Life cycle assessment of composite packaging waste management—a Chinese case study on aseptic packaging

Purpose

Approximately 46,000 t/day of packaging waste was generated in China in 2010, of which, 2,500 t was composite packaging waste. Due to the lack of recycling technology and an imperfect recovery system, most of this waste is processed in sanitary landfills. An effective packaging waste management system is needed since this waste not only uses up valuable resources, but also increases environmental pollution. The purpose of this study is to estimate the environmental impact of the treatment scenarios in composite packaging waste which are commonly used in China, to determine the optimum composite packaging waste management strategy, and to design new separating and recycling technology for composite packaging, based on the life cycle assessment (LCA) results.

Methods

To identify the best treatment for composite packaging waste, the LCA software SimaPro 7.1.6 was used to assist in the analysis of the environmental impacts, coupled with the impact assessment method Eco-Indicator 99. LCA for composite packaging waste management was carried out by estimating the environmental impacts of the four scenarios most often used in China: landfill, incineration, paper recycling, and separation of polyethylene and aluminum. One ton of post-consumption Tetra Pak waste was selected as the functional unit. The data on the mass, energy fluxes, and environmental emissions were obtained from literature and site investigations.

Results and discussion

Landfill—scenario 1—was the worst waste management option. Paper recycling—scenario 3—was more environmentally friendly than incineration, scenario 2. Scenario 4, separating out polyethylene and aluminum, was established based on the LCA result, and inventory data were obtained from the demonstration project built by this research. In scenario 4, the demonstration project for the separation of polyethylene and aluminum was built based on the optimum conditions from single-factor and orthogonal experiments. Adding this flow process into the life cycle of composite packaging waste treatment decreased the environmental impacts significantly.

Conclusions

The research results can provide useful scientific information for policymakers in China to make decisions regarding composite packaging waste. Incineration could reduce more environmental impacts in the respiratory inorganics category, and separation of polyethylene and aluminum, in the fossil fuel category. If energy saving is the primary governmental goal, the separation of polyethylene and aluminum would be the better choice, while incineration would be the better choice for emission reduction.     

Quantifying environmental impacts of primary aluminum ingot production and consumption : A trade‐linked multilevel life cycle assessment

Aluminum is one of the most used metals of modern civilization, but its production is responsible for multiple adverse environmental impacts mostly due to aluminum smelting and alumina refining. Previous life cycle assessments (LCAs) have aggregated alumina refining into a single global process even though refining processes are highly spatially differentiated and alumina is highly traded. Our work improves on existing LCAs of primary aluminum by including temporal and spatial differentiation in alumina refining and aluminum smelting and trade of alumina and primary aluminum ingots. We build country‐level impact factors for primary aluminum ingot production and consumption, with the spatial distributions of environmental impacts, from 2000 to 2017, by combining a trade‐linked multilevel material flow analysis with LCA using six midpoint categories of the ReCiPe method. Climate change impacts of primary aluminum production range from 4.5 to 33.6 kg CO₂ eq./kg. We then estimate the life cycle production‐ and consumption‐based environmental burdens of primary aluminum ingot by country. High spatial variations exist among impact factors of primary aluminum production. Aggregating the alumina refining processes into a single process may cause important deviations on the impact factors of primary aluminum ingot production (up to 38% differences in climate change impacts). Finally, we estimate the climate change impacts of worldwide primary aluminum production at 1.2 Gt CO₂ eq. in 2017 and untangle their spatial origins, localized at 70% in China. Overall, we show the importance of spatial differentiation for highly traded products that rely on highly traded inputs and offer recommendations for LCA practitioners. This article met the requirements for a gold‐gold JIE data openness badge described at http://jie.click/badges .     

Sensitivity analysis as a tool to extend the applicability of LCA findings

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) results are often used to communicate the environmental impacts of products and measure environmental performance for comparison between different options on the market. Sensitivity analyses are a routine part of LCA but often used with a narrow focus. In a case study on foodstuff packaging, the environmental performance of two food cartons in comparison with competing packaging solutions, i.e. food cartons, glass jars, steel cans, plastic pots and retortable pouches, was examined. Furthermore, the benefits of additional sensitivity analyses as a tool to model country-specific conditions to extend the applicability of LCA findings across a number of systems were evaluated.

