Multiple data sets and modelling choices in a comparative LCA of disposable beverage cups.

This study used multiple data sets and modelling choices in an environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) to compare typical disposable beverage cups made from polystyrene (PS), polylactic acid (PLA; bioplastic) and paper lined with bioplastic (biopaper). Incineration and recycling were considered as waste processing options, and for the PLA and biopaper cup also composting and anaerobic digestion. Multiple data sets and modelling choices were systematically used to calculate average results and the spread in results for each disposable cup in eleven impact categories. The LCA results of all combinations of data sets and modelling choices consistently identify three processes that dominate the environmental impact: (1) production of the cup's basic material (PS, PLA, biopaper), (2) cup manufacturing, and (3) waste processing. The large spread in results for impact categories strongly overlaps among the cups, however, and therefore does not allow a preference for one type of cup material. Comparison of the individual waste treatment options suggests some cautious preferences. The average waste treatment results indicate that recycling is the preferred option for PLA cups, followed by anaerobic digestion and incineration. Recycling is slightly preferred over incineration for the biopaper cups. There is no preferred waste treatment option for the PS cups. Taking into account the spread in waste treatment results for all cups, however, none of these preferences for waste processing options can be justified. The only exception is composting, which is least preferred for both PLA and biopaper cups. Our study illustrates that using multiple data sets and modelling choices can lead to considerable spread in LCA results. This makes comparing products more complex, but the outcomes more robust.

[1]  Kornelis Blok,et al.  Innovations in papermaking: an LCA of printing and writing paper from conventional and high yield pulp. , 2012, The Science of the total environment.

[2]  Ernst Worrell,et al.  Life cycle energy and GHG emissions of PET recycling: change-oriented effects , 2011 .

[3]  Tomas Ekvall,et al.  Key methodological issues for life cycle inventory analysis of paper recycling , 1999 .

[4]  Tarja Häkkinen,et al.  Environmental impacts of disposable cups with special focus on the effect of material choices and end of life , 2010 .

[5]  Jasper Becker,et al.  Joint Research Centre , 1982, Nature.

[6]  Jeroen B. Guinee,et al.  Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards , 2002 .

[7]  Eugenie van der Harst,et al.  Variation in LCA results for disposable polystyrene beverage cups due to multiple data sets and modelling choices , 2014, Environ. Model. Softw..

[8]  Gumersindo Feijoo,et al.  Comparative environmental assessment of wood transport models: a case study of a Swedish pulp mill. , 2009, The Science of the total environment.

[9]  Ernst Worrell,et al.  Open-loop recycling: A LCA case study of PET bottle-to-fibre recycling , 2010 .

[10]  M. Huijbregts,et al.  Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: Operational Guide to the ISO Standards , 2002 .

[11]  R. Clift,et al.  Environmental Assessment of Paper Waste Management Options by Means of LCA Methodology , 2004 .

[12]  T. H. Christensen,et al.  Composting and compost utilization: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions , 2009, Waste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA.

[13]  J. Rintala,et al.  Thermophilic anaerobic digestion of pulp and paper mill primary sludge and co-digestion of primary and secondary sludge. , 2012, Water research.

[14]  T. H. Christensen,et al.  Recycling of paper: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions , 2009, Waste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA.

[15]  Simone Ehrenberger,et al.  Utilisation options of renewable resources: a life cycle assessment of selected products , 2008 .

[16]  Laan van Westenenk.  Single use Cups or Reusable (coffee) Drinking Systems: An Environmental Comparison , 2007 .

[17]  Martin Kumar Patel,et al.  Economics and GHG emission reduction of a PLA bio-refinery system—Combining bottom-up analysis with price elasticity effects , 2006 .

[18]  W. J. Groot,et al.  Life cycle assessment of the manufacture of lactide and PLA biopolymers from sugarcane in Thailand , 2010 .

[19]  Pe Americas,et al.  Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Ingeo™ biopolymer, PET, and PP Drinking Cups , 2009 .

[20]  Thomas Højlund Christensen,et al.  Life cycle assessment of waste paper management: The importance of technology data and system boundaries in assessing recycling and incineration , 2008 .

[21]  Steve Davies,et al.  ORIGINAL RESEARCH: The eco-profile for current Ingeo® polylactide production , 2010 .

[22]  Rolf Frischknecht,et al.  LCI modelling approaches applied on recycling of materials in view of environmental sustainability, risk perception and eco-efficiency , 2010 .

[23]  Stefan Bringezu,et al.  A Review of the Environmental Impacts of Biobased Materials , 2012 .

[24]  Vincenzo Piemonte,et al.  Bioplastics and Petroleum-based Plastics: Strengths and Weaknesses , 2011 .

[25]  Josepha Potting,et al.  A critical comparison of ten disposable cup LCAs , 2013 .

[26]  Nuria Garrido,et al.  Environmental evaluation of single-use and reusable cups , 2007 .

[27]  Masahiro Funabashi,et al.  Anaerobic Biodegradation Tests of Poly(lactic acid) under Mesophilic and Thermophilic Conditions Using a New Evaluation System for Methane Fermentation in Anaerobic Sludge , 2009, International journal of molecular sciences.

[28]  Maria Laura Mastellone,et al.  Life Cycle assessment of a plastic packaging recycling system , 2003 .