradle‐to‐Grave Carbon Footprint of Lager Beer

Several carbon footprint (CF) studies have been so far carried out to assess the environmental impact of the brewing industry. In this study, a series of reliable secondary data for small‐, medium‐, and large‐sized breweries were collected and used to develop a simplified model to estimate the cradle‐to‐grave (C2G) CF of the production of a functional unit consisting of 1 hectoliter (hL) of lager beer packed in 66‐centiliter (glass or polyethylene terephthalate [PET]) bottles. With reference to the typical operating conditions of nine breweries of different size, the C2G CF was found to increase up to 43% or 45% either for glass or PET bottles as the brewery size reduced from 10 × 10⁶ to 500 hL per year. Whatever the brewery size, the use of PET instead of glass bottles lowered the beer CF by 2.7 ± 0.9%. The contribution of the consumer and postconsumer waste disposal phases was found to be significant. Thus, beer makers should pay attention to the recycling ratio of postconsumer packaging in the sales areas. The C2G CF tended to increase linearly with the overall (thermal and electric) energy needed to produce 1 hL of beer, almost independently of the primary packaging material used. Such a simple and easy‐to‐measure quantitative indicator might be more than sufficient not only to estimate qualitatively the environmental burden of beer production, but also to identify which mitigation opportunities might be explored or to prioritize primary data collection efforts to refine CF calculation.     

Life cycle environmental impacts of carbonated soft drinks

Purpose

The UK carbonated drinks sector was worth £8 billion in 2010 and is growing at an annual rate of 4.9 %. In an attempt to provide a better understanding of the environmental impacts of this sector, this paper presents, for the first time, the full life cycle impacts of carbonated soft drinks manufactured and consumed in the UK. Two functional units are considered: 1 l of packaged drink and total annual production of carbonated drinks in the UK. The latter has been used to estimate the impacts at the sectoral level. The system boundary is from ‘cradle to grave’. Different packaging used for carbonated drinks is considered: glass bottles (0.75 l), aluminium cans (0.33 l) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles (0.5 and 2 l).

Materials and methods

The study has been carried out following the ISO 14040/44 life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. Data have been sourced from a drink manufacturer as well as the CCaLC, Ecoinvent and Gabi databases. The LCA software tools CCaLC v2.0 and GaBi 4.3 have been used for LCA modelling. The environmental impacts have been estimated according to the CML 2001 method.

Results and discussion

Packaging is the main hotspot for most environmental impacts, contributing between 59 and 77 %. The ingredients account between 7 and 14 % mainly due to sugar; the manufacturing stage contributes 5–10 %, largely due to the energy for filling and packaging. Refrigeration of the drink at retailer increases global warming potential by up to 33 %. Transport contributes up to 7 % to the total impacts.

Conclusions

The drink packaged in 2 l PET bottles is the most sustainable option for most impacts, including the carbon footprint, while the drink in glass bottles is the worst option. However, reusing glass bottles three times would make the carbon footprint of the drink in glass bottles comparable to that in aluminium cans and 0.5 l PET bottles. If recycling of PET bottles is increased to 60 %, the glass bottle would need to be reused 20 times to make their carbon footprints comparable. The estimates at the sectoral level indicate that the carbonated drinks in the UK are responsible for over 1.5 million tonnes of CO₂ eq. emissions per year. This represented 13 % of the GHG emissions from the whole food and drink sector or 0.26 % of the UK total emissions in 2010.     

Taking a life cycle look at crianza wine production in Spain: where are the bottlenecks?

Background, aim, and scope  

This paper presents the results of the LCA of wine production in the region of La Rioja (Spain). The aim of this study was twofold: to identify the most critical life cycle stages of an aged Spanish wine from the point of view of the associated environmental impacts and to compare its environmental performance with that of other wines and beers for which comparable information could be found in the scientific literature. All the product’s life cycle stages were accounted for, namely: grapes cultivation (viticulture), wine making and bottling, distribution and sales, and disposal of empty bottles.     

