Life cycle impact assessment of beverage packaging systems: focus on the collection of post-consumer bottles

Abstract Choice of packaging material has a significant contribution to the overall impact of beverage value chain. Collection of post-consumer packaging materials is often controlled by national or regional regulation, which have to be based on sound considerations. Therefore, stakeholders alongside the packaging value chain need for supporting information to select environmentally sound packaging and define own policy. To meet comprehensiveness, five different packaging materials were examined during their whole life cycle. Due to the potentially direct impact of collection system on the human population, and lacking information on such an analysis in recent literature, we were focussing in detail on six bottle collection systems such as kerbside bin, kerbside bag, deposit-refund, combinations with thermal compression of plastic bottles as well as an attempt made toward examining refill-bottles. Recycling allowed saving large amount greenhouse gas emission particularly in the case of aluminium can and glass-bottle. An appropriate managed packaging system supporting the bottle-to-bottle recycling can make aluminium cans beneficial in contrast to small polyethylene terephthalate bottles. From the post-consumer bottle collection point of view, the kerbside bag showed the best results followed by deposit-refund system and kerbside containers. Even though refilling of bottles leads to decreasing greenhouse gas emission, it became less significant after a certain number of reuse. It was shown that the fostering of participation of consumers in collection via aimed policy is highly important. Kerbside bag collection is the most favourable solution, although subtle differences between the distinct selective collection-systems suggested the importance of case-specific examinations. For example, using deposit-refund system resulted in excellent environmental profile, as well, like kerbside bag system. Usage of thermal compressing of plastic bottles in value chain of collection showed large environmental impacts, despite achieving significant smaller volume for transportation, which should lead to lower impacts. Furthermore, usage of refill system has to be deeply analysed to estimate the number of refills and transport distances, which allows maximizing its environmental benefits.

[1]  M. Goedkoop,et al.  The Eco-indicator 99, A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment , 1999 .

[2]  Danae Diakoulaki,et al.  Comparative evaluation of alternative beverage containers with multiple environmental criteria in Greece , 1990 .

[3]  M. Huijbregts,et al.  Normalisation in product life cycle assessment: an LCA of the global and European economic systems in the year 2000. , 2008, The Science of the total environment.

[4]  F. Welle Twenty years of PET bottle to bottle recycling—An overview , 2011 .

[5]  Anastasia Zabaniotou,et al.  Life cycle assessment applied to egg packaging made from polystyrene and recycled paper , 2003 .

[6]  Feng Gao,et al.  Environment impact analysis of primary aluminum and recycled aluminum , 2012 .

[7]  Graziella Benedetto,et al.  Delving into the environmental aspect of a Sardinian white wine: from partial to total life cycle assessment. , 2014, The Science of the total environment.

[8]  L. Divet,et al.  Impact of Alternative Cementitious Material on Mechanical and Transfer Properties of Concrete , 2014 .

[9]  Rajendra Kumar Foolmaun,et al.  Comparative life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of four disposal scenarios for used polyethylene terephthalate bottles in Mauritius , 2012, Environmental technology.

[10]  Michela Gallo,et al.  An evaluation of environmental sustainability in the food industry through Life Cycle Assessment: the case study of tomato products supply chain , 2014 .

[11]  Hwong-Wen Ma,et al.  A multidimensional environmental evaluation of packaging materials. , 2004, The Science of the total environment.

[12]  Omar Romero-Hernández,et al.  Environmental implications and market analysis of soft drink packaging systems in Mexico. A waste management approach , 2009 .

[13]  Doron Lavee,et al.  A cost-benefit analysis of a deposit-refund program for beverage containers in Israel. , 2010, Waste management.

[14]  Katrin Millock Packaging Waste Management in Sweden: a product charge , 1994 .

[15]  Na Hyun Yi,et al.  MATERIAL AND STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF RECYCLED PET FIBER REINFORCED CONCRETE , 2010 .

[16]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  Life-cycle assessment as a decision-support tool—the case of recycling versus incineration of paper , 1998 .

[17]  Cecília M.V.B. Almeida,et al.  Emergy as a tool for Ecodesign: evaluating materials selection for beverage packages in Brazil , 2010 .

[18]  Jozeti Barbutti Gatti,et al.  Recycling of aluminum can in terms of Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) , 2007 .

[19]  Stefan Salhofer,et al.  The ecological relevance of transport in waste disposal systems in Western Europe. , 2007, Waste management.

[20]  F. Welle Is PET bottle-to-bottle recycling safe? Evaluation of post-consumer recycling processes according to the EFSA guidelines , 2013 .

[21]  Pomthong Malakul,et al.  Comparative assessment of the environmental profile of PLA and PET drinking water bottles from a life cycle perspective , 2014 .

[22]  Andreas Detzel,et al.  Environmental evaluation of aluminium cans for beverages in the German context , 2009 .

[23]  T. M. Coelho,et al.  PET containers in Brazil: Opportunities and challenges of a logistics model for post-consumer waste recycling , 2011 .

[24]  Julian Cleary,et al.  Life cycle assessments of wine and spirit packaging at the product and the municipal scale: a Toronto, Canada case study , 2013 .

[25]  Andreas Detzel,et al.  LCA studies comparing beverage cartons and alternative packaging: can overall conclusions be drawn? , 2010 .

[26]  Ronald S. Tibben-Lembke,et al.  Going Backwards: Reverse Logistics Trends and Practices , 1999 .

[27]  F. Castells,et al.  Seasonal characterization of municipal solid waste (MSW) in the city of Chihuahua, Mexico. , 2009, Waste management.

[28]  D. Valentin,et al.  Investigating consumers’ representations of beers through a free association task: A comparison between packaging and blind conditions , 2013 .

[29]  Yuri Lawryshyn,et al.  The environmental comparison of landfilling vs. incineration of MSW accounting for waste diversion. , 2012, Waste management.

[30]  Jeffrey Morris,et al.  Recycling versus incineration: an energy conservation analysis , 1996 .

[31]  Zainab Z Ismail,et al.  Recycling of waste glass as a partial replacement for fine aggregate in concrete. , 2009, Waste management.

[32]  Vincenzo Piemonte,et al.  Life cycle assessment of polylactic acid and polyethylene terephthalate bottles for drinking water , 2011 .

[33]  Patrick de Schrynmakers Life cycle thinking in the aluminium industry , 2009 .

[34]  Dora Foti,et al.  USE OF RECYCLED WASTE PET BOTTLES FIBERS FOR THE REINFORCEMENT OF CONCRETE , 2013 .

[35]  Pradip K. Roychoudhury,et al.  L (+) lactic acid fermentation and its product polymerization , 2004 .

[36]  Stephen Burnley,et al.  A life cycle assessment of the closed-loop recycling and thermal recovery of post-consumer PET , 2010 .

[37]  Jean-Xavier Guinard,et al.  Evaluating bottles and labels versus tasting the oils blind: Effects of packaging and labeling on consumer preferences, purchase intentions and expectations for extra virgin olive oil , 2013 .

[38]  Montse Meneses,et al.  The carbon footprint and energy consumption of beverage packaging selection and disposal , 2011 .

[39]  Francesc Castells,et al.  Environmental assessment of the milk life cycle: the effect of packaging selection and the variability of milk production data. , 2012, Journal of environmental management.

[40]  Michela Vellini,et al.  Energy and environmental analysis of glass container production and recycling , 2009 .

[41]  T. Begley,et al.  Evaluating the potential for recycling all PET bottles into new food packaging , 2002, Food additives and contaminants.