Methods

A cradle-to-grave LCA in compliance with ISO standards 14040 and 14044 for the European market (EU27?+?2) was performed. The study was accompanied by a critical review process. The choice of the analysed packaging systems was made according to the European market share. Relevant processes were modelled with primary input data wherever possible; otherwise, average data from public LCI databases were applied. A wide range of environmental impact categories were covered: Climate Change, Ozone Depletion Potential, Summer Smog, Acidification, Eutrophication, Human Toxicity: PM10 and Abiotic Resource Depletion. To comply with ISO standards, a sensitivity analysis on allocation was performed. In addition, sensitivity analyses on recycling rates were included.

Results and discussion

The primary environmental impacts for both food cartons arose from base material production for primary packaging. The environmental performance of the food cartons compared favourably with all competing systems for virtually all examined impact categories, primarily due to the fact that primary packaging materials for food cartons are derived from renewable resources. The additional sensitivity analyses quantifying the influence of end-of-life management did not change overall results yet revealed trajectories that could be indicative of trends in a range of different settings from no to complete recycling. Thus, the additional sensitivity analyses revealed a robust result that may be informative in circumstances that depart from European settings.

Conclusions

Both food cartons show a superior performance in comparison with alternatives. The sensitivity analyses on recycling rates confirm this result even with very low or high quotas applied. These analyses provide valuable information on how different parameters depending on different geographic scopes may influence the overall results. Future LCA work would benefit from low-effort additional sensitivity analyses to broaden applicability of results and examine the robustness of findings.

     

Recycling of aluminum can in terms of Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)

Background, Aims and Scope  Life Cycle Assessment is a technique for evaluating the environmental performance of a given product by: identifying and quantifying the energy and raw materials used in its manufacturing process, as well as the emissions of pollutants to water, soil, and air inherent in this production, use and disposal, and evaluating the environmental impact associated with the use of energy and materials and the emissions of pollutants, thus identifying opportunities to improve the system in order to optimize the environmental performance of the product. CETEA (Packaging Technology Center) has conducted a Life Cycle Assessment — LCA study of aluminum can with emphasis in life cycle inventory, collecting data for the reference years 2000–2002. The goal of this paper is to present part of this complete study, focusing the influence of aluminium recycling rate on the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) of aluminum beverage cans in Brazil. Methods  The adopted methodology was based on the recommendations of SETAC — Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and the ISO 14040 Standard, approved by the Sub-Committee 05 of the Environmental Administration Technical Committee, TC-207, from ISO — INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION [1,2]. Data storage and modeling were performed by employing the PIRA Environmental Management System — PEMS [3]. Results  Taking into account the impact categories adopted in this study, it has been shown that recycling helps to improve the aluminium can environmental profile measured as LCI data. Discussion  For the transformed aluminium products, the recycling rate affects the values of the environmental parameters inventoried, but not in the same proportion, since the contribution of other stages of the product system life cycle and the recycling process remain unchanged, including the yield of this process. In general, the recycling balance is always positive due to the importance of the stages that precede the packaging production and the problem of increasing the municipal waste volume. Conclusions  The advantages of the recycling are obviously concentrated on the inventoried parameters related to the primary aluminum production and to the package disposal. The verified benefits of the recycling increase with the recycling rate enhancement. However, the effects on the inventory do not have the same magnitude of the recycling rate. This happens due to the relative contributions of the other life cycle stages, such as the transportation and sheet or can production. In agreement with the presented results, it is possible to conclude that the aluminum can recycling reduces part of the consumption of natural resources and the emissions associated to the stages previous to the production of the packaging. The parameters specifically related to the stage of aluminum production suffer reduction directly proportional to the increase of the recycling rate. In this way, all of the efforts made to increase the recycling rate will have a positive contribution to the LCI of the aluminum can. Recommendations  It is worth pointing out that LCA studies are iterative and dynamic. The data can always be refined, substituted or complemented with updated information in order to improve the representativeness of the analyzed sector. Perspectives  From this study, the aluminum sector in Brazil is able to quantify the benefits of future actions for environmental improvement of the Brazilian aluminum industry, as well as to contribute technically to Environmental Labeling initiatives regarding aluminum products. ESS-Submission Editor: Alain Dubreuil (dubreuil@nrcan.gc.ca)     

Impact categories for life cycle assessment research of seafood production systems: Review and prospectus