Life cycle assessment of two baby food packaging alternatives: glass jars vs. plastic pots

Background, aim, and scope  This paper compares the life cycle assessment (LCA) of two packaging alternatives used for baby food produced by Nestlé: plastic pot and glass jar. The study considers the environmental impacts associated with packaging systems used to provide one baby food meal in France, Spain, and Germany in 2007. In addition, alternate logistical scenarios are considered which are independent of the two packaging options. The 200-g packaging size is selected as the basis for this study. Two other packaging sizes are assessed in the sensitivity analysis. Because results are intended to be disclosed to the public, this study underwent a critical review by an external panel of LCA experts. Materials and methods  The LCA is performed in accordance to the international standards ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. The packaging systems include the packaging production, the product assembly, the preservation process, the distribution, and the packaging end-of-life. The production of the content (before preservation process), as well as the use phase are not taken into account as they are considered not to change when changing packaging. The inventory is based on data obtained from the baby food producer and the suppliers, data from the scientific literature, and data from the ecoinvent database. Special care is taken to implement a system expansion approach for end-of-life open and closed loop recycling and energy production (ISO 14044). A comprehensive impact assessment is performed using two life cycle impact assessment methodologies: IMPACT 2002+ and CML 2001. An extensive uncertainty analysis using Monte Carlo as well as an extensive sensitivity study are performed on the inventory and the reference flows, respectively. Results  When looking at the impacts due to preservation process and packaging (considering identical distribution distances), we observe a small but significant environmental benefit of the plastic pot system over the glass jar system. Depending on the country, the impact is reduced by 14% to 27% for primary energy, 28% to 31% for global warming, 31% to 34% for respiratory inorganics, and 28% to 31% for terrestrial acidification/nutrification. The environmental benefit associated with the change in packaging mainly results from (a) production of plastic pot (including its end-of-life; 43% to 51% of total benefit), (b) lighter weight of packaging positively impacting transportation (20% to 35% of total benefit), and (c) new preservation process permitted by the plastic system (23% to 34% of total benefit). The jar or pot (including cap or lid, cluster, stretch film, and label) represents approximately half of the life cycle impacts, the logistics approximately one fourth, and the rest (especially on-site energy, tray, and hood) one fourth. Discussion  The sensitivity analysis shows that assumptions made in the basic scenarios are rather conservative for plastic pots and that the conclusions for the 200-g packaging size also apply to other packaging sizes. The uncertainty analysis performed on the inventory for the German market situation shows that the plastic pot system has less impact than the glass jar system while considering similar distribution distances with a confidence level above 97% for most impact categories. There is opportunity for further improvement independent of the type of packaging used, such as by reducing distribution distances while still optimizing lot size. The validity of the main conclusions presented in this study is confirmed by results of both impact assessment methodologies IMPACT 2002+ and CML 2001. Conclusions  For identical transportation distances, the plastic pot system shows a small but significant reduction in environmental burden compared to the glass jar system. Recommendations and perspectives  As food distribution plays an important role in the overall life cycle burdens and may vary between scenarios, it is important to avoid additional transportation of the packaged food in order to maintain or even improve the advantage of the plastic pot system. The present study focuses on the comparison of packaging systems and directly related consequences. It is recommended that further environmental optimization of the product also includes food manufacturing (before preservation process) and the supply chain of raw materials.     

Life cycle assessment of California unsweetened almond milk

Purpose

Plant-based alternatives to dairy milk have grown in popularity over the last decade. Almond milk comprises the largest share of plant-based milk in the US market and, as with so many food products, stakeholders in the supply chain are increasingly interested in understanding the environmental impacts of its production, particularly its carbon footprint and water consumption. This study undertakes a life cycle assessment (LCA) of a California unsweetened almond milk.

Methods

The scope of this LCA includes the production of almond milk in primary packaging at the factory gate. California produces all US almonds, which are grown under irrigated conditions. Spatially resolved modeling of almond cultivation and primary data collection from one almond milk supply chain were used to develop the LCA model. While the environmental indicators of greatest interest are global warming potential (GWP) and freshwater consumption (FWC), additional impact categories from US EPA’s TRACI assessment method are also calculated. Co-products are accounted for using economic allocation, but mass-based allocation and displacement are also tested to understand the effect of co-product allocation choices on results.

Results and discussion

The GWP and FWC of one 48 oz. (1.42 L) bottle of unsweetened almond milk are 0.71 kg CO₂e and 175 kg of water. A total of 0.39 kg CO₂e (or 55%) of the GWP is attributable to the almond milk, with the remainder attributable to packaging. Almond cultivation alone is responsible for 95% of the FWC (167 kg H₂O), because of irrigation water demand. Total primary energy consumption (TPE) is estimated at 14.8 MJ. The 48 oz. (1.42 L) PET bottle containing the almond milk is the single largest contributor to TPE (42%) and GWP (35%). Using recycled PET instead of virgin PET for the bottle considerably reduces all impact indicators except for eutrophication potential.

Conclusions

For the supply chain studied here, packaging choices provide the most immediate opportunities for reducing impacts related to GWP and TPE, but would not result in a significant reduction in FWC because irrigation water for almond cultivation is the dominant consumer. To provide context for interpretation, average US dairy milk appears to have about 4.5 times the GWP and 1.8 times the FWC of the studied almond milk on a volumetric basis.

