Carbon footprint analysis of pallet remanufacturing

Abstract This research is the first attempt to characterize the carbon equivalent emissions associated with pallet remanufacturing operations for two repositioning scenarios (cross-docking and take-back), and under multiple levels of pallet loading and service conditions. Industry data was acquired through observations and time studies at 12 facilities in North America. Models of pallet component breakdown patterns were used to characterize the carbon equivalent emissions of pallet remanufacturing over the predicted service life. Results show that materials account for the vast majority of remanufacturing operation emissions with three board components responsible for 50–90% of total remanufacturing emissions. The loading and handling environment significantly impacts remanufacturing emissions thus breakeven points where remanufacturing emissions exceed those from newly manufactured pallets are provided for each condition. Also, a pallet-cross-docking policy was shown to reduce emissions when compared to a take-back policy. Finally, a linear optimization model is provided to understand the benefits of preemptive component repair. Results show that preemptive remanufacturing schedules can reduce carbon equivalent emissions by up to 40%. These insights can help guide the pallet industry towards more sustainable pallet management strategies.

[1]  Ruisheng Ng,et al.  Avoided impact quantification from recycling of wood waste in Singapore: an assessment of pallet made from technical wood versus virgin softwood , 2014 .

[2]  W. B. Wallin,et al.  Effect of wood pallet design on structural durability: a statistical analysis of observed in-service damage , 1987 .

[3]  Urs Buehlmann,et al.  Ban on landfilling of wooden pallets in North Carolina: an assessment of recycling and industry capacity. , 2009 .

[4]  Vanee Chonhenchob,et al.  Life cycle inventory and analysis of re‐usable plastic containers and display‐ready corrugated containers used for packaging fresh fruits and vegetables , 2006 .

[5]  Diogo Aparecido Lopes Silva,et al.  Comparison of disposable and returnable packaging: a case study of reverse logistics in Brazil , 2013 .

[6]  Philip Araman,et al.  Pallet recovery, repair and remanufacturing in a changing industry: 1992 to 2006 , 2010 .

[7]  Carlo Vezzoli,et al.  A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Disposable and Reusable Packaging for the Distribution of Italian Fruit and Vegetables , 2011 .

[8]  Philip A. Araman,et al.  Effect of stringer repair methods and repair frequency on GMA performance , 2005 .

[9]  Stuart Ross,et al.  The environmental effect of reusing and recycling a plastic-based packaging system , 2003 .

[10]  Mike Hewitt,et al.  On the environmental impacts of pallet management operations , 2011 .

[11]  Sirkka Koskela,et al.  Reusable plastic crate or recyclable cardboard box? A comparison of two delivery systems , 2014 .

[12]  Philip A. Araman,et al.  Wood Pallets and Landfills - Status and Opportunities for Economic Recovery and Recycling , 1998 .

[13]  Ali Diabat,et al.  A decision making trial and evaluation laboratory approach to analyze the barriers to Green Supply Chain Management adoption in a food packaging company , 2016 .

[14]  Thomas E. McLain,et al.  Reinforcement of Wood Pallets with Metal Connector Plates , 1993 .

[15]  Philip A. Araman,et al.  Comparative performance of new, repaired, and remanufactured 48- by 40-inch GMA-style wood pallets , 2005 .

[16]  End Use.  Annual energy review , 1984 .

[17]  Richard E. Frost,et al.  Pallet repair and salvage , 1975 .

[18]  Brian K. Thorn,et al.  Characterizing the Carbon Footprint of Wood Pallet Logistics , 2014 .

[19]  Philip A. Araman,et al.  Pallets: A Growing Source of Recycled Wood , 1997 .

[20]  Xun Xu,et al.  A simplified life cycle assessment of re‐usable and single‐use bulk transit packaging , 2004 .

[21]  Debjit Roy,et al.  Selection of pallet management strategies based on carbon emissions impact , 2015 .