Goal, Scope and Background In face of continued declines in global fisheries landings and concurrent rapid aquaculture development, the sustainability of seafood production is of increasing concern. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) offers a convenient means of quantifying the impacts associated with many of the energetic and material inputs and outputs in these industries. However, the relevant but limited suite of impact categories currently used in most LCA research fails to capture a number of important environmental and social burdens unique to fisheries and aquaculture. This article reviews the impact categories used in published LCA research of seafood production to date, reports on a number of methodological innovations, and discusses the challenges to and opportunities for further impact category developments. Main Features The range of environmental and socio-economic impacts associated with fisheries and aquaculture production are introduced, and both the commonly used and innovative impact categories employed in published LCA research of seafood production are discussed. Methodological innovations reported in agricultural LCAs are also reviewed for possible applications to seafood LCA research. Challenges and options for including additional environmental and socioeconomic impact categories are explored. Results A review of published LCA research in fisheries and aquaculture indicates the frequent use of traditional environmental impact categories as well as a number of interesting departures from the standard suite of categories employed in LCA studies in other sectors. Notable examples include the modeling of benthic impacts, by-catch, emissions from anti-fouling paints, and the use of Net Primary Productivity appropriation to characterize biotic resource use. Socio-economic impacts have not been quantified, nor does a generally accepted methodology for their consideration exist. However, a number of potential frameworks for the integration of such impacts into LCA have been proposed. Discussion LCA analyses of fisheries and aquaculture call attention to an important range of environmental interactions that are usually not considered in discussions of sustainability in the seafood sector. These include energy use, biotic resource use, and the toxicity of anti-fouling paints. However, certain important impacts are also currently overlooked in such research. While prospects clearly exist for improving and expanding on recent additions to environmental impact categories, the nature of the LCA framework may preclude treatment of some of these impacts. Socio-economic impact categories have only been described in a qualitative manner. Despite a number of challenges, significant opportunities exist to quantify several important socio-economic impacts. Conclusion The limited but increasing volume of LCA research of industrial fisheries and aquaculture indicates a growing interest in the use of LCA methodology to understand and improve the sustainability performance of seafood production systems. Recent impact category innovations, and the potential for further impact category developments that account for several of the unique interactions characteristic of fisheries and aquaculture will significantly improve the usefulness of LCA in this context, although quantitative analysis of certain types of impacts may remain beyond the scope of the LCA framework. The desirability of incorporating socio-economic impacts is clear, but such integration will require considerable methodological development. Recommendations and Perspectives While the quantity of published LCA research for seafood production systems is clearly increasing, the influence this research will have on the ground remains to be seen. In part, this will depend on the ability of LCA researchers to advance methodological innovations that enable consideration of a broader range of impacts specific to seafood production. It will also depend on the ability of researchers to communicate with a broader audience than the currently narrow LCA community.     

Food purchases: Impacts from the consumers’ point of view investigated with a modular LCA

The goal of this research work was to assist consumers in considering environmental aspects of food consumption. A simplified, modular LCA approach has been used to evaluate the impacts from the consumers’ point of view. Comparative LCA’s have been calculated for five single aspects of decisions: type of agricultural practice, origin, packaging material, type of preservation, and consumption. The inventory for one module includes the environmental impacts related to one particular product characteristic. The modular LCA allows one to investigate the trade-offs among different decision parameters. It could be shown that most of the decision parameters might have an influence on the overall impact of a vegetable product. Greenhouse production and vegetables transported by air cause the highest surplus environmental impact. For meat products, the agricultural production determines the overall environmental impact. The total impact for vegetable or meat purchases may vary by a factor of eight or two-and-a-half. Different suggestions for consumers have been ranked according to the variation of average impacts, due to a marginal change of behaviour. Avoiding air-transported food products leads to the highest decrease of environmental impacts.     

The environmental impact of packaging in food supply chains—does life cycle assessment of food provide the full picture?

Purpose

Due to the urgency and the magnitude of the environmental problems caused by food supply chains, it is important that the recommendations for packaging improvements given in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies of food rest on a balanced consideration of all relevant environmental impacts of packaging. The purpose of this article is to analyse the extent to which food LCAs include the indirect environmental impact of packaging in parallel to its direct impact. While the direct environmental impact of food packaging is the impact caused by packaging materials’ production and end-of-life, its indirect environmental impact is caused by its influence on the food product’s life cycle, e.g. by its influence on food waste and on logistical efficiency.