     

Life cycle assessment of a basic lager beer

The current case study was performed to determine and evaluate the environmental impacts, and to look for possible improvements in the production and distribution of a basic lager beer that is packed into multi-packs of glass bottles. The life cycle investigated includes the stages from agricultural production up to the delivering of products to the shops, the consumption phase has been excluded. Raw water treatment and energy production and use have been included, and the contribution of different sub-systems inside of the life cycle to climate change, acidification, eutrophication, oxygen depletion and summer smog were assessed. The investigation resulted with several suggestions for improving the product and environmental performance of brewery.     

A life cycle assessment of injectable drug primary packaging: comparing the traditional process in glass vials with the closed vial technology (polymer vials)

Purpose  

This study compares environmental impacts of two primary packaging alternatives used for injectable drugs: the traditional method based on glass vials and the method developed by Aseptic Technologies based on polymer vials. A critical review by an external LCA expert was made.     

Identifying Stakeholders’ Views on the Eco‐efficiency Assessment of a Municipal Solid Waste Management System

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is one of the most popular methods of technical‐environmental assessment for informing environmental policies, as, for instance, in municipal solid waste (MSW) management. Because MSW management involves many stakeholders with possibly conflicting interests, the implementation of an LCA‐based policy can, however, be blocked or delayed. A stakeholder assessment of future scenarios helps identify conflicting interests and anticipate barriers of sustainable MSW management systems. This article presents such an approach for Swiss waste glass‐packaging disposal, currently undergoing a policy review. In an online survey, stakeholders (N = 85) were asked to assess disposal scenarios showing different LCA‐based eco‐efficiencies with respect to their desirability and probability of occurrence. Scenarios with higher eco‐efficiency than the current system are more desirable and considered more probable than those with lower eco‐efficiency. A combination of inland recycling and downcycling to foam glass (insulation material) in Switzerland is desired by all stakeholders and is more eco‐efficient than the current system. In contrast, institutions of MSW management, such as national and regional environmental protection agencies, judge a scenario in which nearly all cullet would be recycled in the only Swiss glass‐packaging factory as more desirable than supply and demand stakeholders of waste glass‐packaging. Such a scenario involves a monopsony rejected by many municipalities and scrap traders. Such an assessment procedure can provide vital information guiding the formulation of environmental policies.     

LCA application to integrated waste management planning in Gipuzkoa (Spain)

Goal, Scope and Background  Gipuzkoa is a department of the Vasque Country (Spain) with a population of about 700,000 people. By the year 2000 approximately 85% of municipal solid waste in this area was managed by landfilling, and only 15% was recycled. Due to environmental law restrictions and landfill capacity being on its limit, a planning process was initiated by the authorities. LCA was used, from an environmental point of view, to assess 7 possible scenarios arising from the draft Plan for the 2016 time horizon. Main Features  In each scenario, 9 waste flows are analysed: rest waste, paper and cardboard, glass containers, light packaging, organic-green waste, as well as industrial/commercial wood, metals and plastics, and wastewater sludge. Waste treatments range from recycling to energy recovery and landfilling. Results  Recycling of the waste flows separated at the source (paper and cardboard, glass, light packaging, organic-green waste, wood packaging, metals and plastics) results in net environmental benefits caused by the substitution of primary materials, except in water consumption. These benefits are common to the 7 different scenarios analysed. However, some inefficiencies are detected, mainly the energy consumption in collection and transport of low density materials, and water consumption in plastic recycling. The remaining flows, mixed waste and wastewater sludge, are the ones causing the major environmental impacts, by means of incineration, landfilling of partially stabilised organic material, as well as thermal drying of sludge. With the characterisation results, none of the seven scenarios can be clearly identified as the most preferable, although, due to the high recycling rates expected by the Plan, net environmental benefits are achieved in 9 out of 10 impact categories in all scenarios when integrated waste management is assessed (the sum of the 9 flows of waste). Finally, there are no relevant differences between scenarios concerning the number of treatment plants considered. Nevertheless, only the effects on transportation impacts were assessed in the LCA, since the plant construction stage was excluded from the system boundaries. Conclusions  The results of the study show the environmental importance of material recycling in waste management, although the recycling schemes assessed can be improved in some aspects. It is also important to highlight the environmental impact of incineration and landfilling of waste, as well as thermal drying of sludge using fossil fuels. One of the main findings of applying LCA to integrated waste management in Gipuzkoa is the fact that the benefits of high recycling rates can compensate for the impacts of mixed waste and wastewater sludge. Recommendations and Outlook  Although none of the scenarios can be clearly identified as the one having the best environmental performance, the authorities in Gipuzkoa now have objective information about the future scenarios, and a multidisciplinary panel could be formed in order to weight the impacts if necessary. In our opinion, LCA was successfully applied in Gipuzkoa as an environmental tool for decision making.     

