Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:36:05.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative life cycle assessment of three drink delivery systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

Dario Martino ,
Susan Selke  and
Satish Joshi
Dario Martino
Affiliation:
[email protected], Michigan State University, School of Packaging, 48 Windsor Ct, Lansdale, PA, 19446, United States, 215 368 3001
Susan Selke
Affiliation:
[email protected], Michigan State University, School of Packaging
Satish Joshi
Affiliation:
[email protected], Michigan State University, Agricultural Economics
Get access

Abstract

This paper presents information regarding a comparative life cycle assessment (LCA), including scenario and data uncertainty, based on a hypothetical drink product for which we evaluate three main container material alternatives: (1) a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottle; (2) an aluminum can; and (3) a polylactide (PLA) bottle. The scope of results included energy, water use and two characterized impacts are included: global warming potential (GWP) and ozone depletion potential (ODP).

The results presented in this study demonstrate that LCI parameter uncertainty seems to have a dominant effect in the outcome of the LCA results considered. Indeed, in most cases there is overlap in the uncertainty intervals (at 95% confidence level), indicating that the three systems under study have similar indicator values, at least with regard to the environmental indicators included here.

Keywords

packagingenvironmentally benignpackaging
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 895: Symposium G – Life-Cycle Analysis Tools for “Green” Materials and Process Selection , 2005 , 0895-G06-03
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Crystal ball - Forecasting and risk analysis for spreadsheet users. Release Professional academic edition v. 5.5.2004. Decisioneering, Inc., Denver.Google Scholar
Data for Environmental Analysis and Management (DEAM) module databases and manuals. Version 3.0.Ecobilan Group, Inc. 1999. Paris, France.Google Scholar
Guidance for the EPA Halon emission reduction rule (40 CFR Part 82, Subpart H).U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. EPA430-B-01-001 Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Heijungs, R. and Suh., S. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2002. The computational structure of life cycle assessment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Huijbregts, M.A. 1998a. Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA. Part I: A general framework for the analysis of uncertainty and variability in LCA. Int. J. LCA. 3:273–280.Google Scholar
Huijbregts, M.A. 1998b. Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA. Part II. Int. J. LCA 3:343–351.Google Scholar
Huijbregts, M.A. 2001. Uncertainty and variability in environmental life-cycle assessment, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Huijbregts, M.A., Gilijamse, W., Ragas, A.M.J., and Reijnders, L.. 2003. Evaluating uncertainty in the life cycle assessment. A case study comparing two insulation options for a Dutch one-family dwelling. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37:2600–2608.Google Scholar
Keoleian, G.A. University of Michigan. 2001. Life cycle assessment of the Stonyfield Farm product delivery system. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Keoleian, G.A., Phipps, A.W., Dritz, T., and Brachfeld., D. 2004. Life cycle environmental performance and improvement of a yogurt product delivery system. Packaging Technol. and Sci. 17:85–103.Google Scholar
Martino, D. 2006. LCA - A critical review and estimation of its uncertainty in the comparative evaluation of packaging systems. PhD Dissertation., Michigan State University, East Lansing.Google Scholar
Microsoft Excel. Release 2000.2000. Microsoft Corporation, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Ozone depletion rules regulations U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. [Online]. Available from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/index.html (posted March, 2005; verified July, 2005).Google Scholar
Sellers, V. R., and Sellers., J. D. Franklin Associates, Ltd. 1989. Comparative energy and environmental impacts for softdrink delivery systems. Prairie Village, KS.Google Scholar
Slob, W. 1994. Uncertainty analysis in multiplicative models. Risk analysis 14:571–576.Google Scholar