Methods

The article presents a review of 32 food LCAs published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over the last decade. The steps of the food product’s life cycle that contribute to the direct and indirect environmental impacts of packaging provide the overall structure of the analytical framework used for the review. Three aspects in the selected food LCAs were analysed: (1) the defined scope of the LCAs, (2) the sensitivity and/or scenario analyses and (3) the conclusions and recommendations.

Results and discussion

While in packaging LCA literature, there is a trend towards a more systematic consideration of the indirect environmental impact of packaging, it is unclear how food LCAs handle this aspect. The results of the review show that the choices regarding scope and sensitivities/scenarios made in food LCAs and their conclusions about packaging focus on the direct environmental impact of packaging. While it is clear that not all food LCAs need to analyse packaging in detail, this article identifies opportunities to increase the validity of packaging-related conclusions in food LCAs and provides specific recommendations for packaging-related food LCA methodology.

Conclusions

Overall, we conclude that the indirect environmental impact of packaging is insufficiently considered in current food LCA practice. Based on these results, this article calls for a more systematic consideration of the indirect environmental impact of packaging in future food LCAs. In addition, it identifies a need for more packaging research that can provide the empirical data that many food LCA practitioners currently lack. In particular, LCA practitioners would benefit if there were more knowledge and data available about the influence of certain packaging characteristics (e.g. shape, weight and type of material) on consumer behaviour.

     

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.

     

Life cycle assessment of a waste lubricant oil management system

Purpose

This paper compares 16 waste lubricant oil (WLO) systems (15 management alternatives and a system in use in Portugal) using a life cycle assessment (LCA). The alternatives tested use various mild processing techniques and recovery options: recycling during expanded clay production, recycling and electric energy production, re-refining, energy recovery during cement production, and energy recovery during expanded clay production.

Methods

The proposed 15 alternatives and the actual present day situation were analyzed using LCA software UMBERTO 5.5, applied to eight environmental impact categories. The LCA included an expansion system to accommodate co-products.

Results

The results show that mild processing with low liquid gas fuel consumption and re-refining is the best option to manage WLO with regard to abiotic depletion, eutrophication, global warming, and human toxicity environmental impacts. A further environmental option is to treat the WLO using the same mild processing technique, but then send it to expanded clay recycling to be used as a fuel in expanded clay production, as this is the best option regarding freshwater sedimental ecotoxicity, freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity, and acidification.

Conclusions

It is recommended that there is a shift away from recycling and electric energy production. Although sensitivity analysis shows re-refining and energy recovery in expanded clay production are sensitive to unit location and substituted products emission factors, the LCA analysis as a whole shows that both options are good recovery options; re-refining is the preferable option because it is closer to the New Waste Framework Directive waste hierarchy principle.     

Life cycle assessment of aquafeed ingredients

Purpose

This study performs an exploratory comparative evaluation of various animal and vegetable protein and lipid sources, used as feed in the aquaculture industry. The ingredients studied include fishmeal (FM) and fish oil (FO) from fisheries by-products, meal and fat by-products from poultry slaughter, FM and FO from Peruvian anchovy capture, and soybean meal and oil. The boundaries studied include the production or capture, the ingredient processing unit and the transport to the unit that processes the ingredients into aquafeeds in Portugal.

Methods

The LCA impact assessment method is the CML-IA baseline V3.04/EU25 and the results were obtained for the characterisation step. Some of the inventory data were collected from a Portuguese company (Savinor) that processes both by-products from local fisheries and by-products from poultry production. Savinor provided data specifically associated with the ingredients’ production. Obtained data were complemented with literature data from: fish capture and poultry production. Inventory data for the production of ingredients from Peruvian anchovy and soybeans were retrieved from literature. It was assumed that the transport of the ingredients produced from Peruvian anchovy, between Lima and Rotterdam, is made in a transoceanic vessel, and it is considered a transport by truck between Rotterdam and Ovar, for soybean ingredients and FM/FO produced from Peruvian anchovy.