The role of flexible packaging in the life cycle of coffee and butter

Background, aim and scope

The evaluation of packaging’s environmental performance usually concentrates on a comparison of different packaging materials or designs. Another important aspect in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies on packaging is the recycling or treatment of packaging wastes. LCA studies of packed food include the packaging with specific focus on the contribution of the packaging to the total results. The consumption behaviour is often assessed only roughly. Packaging is facilitating the distribution of goods to the society. Broader approaches, which focus on the life cycle of packed goods, including the entire supply system and the consumption of goods, are necessary to get an environmental footprint of the system with respect to sustainable production and consumption.

Materials and methods

A full LCA study has been conducted for two food products: coffee and butter packed in flexible packaging systems. The aim was to investigate the environmental performance of packaging with respect to its function within the life cycle of goods. The study looks at the environmental relevance of stages and interdependencies within the life cycle of goods whilst taking consumers’ behaviour and portion sizes into consideration. The impact assessment is based on the following impact categories: non-renewable cumulative energy demand (CED), climate change, ozone layer depletion (ODP), acidification, and eutrophication.

Results

The study shows that the most relevant environmental aspects for a cup of coffee are brewing (i.e. the heating of water) and coffee production. Transport and retail packaging are of minor importance. Brewing and coffee production have an impact share between 40% (ODP, white instant coffee) and 99% (eutrophication, black coffee). Milk added for white coffee is relevant for this type of preparation. The instant coffee in the one-portion stick-pack needs more packaging material per cup of coffee and is prepared by a kettle with lower energy demand, such as a coffee machine, thus leading to higher shares of the retail packaging in all indicators. A one-portion stick-pack can prevent wastage and resources related to coffee production can be saved. The most relevant aspect regarding the life cycle of butter is butter production, dominated by the provision of milk. Over 80% of the burdens in butter production stem from the provision of milk for all indicators discussed. Regarding climate change, methane and dinitrogen monoxide, emissions of milk cows and fodder production are most relevant. Fertilisation during livestock husbandry is responsible for most burdens regarding acidification and eutrophication. The distribution and selling stage influences the indicators CED and ODP distinctly. The reasons are, on the one hand, the relatively energy-intensive storage in supermarkets and, on the other hand, the use of refrigerants for chilled storage and transportation. The storage of butter in a refrigerator for 30 days is responsible for about 10% of the CED.

Discussion

Several aspects have been modelled in a sensitivity analysis. The influence of coffee packaging disposal is very small due to the general low influence of packaging. In contrast, the brewing behaviour is highly relevant for the environmental impact of a cup of coffee. That applies similarly to the type of heating device—i.e. using a kettle or an automatic coffee machine. Wastage leads to a significant increase of all indicators. Under the wastage scenario, the coffee from one-portion stick-packs has a considerable better environmental performance concerning all indicators because, in case of instant coffee wastage of hot water and in case of ground coffee wastage of prepared coffee, has been predicted. Regardless of urban or countryside distances, grocery shopping has a low impact. The storage time of butter is relevant for the results in the indicator non-renewable CED. This is mainly the case when butter is stored as stock in the freezer. The end of life treatment of the packaging system has practically no influence on the results. Grocery shopping is of limited importance no matter which means of transport are used or which distances are regarded. Spoilage or wastage is of great importance: a spoilage/wastage of one third results in about 49% increased impacts compared to the standard case for all indicators calculated.

Conclusions

The most important factors concerning the environmental impact from the whole supply chain of a cup of coffee are the brewing of coffee, its cultivation and production and the milk production in case of white coffee. The study highlights consumer behaviour- and packaging-related measures to reduce the environmental impact of a cup of coffee. The most relevant measures reducing the environmental impacts of butter consumption are the optimisation of the milk and butter production. Another important factor is the consumers’ behaviour, i.e. the reduction of leftovers. The consumer can influence impacts of domestic storage using efficient and size-adequate appliances. The impacts of packaging in the life cycle of butter are not of primary importance.

Recommendations and perspectives

This study shows that, in the case of packaging industry, a reduction of relevant environmental impacts can only be achieved if aspects indirectly influenced by the packaging are also taken into account. Thus, the packaging industry should not only aim to improve the production process of their packages, but also provide packages whose functionality helps to reduce other more relevant environmental impacts in the life cycle such as, for example, losses. Depending on the product, tailor-made packaging may also help to increase overall resource efficiency.