Results and discussion

This paper shows that poultry meal and poultry fat from poultry slaughter by-products have the larger contribution to all environmental impact categories evaluated, being the production of poultry the life cycle stage that contributes most to the overall categories. On the other hand, FM and FO from Peruvian anchovy were the ingredients with a lower contribution to all impact categories, except for abiotic depletion category, for FM from Peruvian anchovy, and abiotic depletion, abiotic depletion (fossil fuels) and ozone layer depletion for FO from Peruvian anchovy. For these categories, soybean meal and oil had lower impacts, respectively. The ingredients were compared by classes (protein and lipid sources).

Conclusions

A general conclusion is that soybean meal and oil and FM/FO from Peruvian anchovy appear to be very interesting options for aquafeeds from an LCA perspective. However, some limitations identified for this study, as, for instance, that it does not account for the environmental benefits associated with the use of the mentioned by-products, that would otherwise be considered wastes (i.e. by-products from the fish canning sector and poultry slaughter) shall be evaluated in future studies.

     

Environmental analysis of plastic production processes: comparing petroleum-based polypropylene and polyethylene with biologically-based poly-beta-hydroxybutyric acid using life cycle analysis

Polymers based on olefins have wide commercial applicability. However, they are made from non-renewable resources and are characterised by difficulty in disposal where recycle and re-use is not feasible. Poly-beta-hydroxybutyric acid (PHB) provides one example of a polymer made from renewable resources. Before motivating its widespread use, the advantages of a renewable polymer must be weighed against the environmental aspects of its production. Previous studies relating the environmental impacts of petroleum-based and bio-plastics have centred on the impact categories of global warming and fossil fuel depletion. Cradle-to-grave studies report equivalent or reduced global warming impacts, in comparison to equivalent polyolefin processes. This stems from a perceived CO(2) neutral status of the renewable resource. Indeed, no previous work has reported the results of a life cycle assessment (LCA) giving the environmental impacts in all major categories. This study investigates a cradle-to-gate LCA of PHB production taking into account net CO(2) generation and all major impact categories. It compares the findings with similar studies of polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene (PE). It is found that, in all of the life cycle categories, PHB is superior to PP. Energy requirements are slightly lower than previously observed and significantly lower than those for polyolefin production. PE impacts are lower than PHB values in acidification and eutrophication.     

Life cycle assessment evaluation of green product labeling systems for residential construction

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool that can be utilized to holistically evaluate novel trends in the construction industry and the associated environmental impacts. Green labels are awarded by several organizations based on single or multiple attributes. The use of multi-criteria labels is a good start to the labeling process as opposed to single criteria labels that ignore a majority of impacts from products. Life cycle thinking, in theory, has the potential to improve the environmental impacts of labeling systems. However, LCA databases currently are lacking in detailed information about products or sometimes provide conflicting information.

Method

This study compares generic and green-labeled carpets, paints, and linoleum flooring using the Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) LCA database. The results from these comparisons are not intuitive and are contradictory in several impact categories with respect to the greenness of the product. Other data sources such as environmental product declarations and ecoinvent are also compared with the BEES data to compare the results and display the disparity in the databases.

Results

This study shows that partial LCAs focused on the production and transportation phase help in identifying improvements in the product itself and improving the manufacturing process but the results are uncertain and dependent upon the source or database. Inconsistencies in the data and missing categories add to the ambiguity in LCA results.

Conclusions

While life cycle thinking in concept can improve the green labeling systems available, LCA data is lacking. Therefore, LCA data and tools need to improve to support and enable market trends.     

Evaluation of Life Cycle Assessment Recycling Allocation Methods

Life cycle assessment practitioners struggle to accurately allocate environmental burdens of metals recycling, including the temporal dimension of environmental impacts. We analyze four approaches for calculating aluminum greenhouse gas emissions: the recycled content (RC) or cut‐off approach, which assumes that demand for recycled content displaces primary production; end‐of‐life recycling (EOLR), which assumes that postuse recycling displaces primary production; market‐based (MB) approaches, which estimate changes in supply and demand using price elasticities; and value‐corrected substitution (VCS), which allocates impact based on price differences between primary and recycled material. Our analysis suggests that applications of the VCS approach do not adequately account for the changing scrap to virgin material price ratio over time, whereas MB approaches do not address stock accumulation and depletion. The EOLR and RC approaches were analyzed using two case studies: U.S. aluminum beverage cans and vehicle engine blocks. These approaches produced similar results for beverage cans, which have a closed material loop system and a short product life. With longer product lifetimes, as noted with the engine blocks, the magnitude and timing of the emissions differs greatly between the RC and EOLR approaches. The EOLR approach indicates increased impacts at the time of production, offset by negative impacts in future years, whereas the RC approach assumes benefits to increased recycled content at the time of production. For vehicle engine blocks, emissions using EOLR are 140% higher than with RC. Results are highly sensitive to recycled content and future recycling rates, and the choice of allocation methods can have significant implications for life cycle studies.     

Life cycle assessment of printing and writing paper produced in Portugal

Goal, Scope and Background The environmental sustainability is one of the current priorities of the Portuguese pulp and paper industry. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was the methodology chosen to evaluate the sustainability of the printing and writing paper production activity. This paper grade represents about 60% of the total production of paper in Portugal and its production is expected to increase in the near future. The main goal of this study was to assess the potential environmental impacts associated with the entire life cycle of the printing and writing paper produced in Portugal from Eucalyptus globulus pulp and consumed in Germany, in order to identify the processes with the largest environmental impacts. Another goal of this study was to evaluate the effect on the potential environmental impacts of changing the market where the Portuguese printing and writing paper is consumed: German market vs. Portuguese market. Methods The main stages considered in this study were: forestry, pulp production, paper production, paper distribution, and paper final disposal. Transports and production of chemicals, fuels and energy in the grid were also included in these stages. Whenever possible and feasible, average or typical data from industry were collected. The remaining data were obtained from the literature and specialised databases. A quantitative impact assessment was performed for five impact categories: global warming over 100 years, acidification, eutrophication, non-renewable resource depletion and photochemical oxidant formation. Results In the German market scenario, the paper production stage was a remarkable hot spot for air emissions (non-renewable CO₂, NO_x and SO₂) and for non-renewable energy consumption, and, consequently, for the impact categories that consider these parameters: global warming, acidification and non-renewable resource depletion. These important environmental impacts are due to the energy requirements in the printing and writing paper production process, which are fulfilled by on-site fuel oil burning and consumption of electricity from the national grid, which is mostly based on the use of fossil fuels. The pulp production stage was identified as the largest contributor to water emissions (COD and AOX) and to eutrophication. Considering that energy consumed by the pulp production processes comes from renewable fuels, this stage was also the most contributing to renewable energy consumption. Discussion The paper distribution stage showed an important contribution to NO_x emissions, which, however, did not result in a major contribution to acidification or eutrophication. The final disposal stage was the main contributor to the photochemical oxidant formation potential due to CH₄ emissions from wastepaper landfilling. On the other hand, paper consumption in Portugal was environmentally more favourable than in Germany for the parameters/impact categories where the paper distribution stage has a significant contribution (non-renewable CO₂, NO_x, non-renewable energy consumption, acidification, eutrophication and non-renewable resource depletion) due to shorter distances needed to deliver paper to the consumers. For the remaining parameters/impact categories, the increase observed in the final disposal stage in the Portuguese market was preponderant, and resulted from the existence of significant differences in the final disposal alternatives in the analysed markets (recycling dominates in Germany, whereas landfilling dominates in Portugal). Conclusions The pulp and paper production stages were found to be of significance for almost all of the inventory parameters as well as for the impact assessment categories. The paper distribution and the final disposal stages were only of importance for some of the inventory parameters and some of the impact categories. The forestry stage played a minor role in the environmental impacts generated during the paper life cycle. The consumption of paper in Portugal led to a decrease in the environmental burdens of the paper distribution stage, but to an increase in the environmental burdens of the final disposal stage, when compared with the consumption of paper in Germany. Recommendations and Perspectives This study provides useful information that can assist the pulp and paper industry in the planning of future investments leading to an increase in its sustainability. The results of inventory analysis and impact assessment show the processes that play an important role in each impact category, which allow the industry to improve its environmental performance, making changes not only in the production process itself, but also in the treatment of flue gases and liquid effluents. Besides that concern regarding pollution prevention, other issues with relevance to the context of sustainability, such as the energy consumption, can also be dealt with.     