     

Significance of the use of non-renewable fossil CED as proxy indicator for screening LCA in the beverage packaging sector

Purpose

This study discusses the significance of the use of non-renewable fossil cumulative energy demand (CED) as proxy indicator in the beverage packaging sector, in order to detect those situations in which companies can benefit from the use of proxy indicators before a full life cycle assessment (LCA) application. Starting from a case study of two milk containers, the objectives of this paper are to assess if the use of this inventory indicator can be a suitable proxy indicator both (1) to decide which is the packaging alternative with the lowest environmental impact and (2) to identify the most impacting process units of the two products under study.

Method

The analysis was made according to ISO14040-44. The goal of the comparative LCA was to evaluate and to compare the potential environmental impacts from cradle to grave of a laminated carton container and a HDPE bottle. The results of the comparative LCA obtained with the non-renewable CED indicator are compared with a selection of impact categories: climate change, particulate matter formation, terrestrial acidification, fossil depletion, photochemical oxidant formation. A further analysis is made for the two products under study in order to determine which are the environmental hot spots in terms of life cycle stages, by the means of a contribution analysis.

Results and discussion

From the comparative LCA, the use of non-renewable CED revealed to be useful for a screening as the results given by the non-renewable CED indicator are confirmed by all the impact categories considered, even if underestimated. If the aim of the LCA study was to define which is the packaging solution with a lower environmental impact, the choice of this inventory indicator could have led to the same decision as if a comprehensive LCIA method was used. The contribution analysis, focusing on the identification of environmental hot spots in the packaging value chain, revealed that the choice of an inventory indicator as non-renewable CED can lead to misleading results, if compared with another impact category, such as climate change.

Conclusions

As in the future development of beverage packaging system, LCA will be necessarily integrated in the design process, it is important to define other ways of simplifying its application and spread its use among companies. The LCI indicator non-renewable fossil CED can effectively be used in order to obtain a preliminary estimation of the life cycle environmental impacts of two or more competing products in the beverage packaging sector.     

Informing Packaging Design Decisions at Toyota Motor Sales Using Life Cycle Assessment and Costing

Throughout their life cycle stages—material production, package manufacture, distribution, end-of-life management—packaging systems consume natural resources and energy, generate waste, and emit pollutants. Each of these stages also carries a financial cost. Motivated by a desire to decrease environmental burdens while reducing financial costs associated with the packaging of accessory and service parts, Toyota Motor Sales (TMS) partnered with the Donald Bren School of Environmental Science & Management to build a life cycle assessment and costing tool to support packaging design decisions. The resulting Environmental Packaging Impact Calculator (EPIC) provides comprehensive life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC). It allows packaging designers to identify environmentally and economically preferable packaging systems in daily decision-making. EPIC's parameterized process flow model allows users to assess many different packaging systems using a single model. Its input/output interface is designed for users without preexisting knowledge of LCA theory or practice and calculates results based on relatively few input data. The main motivation behind this environmental design tool is to provide relevant information to those individuals who are in the best position to reduce life cycle impacts and costs from TMS's packaging and distribution systems.     

Life cycle assessment of intensive striped catfish farming in the Mekong Delta for screening hotspots as input to environmental policy and research agenda

Purpose  

Intensive striped catfish production in the Mekong Delta has, in recent years, raised environmental concerns. We conducted a stakeholder-based screening life cycle assessment (LCA) of the intensive farming system to determine the critical environmental impact and their causative processes in producing striped catfish. Additional to the LCA, we assessed water use and flooding hazards in the Mekong Delta.     

Assessment of the Bioaccessibility of Trace Elements in Cat’s Claw Teas by In Vitro Simulated Gastrointestinal Digestion Using FAAS

Beer is a widely consumed drink throughout the world, and because its manufacture involves the use of water, beer can be, in some cases, a source of fluorides. For this reason, the objective of this study was to determine the concentration of fluorides in 50 samples of beers from different sources sold in two different types of container (aluminum can and glass bottle). The possible significant differences between the different types of packaging and the intake of fluoride from the consumption of these beers were evaluated. The concentration of fluoride in beers has been determined using the potentiometric method of fluoride determination by standard addition. The concentration of fluoride ranged between 0.06 and 1.77 mg/L. In general, the concentration was below 1 mg/L, except for three beer samples from Ireland and the USA, whose concentration was over 1.5 mg/L. No significant differences were found between the types of packaging. The contribution of fluoride to the diet from beer consumption is not high (<27%); however, it is necessary to warn consumers whenever they are in areas of high concentrations of fluoride in the water supply.