Mapping the Influence of Food Waste in Food Packaging Environmental Performance Assessments

Scrutiny of food packaging environmental impacts has led to a variety of sustainability directives, but has largely focused on the direct impacts of materials. A growing awareness of the impacts of food waste warrants a recalibration of packaging environmental assessment to include the indirect effects due to influences on food waste. In this study, we model 13 food products and their typical packaging formats through a consistent life cycle assessment framework in order to demonstrate the effect of food waste on overall system greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and cumulative energy demand (CED). Starting with food waste rate estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, we calculate the effect on GHG emissions and CED of a hypothetical 10% decrease in food waste rate. This defines a limit for increases in packaging impacts from innovative packaging solutions that will still lead to net system environmental benefits. The ratio of food production to packaging production environmental impact provides a guide to predicting food waste effects on system performance. Based on a survey of the food LCA literature, this ratio for GHG emissions ranges from 0.06 (wine example) to 780 (beef example). High ratios with foods such as cereals, dairy, seafood, and meats suggest greater opportunity for net impact reductions through packaging‐based food waste reduction innovations. While this study is not intended to provide definitive LCAs for the product/package systems modeled, it does illustrate both the importance of considering food waste when comparing packaging alternatives, and the potential for using packaging to reduce overall system impacts by reducing food waste.     

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.     

A review of environmental life cycle assessment studies examining cheese production

Purpose

Cheese is one of the world’s most widely consumed dairy products and its popularity is ever growing. However, as concerns for the environmental impact of industries increase, products like cheese, which have a significant environmental impact, may lose their popularity. A commonly used technique to assess the environmental impact of a product is life cycle assessment (LCA). In this paper, a state-of-the-art review of LCA studies on the environmental impact of cheese production is presented.

Methods

Sixteen LCA studies, which explored the impact from the production of a variety of cheese types (fresh, mature and semi-hard) were examined and discussed. The four stages of the LCA were examined and the range of results of selected environmental impact categories (global warming potential, acidification potential and eutrophication potential) were detailed and discussed.

Results and discussion

For each of these environmental impact categories, raw milk production was consistently found to be the most significant contributor to the total impact, which was followed by processing. It was found that allocation between cheese and its by-products was crucial in determining the impact of cheese production and standardisation or guidelines may be needed. Very little information relating to wastewater treatment system and processes were reported and this leads to inaccurate environmental impact modelling relating to these aspects of the manufacture of cheese. Very few studies included the design of packaging in terms of reducing food waste, which may significantly contribute to the overall environmental impact.

Conclusions

As raw milk production was found to have the greatest contribution to environmental impact, mitigation strategies at farm-level, particularly in relation to enteric fermentation and manure management, need to be implemented. Additionally, based on the literature, there is a suggestion that fresh cheese has less of an environmental impact than semi-hard cheeses, particularly when examining direct energy consumption. However, there needs to be more case studies investigated to justify this statement.

     

Environmental assessment of Peruvian anchoveta food products: is less refined better?

Purpose

Life cycle assessments (LCAs) of various anchovy (anchoveta) direct human consumption products processed in Peru were carried out, to evaluate their relative environmental performance as alternative products to enhance nutrition of communities with low access to fish products in the country.

Methods

LCA was carried out for fresh, frozen, canned, salted and cured anchoveta products, both at plant gate and featuring local and national distribution over non-refrigerated, chilled and fully refrigerated distribution chain. The functional unit used was 1 kg of fish in the final product.

Results and discussion

Results demonstrate that, in environmental terms, more-refined products (cured and canned anchoveta products) represent a much higher burden than less- refined products (fresh, frozen and salted). Although this is a likely result, the magnitude of this difference (4 to 27 times when expressed as an environmental single score) is higher than expected and had not been quantified before for salted and cured products, as far as we know. This difference is mainly due to differences in energy consumption between types of products. Furthermore, cured and salted products feature larger biotic resource use, when calculated based on the whole fish equivalent, due to higher processing losses/discards. The relevance of taking into account the different transportation and storage needs is highlighted. For those products requiring refrigerated transportation and storage, over a national distribution chain, those activities increase the overall environmental impacts of the products by 55 % (fresh chilled) to 67 % (frozen). However, such an increase does not worsen the environmental performance of fresh and frozen products in comparison to the energy-intensive canned and cured products.

Conclusions

It is concluded that a more sustainability-oriented analysis, including the social and economic pillars of sustainability, is required towards decision-making involving promotion of either product for addressing nutritional deficiencies in Peru.     

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.